European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Earl Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 July be approved.

Relevant document: 69th Report, Session 2017-19, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the instrument that we are now considering is designed to make sensible provision to ensure that, in consequence of our participation in the European parliamentary elections earlier this year, the necessary administrative processes that are required following the poll are able to be carried out and completed. I shall go into more detail on the actions and processes that are required in a moment, but one example is the requirement for relevant electoral officers to store ballot papers and other election-related documents for 12 months after the poll.

The proposed changes will provide for legislation governing European parliamentary elections to remain in place until 31 December 2020. We consider that this will provide sufficient time for post-poll processes to be completed. The Government are acting responsibly in bringing forward the instrument, which is essential to maintain the integrity of our electoral process. The instrument brought before the House today applies to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.

I turn to the detail of the proposed changes. The intention had previously been that the UK would leave the European Union before the European parliamentary elections in May 2019. As a result, the European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018—which I will call the 2018 regulations—were made to come into force on exit day. Those regulations repeal, revoke or amend legislation relating to European parliamentary elections which would no longer be required. Therefore, as things stand, under the 2018 regulations the legislation will be repealed when we leave the EU.

However, as a result of not having left the European Union before the European parliamentary electoral period, the UK took part in the European parliamentary elections on 23 May 2019. As I have indicated, as a consequence of holding the poll, there are a number of post-poll actions and processes set out in legislation which need to be completed. It is therefore necessary for European parliamentary elections legislation to stay in place after exit day—whenever that is—in order to ensure that the electoral process runs smoothly.

I now turn to the detail of the proposed changes. The instrument is being made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It amends the 2018 regulations concerning European parliamentary elections that I referred to earlier, in order to delay the repeal of the European parliamentary elections legislation until 31 December 2020. We consider that this will provide sufficient time for the post-poll processes that I referred to to be completed. The instrument does not make any substantive changes to any of the provisions in the 2018 regulations but changes the date that the regulations come into force from exit day to 31 December 2020.

That means that necessary functions and processes that are required following the European Parliament poll on 23 May of this year can be carried out and completed. I will give some examples. The SI will allow for the relevant electoral officers to store ballot papers and other election documents for 12 months from the date of the poll, or longer in certain circumstances. Without the law remaining in force, electoral officers will have no legal authority to keep the ballot papers or other documents. The police may need to refer to the documents in the event of an investigation and would not be able to do so if the documents were no longer stored. Political parties will be able to inspect and obtain the marked register throughout this 12-month period. There are also provisions concerning payments to returning officers for the costs of running the poll. If these provisions were not in force, the Government would no longer have legal authority to reimburse returning officers for costs incurred in running the poll.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repeals the two main pieces of legislation governing European parliamentary elections: the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 and the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003. The repeal of these two Acts in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will come into effect on a day set out in commencement regulations. In line with the approach we are taking today in relation to this instrument, we similarly intend not to commence the repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 and the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 until after exit day.

I should also highlight that the 2018 regulations include provisions that are not linked solely to the holding of European parliamentary elections. The approach that we have taken in the instrument before us is to leave these provisions on the statute book for a limited period. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew this instrument to the attention of both Houses on the basis that it required elucidation. The Cabinet Office provided details to the committee to explain further why we have taken this approach. It was explained that we carefully considered a number of options and concluded that this approach was the most appropriate because it has the benefit of being clear and simple for electoral administrators to understand and implement. It also ensures that all necessary legislation stays in force, minimising the risk of any adverse unintended consequences.

The committee accepted that these reasons were a reasonable justification for taking the approach in the SI, specifically keeping in force the provisions that are not to do with the European parliamentary elections. I reassure noble Lords that, if it emerges that there are provisions left on the statute book that will cause practical difficulty, we will of course take steps to commence repeal of those provisions.

Once we have left the EU, the UK will no longer have any MEPs or take part in European parliamentary elections—either scheduled elections or by-elections—since the EU law obligation to do so will have fallen away. I can give reassurance that the instrument does not change that position.

Finally, on the wider engagement we have undertaken, the Cabinet Office has engaged on the proposed change with the Electoral Commission, representatives of the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Wales Electoral Coordination Board, the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Government of Gibraltar. The Electoral Commission and other bodies agree with the Government’s approach in the instrument and consider that the proposed approach is sensible, given that the UK took part in the European parliamentary elections in May of this year. We have also kept the Parliamentary Parties Panel informed of the position with the instrument. I commend the instrument to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on these regulations and I thank them for accepting that we need them, regardless of whether we should be in this position in the first place—I note in particular the comments of my noble friends.

Completely understandably, the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Kennedy, asked me about the Law Commission’s recommendations on electoral law. As they both will be aware, the final report has not been published yet; it is due to be published early next year. The Government will consider it as expeditiously as possible, and any actions that they need to take. It is therefore not fair to say that we are doing nothing about the reform of electoral law. No responsible Government would wish to proceed with reform in an area such as this without having the benefit of the Law Commission’s final report. I appreciate that a lot of discussion has happened, and I am grateful to noble Lords opposite and around the House for participating in that. We would like to proceed as quickly as we may, but it has to be done on a properly informed basis.

I noted the comments of my noble friend Lord Deben in particular. He and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked me about the lessons that we have learned collectively from past elections, but the noble Lord asked me in particular whether the May election was open to any kind of abuse, what we know that arises from that, whether lessons were learned, and so on. That is the subject of the report from the Electoral Commission, and the report by the Association of Electoral Administrators called The Electoral Landscape in 2019. We will obviously wish to give careful consideration to both those reports on the matters raised. As we have done previously, we will look to consider the Electoral Commission’s report in conjunction with the AEA report, and we will respond formally as appropriate.

[Lord Tyler]

There is a specific issue about transparency of online campaign messaging, which was a major issue in May and was a big issue in the referendum and the subsequent general election. The Cabinet Office consulted about it many months ago. Evidence was taken from the Information Commissioner’s Office; the Electoral Commission also looked into it. I would be grateful if the Minister could take back to the Cabinet Office the concern from all over your Lordships’ House that there seems to be very little action taking place on this. It remains a very sensitive issue, not least because of the important report from the DCMS Select Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I take the point that the Minister made about the work of the Law Commission. It is doing its work and will come back with some comprehensive reports. However, when I have sat in a room with Chloe Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Young, we have all agreed that there are things we can do now. They have never said, “We can’t do anything because we need this Bill going forward”. There are things that can be done. I would ask the Minister to talk to his officials. He would certainly be encouraged by all of us around this House to sort this out quickly, notwithstanding the much more detailed work of the Law Commission; that cannot be used as an excuse for saying, “We do not know enough about that, so we have to leave the electoral system as inadequate as it is now”.

[Earl Howe]

I take the points made by both noble Lords. There are some tremendously important areas that we need to address. The online issue is one of them. All I can say at the moment is that the strength of feeling that has been articulated this evening will not be lost on my officials: I shall make sure of that. We are committed to implementing an imprints regime for digital election material. This will ensure greater transparency. It will make it clearer to the electorate who has produced and who has promoted online political materials. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we will be bringing forward proposals in this area in the coming months.

The noble Lord asked me whether the progress of the withdrawal Bill might invalidate this statutory instrument. I can reassure him that it will have no effect at all. We simply need to ensure that the European parliamentary elections legislation is not repealed on exit day, in all circumstances—or in any circumstances—so we still require this statutory instrument to be agreed. If it is, the correct result will be achieved, namely that the repeal of the European parliamentary elections legislation will happen not on exit day but rather, as I said either, on 31 December 2020. The SI is needed simply to provide certainty to electoral administrators and to maintain the integrity of our domestic electoral processes.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked whether I was a permanent or temporary spokesman for the Cabinet Office. I wish I could quantify the length of the piece of string that we are dealing with here. I am but a pale imitation of my noble friend Lord Young, whose presence on the Front Benches is sorely missed. Currently, I respond for the Cabinet Office. It is my privilege to do so and I will continue to do so until requested not to.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Earl Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL] and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL] having been read a first time in the same form as they stood at the end of the last Session of Parliament, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the bills to be taken pro forma through the remaining stages which they had completed in the last Session of Parliament.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Earl Howe Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Ramsbotham set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Lord Harries of Pentregarth to 2 hours.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House and on her behalf, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Special Adviser Appointments

Earl Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the correct procedures were followed in the dismissal of Sonia Khan as a special adviser.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do not comment on personnel matters regarding individuals. Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed in accordance with Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. They are bound by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the terms of the Model Contract for Special Advisers, which sets out how special advisers are appointed and leave their role.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Noble Lords will recall that on 29 August Sonia Khan was summarily dismissed by Mr Cummings and shown to the front door of No. 10 by an armed officer. Paragraph 3.3 of the Ministerial Code, which was updated on 23 August this year, says:

“The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment”.


The Chancellor knew nothing of this, so under what authority did Mr Cummings—a man who was summoned to give evidence to a Select Committee in another place, told the chairman to “get lost” and was then found to be in contempt of Parliament—dismiss Sonia Khan? Finally, on treatment of special advisers, was it appropriate for Mr Cummings to say to his fellow special advisers:

“If you don’t like how I run things, there’s the door”?


If he continues to act in this arrogant manner, should that invitation not be extended to Mr Cummings?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I just said, my noble friend will understand that I cannot comment on personnel matters relating to individuals. I can say in general terms that, in line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, special advisers operate under the authority of their appointing Minister. Therefore, special advisers in No. 10 act under the authority of the Prime Minister. Section 8 of the 2010 Act also allows special advisers to exercise any power in relation to the management of another special adviser if permitted by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. The code of conduct does so permit.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, it is the right of civil servants, if dismissal is contemplated, to have access to a disciplinary board before a conclusion is reached. Is that available to special advisers, and was it available in this case?

[Earl Howe]

I cannot comment on this case, but the status of special advisers is set out in legislation in the 2010 Act to which I referred. Because of the Crown’s power to dismiss at will, special advisers are not entitled to a period of statutory notice when their appointment is terminated. However, the terms of their employment are set out in their model contract.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will ask the Minister two questions. Given the report in the Daily Telegraph that Sonia Khan was later offered a pay-off of around £40,000 following her treatment, does he consider that an appropriate use of public money? I also refer him to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, this time paragraph 14, which says:

“Special advisers must not take public part in political controversy… They must observe discretion and express comment with moderation”.


Does he consider that the Prime Minister’s special adviser is abiding by that or, as journalists have been told, is this just “classic Dom” and supposed to be tolerated?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I cannot comment on the reported offer of a payout, as I hope the noble Baroness will understand. Having said that, the model special adviser contract sets out severance arrangements for when special advisers’ contracts end, as I intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Butler. As I mentioned, all special advisers must adhere to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, which applies across the board to every special adviser in government. They are also bound by the standards of integrity and honesty required of all civil servants, as set out in the Civil Service Code.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will keep this simple. Does the Minister accept that the behaviour in the Sonia Khan case must never be seen as some form of precedent for the way these people are treated? It must never happen again.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, No. 10 has always been involved in the performance management and appraisal of special advisers and other personnel management issues. Disciplinary matters fall under the heading of performance management. That reflects long-standing practice. It is also set out in successive versions of the Ministerial Code.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, are not special advisers appointed to assist their Secretaries of State and Ministers in the performance of their duties? What on earth is the purpose of Dominic Cummings holding meetings with all the special advisers, who should be responsible to their Secretaries of State and not to him?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the 2010 Act, to which I referred, says that all appointments of special advisers must be approved by the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister may terminate the contract by withdrawing his consent at any time. That is also made clear in the Ministerial Code.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, paragraph 11 of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers states:

“Any special adviser found to be disseminating inappropriate material will be subject to a disciplinary process”.


Can I ask the Minister about the process? What is the process that should have been applied, or that should be applied in these cases more generally?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the terms of employment for any special adviser, as I have said, are set in their model contract. They are bound by the Code of Conduct. The process will depend on the terms of that contract. Dominic Cummings is ultimately accountable to the Prime Minister for his conduct, as is the case for all special advisers.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, is it not acutely embarrassing to this Government that they have put Parliament in a position whereby it is granting a pass to somebody who is deemed to be in contempt of it? I hope that any compensation to Sonia Khan comes not from the pocket of the taxpayer, but from Dominic Cummings.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, that is clearly not a matter for me.

Hong Kong Protests

Earl Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government remain seriously concerned about the situation in Hong Kong, and today’s shooting of a protester is a deeply worrying development. The Government are clear that there is no excuse for violence and we will continue to condemn it. This incident also underlines why a constructive dialogue that addresses the legitimate concerns of the Hong Kong people is so important. What is required now is calm from both protesters and the Hong Kong authorities.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. After four months of protest, today’s use of live rounds against protesters in Hong Kong marks a worrying escalation. I am sure that all noble Lords will share my concern at the spiralling levels of violence on all sides, which appear to be increasing on a near daily basis. Can the noble Earl say whether the Foreign Secretary has made any representations to the Hong Kong or Chinese Governments since the reports emerged earlier today and, if so, can he share any of their responses? Finally, in the light of today’s events, can he confirm what further steps, if any, will be taken to support British national overseas passport holders in Hong Kong?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I said earlier, I share the noble Lord’s deep concern about the situation. However, we must be clear that the situation is fluid. We do not yet know the precise circumstances of this incident. No formal statement from the Hong Kong police has yet been issued, and it goes without saying that the situation is fast moving. Having said that, I can assure the noble Lord that we are in regular contact with the Governments of Hong Kong and China. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Chief Executive of Hong Kong on 9 August. He was due to have a meeting with Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi at the United Nations last week. He was called back for reasons that I do not need to explain, so the meeting did not occur, but he expects to speak to him in the coming days.

As far as the British nationals of Hong Kong origin are concerned, we are clear that the best solution for Hong Kong and the British national overseas passport holders who live there is full respect for the rights and freedoms set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. That will be the basis of any actions going forward.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, it is clearly appalling that a protester has been shot while calling for their democratic rights. There is much that the People’s Republic of China might celebrate today—its 70th anniversary—not least pulling millions out of poverty. But does the noble Earl not agree that promises made on both sides at handover must be kept? Reform must be moved forward. Surely, in this instance, the need for the UK Government to request that the Hong Kong Government instigate an independent investigation into violence in Hong Kong has become paramount.

[Earl Howe]

One of the most concerning features of the current situation is the loss of trust between the Hong Kong people and the authorities there. That trust has to be rebuilt, and to do that the Hong Kong SAR Government should establish a robust, credible, independent investigation into events. We note that the Independent Police Complaints Council is carrying out an inquiry and we look forward to further details on its scope.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in light of the ongoing protests in Hong Kong, have Her Majesty’s Government made any attempt to speak to the other Commonwealth countries about whether visas and rights of residence will be issued across the Commonwealth to the young demonstrators in Hong Kong when and if action of that nature is required? In other words, will we live up to our obligations to provide safe harbour to them?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s concerns on this issue. We are in dialogue with many of our friends and partners around the world. We have made our concerns about human rights clear to the Chinese Government. Earlier this week, my noble friend Lord Ahmad co-hosted an event in the margins of the UN General Assembly on the situation in Xinjiang, which remains an issue of serious concern.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend realise that those of us who saw the chilling programme on Tiananmen Square last night are particularly concerned by today’s reports? Because we have a legitimate interest, can the Foreign Secretary be asked to see the Chinese ambassador here in London and suggest that there should a British judicial presence on any committee that is established? There is a precedent for that in what has followed the one country, two systems solution, and it would give great confidence around the world if that were the case.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I think it is important that we do not get ahead of ourselves here in a way that might make the situation worse. We are currently reliant on media reporting. As I have said, the situation is fluid. We do not yet know the precise circumstances of the incident that has been reported. It is difficult to confirm the reports in an independent way. We are monitoring the situation closely. I take note of my noble friend’s constructive suggestion, but I think it is too early to go down that path.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

While accepting the seriousness of the use of firearms, does the Minister understand that elements of those who wish to protest are using petrol bombs and Molotov cocktails? If such means are used to try to advance their interests, it perhaps creates a degree of fragility in which there is a very considerable risk that more serious exchanges will take place, including the use of firearms.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. We have been clear all along that we condemn utterly any violence at all. It is essential that any protests that occur are conducted peacefully and within the law, and that the response of the authorities is proportionate.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that any foreign interference will only make matters worse?

[Earl Howe]

There is a distinct risk of that, yes, my Lords.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

Are the Government aware of the request of some 300 former members of the forces in Hong Kong, who are still resident in Hong Kong and who took an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, that they be granted the right of abode in the United Kingdom? Many Members of the House of Lords and, indeed, of the other place, have raised this very reasonable request with successive Secretaries of State over the past three years and more, but they have yet to get an answer. Will the Minister encourage an answer?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, members of the Hong Kong forces who were recruited from Hong Kong and, in most cases, completed their service in Hong Kong are in that respect different from other members of the UK forces who may have served in the UK. Those serving in Hong Kong before 1997 would not have qualified for British citizenship on the basis of their service. There are a number of existing provisions within British nationality law under which former Hong Kong personnel may apply for citizenship, subject to meeting the relevant criteria.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

As the Minister will know, there are other human rights concerns besides Hong Kong, notably the situation of the Uighurs. Can he confirm that there used to be a regular human rights dialogue, and whether that has now been abandoned?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we lose no opportunity to express our views to the Chinese authorities on matters relating to human rights. Of course, those human rights are embedded in the Joint Declaration. However, I will have to write to the noble Earl about the extent to which regular talks on this subject occur.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

Perhaps I may come back on one of the points made by the Minister in his response to my supplementary question. He said that the Foreign Secretary last spoke to Carrie Lam on 9 August. That is getting close to two months ago now, which, with so many fast-moving developments, seems a rather long time. I wish to encourage Her Majesty’s Government to have more dialogue and conversations.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am happy to confirm that I will pass that recommendation on to the appropriate quarter.

Use of Language to Create a Safe Environment

Earl Howe Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given earlier today by my right honourable friend in the other place to an Urgent Question asking the Prime Minister to reflect on his language and his role as the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“British democracy has always been robust and oppositional. This healthy, respectful debate is vital to our democracy. Freedom of speech is, of course, a human right, but it is not an excuse to threaten or abuse anyone whose views you do not agree with. That freedom is compromised when a culture of intimidation forces people out of public life or discourages citizens from engaging in the political process. Let me make it clear, and say with no equivocation, that such abuse is wrong, unacceptable and must be addressed.

I recognise that it is an ongoing challenge—it does not stop after each election. It is important that we tackle this issue and ensure that everyone, no matter their background, can participate in our democracy, free from hatred and intimidation. That is why we are taking action to confront it.

The Government have committed to legislate for a new electoral offence of intimidation of candidates and campaigners in the run-up to an election. We have already made secondary legislation that removes the requirement for candidates standing at local and mayoral elections to have their home addresses published on the ballot paper, and will do the same for GLA Members.

Members across this House have faced threats of violence, attacks on their constituency offices and staff, and abuse aimed at family members. This is abhorrent. I know that honourable and right honourable Members across the House raised this concern yesterday. We want to ensure that people from across the political spectrum can stand for office, free from the fear of intimidation and abuse. We want to tackle this extremely serious issue and protect voters.

The security arrangements for Members of Parliament have been kept under constant review by the Palace of Westminster authorities and the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigation team, PLAIT. Local forces engage with their MPs and other political figures to meet their security needs. Each force has a single point of contact in place who has contact with PLAIT through regular updates and meetings as required.

The Government are also considering what further steps are necessary to ensure the safety of parliamentarians and their staff. Crucially, this applies not only to Parliament and its vicinity but in constituencies and online. That is why we are also working with social media companies to address threats online and the abuse of MPs, candidates and others in public life in order to create a safe environment for debate”.

That concludes the Answer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for repeating the Answer from the House of Commons. Perhaps the Government have put forward the noble Earl to respond today because he has not, I do not think, ever been offensive to anyone in his life. It feels awkward to have to address these questions to him when I am sure that the Statement we heard last night from the Prime Minister was as anathema to him as it was to the rest of us.

I thought that this House conducted itself with honour last night because we united in condemning, with shock and disappointment, the content and the language of the Prime Minister’s Statement. There was no party division at all on that. However, after we left the Chamber last night, it got worse. I have watched some of the debates and I have read others since, and I thought that the Prime Minister’s responses to the questions and concerns raised about the impact of his language and tone were shameful. I am thinking in particular of Paula Sherriff. She was really quite emotional when she stood up and referred to what happened to her friend Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered. The Prime Minister’s response was that it was “humbug”. We deserve better than that. To argue that the way to honour Jo Cox’s memory is to bring in the Brexit that she so opposed was, I thought, tacky and unpleasant. We all have to take care regarding our language and behaviour. Abuse in politics is not new—it did not start with Boris Johnson—but yesterday the Prime Minister sank to a new low.

Those who have been Members of Parliament or advisers, or have had to see members of the public, understand the difference here. It is one thing if someone comes to see them, or sends a letter or email, who is aggressive and abusive because they are distressed or unhappy and they get angry, and there are times when we have robust and perhaps overenthusiastic debates. But what we saw last night was a whole different order. When we see calculated actions and language that are designed to provoke intolerance and division, that is something very different. The words of a Prime Minister carry great weight and can dictate behaviour throughout the country and beyond Parliament.

I listened very carefully to the Statement. It is right that the Government are putting in measures for the security of parliamentarians and their staff, but we have to ask: why is it now that we need those? The level of debate has changed; social media has exacerbated that. So when you open that Pandora’s box of intolerance, or when you try to pitch Parliament against the people, you have lost the moral high ground to seek to heal.

We have two things to ask of ourselves and the Government. They relate to a course that I went on recently, and which we will all be asked to attend: the valuing everyone parliamentary course. One thing said in that course is that unless you call out bad behaviour, you are complicit. My two asks are this: first, that we must be conscious of our own behaviour and language and call out the wrongdoing of others; and, secondly—coming back to this point of not being complicit in bad behaviour—it would be really helpful if our own Government Front Bench in this House were to deliver a message to the Prime Minister that he has a duty and a responsibility as the leader of our country to seek to heal, rather than to exacerbate divisions. If that message went out from our Front Bench, I think this House would feel a lot more comfortable and happier. The Prime Minister has to change.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, let me comment very briefly on what the noble Baroness has said. I am quite sure that we are all of one mind that it is important for this House to maintain its custom and practice of debate that is sometimes robust but always polite and respectful of the other person’s point of view. I am at one with her in her wish to see that practice spread more widely. It might be helpful if I refer your Lordships to the words of the Speaker in the other place earlier today:

“This country faces the most challenging political issue that we have grappled with in decades. There are genuine, heartfelt, sincerely subscribed to differences of opinion about that matter. Members must be free to express themselves about it and to display … the courage of their convictions. It ought, however, to be possible to disagree agreeably”.


I think that we would all subscribe to that.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. When I left the Chamber last night, I went to my daughter’s sixth form college for a talk on how we can support our young people through the difficult teenage years. The talk was about how there will be strong differences of opinions on challenging issues, how parents need to remain the adults in the room and that poor communication will only make the situation worse.

Yesterday, here in Parliament—particularly down the other end, I am sad to say, with the words of our Prime Minister—we saw that the language and tone on the issue of Brexit can have the potential to make the divisions on our streets much worse. There is a real possibility of consequences for people in our divided communities and homes. As the noble Earl has said, in this House we champion the right of people to express strongly their views, and we value challenging debate so that we can tease out the realities of the world we are facing. But the many people who are now tuning in to watch Parliament—many more so than normal—do not need to see parliamentarians stoking the divisions and fear in our communities today. They need to see parliamentarians who believe that tone, language, respect and common decency still matter. Does the Minister agree that, for all parliamentarians, from the Prime Minister down, now is the time to remain the adults in the room?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, I fully agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said. Again, I think that we can cite a good example from our own House on this very set of issues. Earlier this year, the Government published their response to the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life—so ably chaired at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and now by the noble Lord, Lord Evans—and have undertaken to take a number of steps arising from its recommendations. These include issuing a public consultation, Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence, and Information; consulting on our Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper—we will publish a DCMS-Home Office White Paper shortly; writing to local authority chief executives to raise awareness about the sensitive interest provisions in the Localism Act 2011; and a lot more. It is important that those strands of work are kept to the fore, particularly if we are to face a general election in the next few weeks or months.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as a recent refugee from the other place I was dismayed by the tone of last night’s exchanges. I will, however, make a slightly different point from that of my noble friend. The Prime Minister says that he wants a deal. I hope that he gets one, but to do so he will need to get legislation through both Houses and the support of all sides in both Houses. In addition to my noble friend’s arguments about respect, would it not be politic to tone down the invective in order to build the consensus that the Prime Minister will need to bring this Brexit saga to a satisfactory conclusion?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend makes, as ever, a very powerful point. However, much of the debate of recent hours has conflated two issues which it is important to distinguish between: strongly felt political opinions on the one hand, and unacceptable, abhorrent acts of abuse, hatred, intimidation and violence on the other. We should keep those two things absolutely distinct in our minds.

Attorney-General’s Legal Advice

Earl Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given in another place earlier today by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. He was asked to make a Statement about his legal opinion on the advice given to Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament. The Answer was as follows:

“As the honourable and learned Lady knows, the Supreme Court gave judgment on this issue yesterday, and that judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to Her Majesty on the prorogation of Parliament. The Government’s legal view during the case was set out and argued fully before the Supreme Court; the hearing was streamed live and the Government’s written case was, and is, available on the Supreme Court website. I took a close interest in the case and I oversaw the Government’s team of counsel. I have to say that if every time I lost a case I was called upon to resign, I would probably never have had a practice.

The Government accept the judgment and accept that they lost the case. At all times, the Government acted in good faith and in the belief that their approach was both lawful and constitutional. These are complex matters on which senior and distinguished lawyers will disagree. The Divisional Court, led by the Lord Chief Justice, as well as Lord Doherty, from the Outer House of Scotland, agreed with the Government’s position, but we were disappointed that, in the end, the Supreme Court took a different view. Of course we respect its judgment. Given the Supreme Court’s judgment, in legal terms the matter is settled. As the honourable and learned Lady will know, I am bound by the long-standing convention that the views of the Law Officers are not disclosed outside the Government without their consent. However, I will consider over the coming days whether the public interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the Government on the subject. I am unable to give an undertaking or a promise to the honourable and learned Lady at this point, but the matter is under consideration”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement and for giving his noble and learned friend a well-deserved rest after his supreme efforts down the road. Will he join me in distancing this House, at least, from some of the intemperate, ill-advised remarks made by his colleagues in the other place—for example, that Parliament has no moral right to sit; that our judiciary should now become subject to political appointment; and that the highest court in these islands has somehow perpetrated a constitutional coup?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—which the Supreme Court itself characterised as a one-off—it is likely that phrases are used in the heat of the moment that are judged inappropriate in the cool light of day. I do not believe that the noble Baroness quoted my right honourable and learned friend quite correctly when she referred to a statement to the effect that Parliament has no moral right to sit. I think what he said was:

“This Parliament … has no moral right to sit”.


That was in the context of a debate on the other place’s inability to reach a conclusion on the outcome of Brexit, not about this particular matter.

I cannot comment on any suggestion that there should be a political process to appoint judges; that is well beyond my brief and I do not believe that it is under consideration at all. Even if it were, it would require lengthy and considered debate and judgment involving political parties of all complexions. It is not under serious consideration at the moment.

In these circumstances, we need to reflect on the judgment that the Supreme Court has reached. Instant comments on it are possible, of course. However, it has major constitutional and legal implications, as the noble Baroness will no doubt accept. It behoves us all to look at what was said and at how that impacts on our legal position as parliamentarians, but also for the Executive to reflect on how they should behave in the future regarding any future Prorogation.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

The noble Earl will be aware that, in the course of delivering the judgment of the court, the noble and learned Baroness, the President of the Supreme Court, observed that the Government had put forward no reason for seeking Prorogation—in contrast, perhaps, to Sir John Major, who submitted evidence to the Supreme Court. Why did the Prime Minister not do the same? Why did he not provide a sworn affidavit, for example? Was he concerned that he might be guilty of perjury if he did so?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General told the other place, this matter is covered by legal privilege. The convention that the advice of the law officers is not disclosed outside Government without their consent is one that it was felt should be observed closely. I am afraid I cannot comment further on that matter.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My noble friend knows that I am not a lawyer. What I have to say is therefore not a legal thing. It strikes me that most people will feel that, when the Supreme Court has voted by 11 to none, it would be proper for the Attorney-General not to have included the sentence, “There can be disagreement among people”. Would it not have been better for us all if there had been a very simple statement to the effect that the courts have decided, the Government will accept this and whatever may have happened otherwise no longer obtains? I would like to feel that there was the odd bit of remorse in what he said.

[Earl Howe]

My right honourable and learned friend has said, in terms, that he accepts the court’s judgment—the Government got it wrong. He has been clear that it is now right that we ensure that any future decisions of this nature conform to the judgment of the Supreme Court. If my noble friend is requiring my right honourable and learned friend to make an apology for the legal view that he took during the course of the case, I do not think that is appropriate. The Supreme Court has disagreed with the Government’s legal view, but that is not the same as saying that the Government’s position was not tenable in the first place.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, with respect, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, did not answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked. The fact is that nobody believes that the Government sought the Prorogation of Parliament to prepare a Queen’s Speech—not even the government Ministers or other people who are peddling this. The evidence that was not the reason was found in the papers presented to the Scottish court, which revealed the real thinking of the Government. The question the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked was: why, in the context of the litigation, was no ministerial statement, far less a prime ministerial statement, put before the court to explain in their own words—not through their lawyers— why the Government sought a Prorogation? Why did the Government not have the courage to put that into a statement? Was it fear that government Ministers would perjure themselves if they did this and swore an oath in that statement?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have already given the reason why that did not happen: any advice that was given to the Prime Minister would have been covered by legal privilege, and it was judged inappropriate to disclose anything of that nature to the court. The Government have been clear about why we need a Queen’s Speech—we want to deliver what the public want and we urgently need to consider how to advance that work in advance of a Queen’s Speech. It was against this background that the Prorogation of Parliament was sought.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I was on these Benches when we supported the legislation that created the Supreme Court, and I ask this House particularly to ponder what would have happened if yesterday’s decision had been made by the House of Lords rather than by the Supreme Court. Was it not the wisdom of that legislation that we separated our constitution in a way that the public would understand, that there is an Executive, a legislature and the rule of law embodied in a Supreme Court? One danger of the way the Government have responded to this is that it does not seem to appreciate, understand, or support the idea that those three pillars of the constitution have to be mutually supportive to make our democracy work.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is back, but if the Government are cooking up some merry wheeze to get around a law of Parliament in the next two weeks, my God, are they going to face an explosion about their disregard for our constitution, our Parliament and our rule of law.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Callanan made absolutely clear, the Government will abide by the law at all times—we cannot do anything other than that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the Supreme Court. It has exercised its duties and functions in an exemplary way, it has reached its conclusions unanimously, and we should be grateful that we have an independent judiciary able to do these very difficult things.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 5th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal, Lady Barran and Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for their work to ensure the passage of this landmark Bill. The Bill, in the form in which we now see it, is the product of excellent co-operation across all parties in both Houses. I thank noble Lords for their engagement and co-operation in helping to create the robust measure we have before us, in particular the noble Lords who served on the Joint Committee that carried out the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill and those who now serve on the shadow sponsor body.

I express my gratitude also to noble Lords who contributed to debates and tabled amendments, especially the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, all of whom embraced the spirit of collaboration and joint working that ensured that the Bill made swift progress without sacrificing the quality of the scrutiny it received. My thanks go too to all other noble Lords who tabled amendments and spoke on Report yesterday, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. Lastly, I extend my thanks to the excellent Bill team, as well as the restoration and renewal programme team, the shadow sponsor body, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the Whips on both sides and, of course, the clerks, for their support.

Noble Lords across the House have recognised the need for this Bill, which addresses the pressing issue of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster and which has been improved thanks to their efforts. The degree of consensus on the Bill across both Houses is reflected in its swift passage. I believe that we all have been keenly aware of how vital a step this is towards ensuring that the historic and iconic building in which we are privileged to serve is safe for staff and the public, that the works are delivered on time and on budget—ensuring value for taxpayers’ money—and, above all, that we have the right framework to secure the Palace of Westminster as the home of the UK Parliament for future generations. I beg to move.

Business of the House

Earl Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I will just make my position clear on behalf of these Benches in returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am very much in sympathy with the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. All I will say is that I am willing to play my part as the leader of these Benches in trying to reach an accommodation as to how we resolve these proceedings without having to go through all the amendments one by one. However, I stress that this will happen only if those on the Government Front Bench are prepared to engage with, no doubt, the Bishops’ Benches, myself and the Opposition. It will not work without the willingness of the Government Front Bench.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will very briefly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord True, but before that I will clear up a point in the light of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. As both rightly pointed out, in her opening remarks the Leader of the Opposition alluded to the prospect of her Motion becoming unnecessary if the Government were to guarantee safe passage for the Bill, should it arrive. I need to put on record, lest there be any misunderstanding, that no such prospect was raised prior to today’s sitting with my noble friend the Government Chief Whip. That was the first time we had heard of that proposal. By that time the noble Baroness had already placed her Motion in the hands of the House. All I can say is that the usual channels, at least in so far as the Government are concerned, are always open.

I will make some brief remarks on the amendment of my noble friend. I focus, as other noble Lords will do, on the practical effects of this Motion. Its main effect, as has been said, is a guillotine. Setting aside the issue of precedent, I do not think that one can dismiss this as some kind of run-of-the-mill measure. The practical effects of the guillotine will be wide ranging and deeply damaging to the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation as fully as it needs to. Many of us have observed over the years how much the House prides itself on the scrutiny of legislation and how seriously it takes its role in the legislative process. My noble friend Lord Forsyth was quite right in all that he said earlier. The Business of the House Motion as tabled would shackle noble Lords to procedures that only the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who I understand will pilot any Bill that arrives from the Commons, would have any control over. What does that do to the principle of self-regulation?

The House as a whole must be free to take important decisions about how and at what speed it conducts its business. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said earlier, the Motion would limit the number of noble Lords who could make meaningful contributions at Second Reading. It would mean that amendments not reached before the guillotines could be agreed only on a unanimous basis, meaning that noble Lords, no matter what experience they bring, would be unable to have their amendments debated or decided upon fairly. This Motion means that the House is being asked to agree that, should the Commons send us a Bill, that Bill should be passed without full debate and proper scrutiny, and that the role of Members of this place should be bypassed. No noble Lord, in my opinion, should find that even remotely acceptable.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise to the noble Earl—I caught him on the television and came in urgently to hear the rest of what he was saying. I understand the points he is making, and the Motion in my name is designed to ensure a full debate—far more so than in the House of Commons. But if the noble Earl could say that the Government would be prepared to ensure that the withdrawal Bill, if passed by the House of Commons, would be guaranteed to complete its stages in your Lordships’ House prior to Prorogation—that is, by Friday—there would be no need for my Motion, because the Bill would be guaranteed to leave the House in good time. I think that that is all that anybody in your Lordships’ House wants to achieve. Are the Government prepared to have those kinds of discussions to ensure that that can be achieved? That might deal with a lot of the issues of concern to noble Lords here today.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I indicated that the usual channels on our side are open, and I wish we had been alerted earlier. In answer to her question, of course we are prepared to discuss this. No noble Lord wants to see this debate unnecessarily perpetuated.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am extremely glad to hear that, because I made that suggestion earlier today to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. My understanding, which I hope was a misunderstanding, was that there could not be such discussions. What the noble Earl has said is extremely encouraging. I would be happy at the conclusion of this debate to talk outside the Chamber to progress those discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, may I propose that the House do now adjourn but that we return no later than 7.30 this evening?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition has, very helpfully, proposed an adjournment. The difficulty I find myself in is that any discussions that we have through the usual channels will be predicated, at least from our point of view, on discussions with others in another place. At present, I cannot therefore accede willingly to her proposal to adjourn although in principle, as I said earlier, we are of course open to discussions at some point in the evening.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am slightly confused by what the noble Earl says. I sense that, across the House—I will talk for a moment so that the Chief Whip can catch up—we want to conduct our business in a timely, sensible and ordered manner. Perhaps we can do so through adjourning briefly. I hope that the noble Earl is not saying that officials and Ministers in this House are unable to come to an agreement; however, I appreciate that we must understand what happens in the House of Commons first, which is why I suggested adjourning until 7.30 pm. I would appreciate the views of the Chief Whip on this issue.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(i) to promote public understanding of the purposes of the Restoration and Renewal Programme.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5. These amendments, taken together, are designed to address a number of concerns—raised at Second Reading and in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and others—on the twin themes of engagement with specific categories of individuals about the restoration and renewal programme and promoting an understanding of the purposes of the programme, in ways I will explain more fully.

First, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his constructive and collaborative approach in working with the Government to formulate the wording of the amendments now before us. The Leader of the House and I were sincerely impressed by the passion and sincerity with which he made his case, and he succeeded in persuading us that appropriate amendments to the Bill were warranted. I hope the House will agree that we have arrived at a good place in this respect.

The first amendment seeks to ensure that the sponsor body promotes public understanding of the purposes of the restoration and renewal programme. The Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill detailed the importance of the public understanding the restoration and renewal programme. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, tabled an amendment in Committee that was quite similar to the one we are debating today, and he was supported by a number of other noble Lords in the arguments that he put forward.

As noble Lords may recall, I outlined in Committee why that amendment was not strictly required, given what the shadow sponsor body has set out it will do in promoting understanding of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. For example, the restoration and renewal programme’s current purposes, as set out in its vision and strategic themes, includes the aim to:

“Open up the Houses of Parliament, improve access and encourage a wider participation in the work of Parliament”.


Nevertheless, we have listened to this House and recognise the desire of noble Lords that this amendment be included in the Bill to place this specific duty on the sponsor body.

The second amendment in the group relates to staff and public engagement. This amendment would require the sponsor body, in formulating the strategic objectives of the parliamentary building works and making strategic decisions relating to it, to seek the views of those employed by Parliament and working for Members, as well as the public at large. Again, as noble Lords will recognise, I outlined in Committee the engagement the shadow sponsor body has already started to undertake with staff and will be undertaking with the public in the future. For example, the shadow sponsor body circulated a questionnaire to Members and their staff with the aim of understanding what they would like to see from restoration and renewal of the Palace. I understand that the shadow sponsor body will publish these findings in October. Furthermore, the body will soon be considering its public engagement strategy.

Since the conclusion of Committee, we have had the chance to consider this matter further. We recognise the will of this House that provision should be made in the Bill to ensure that the sponsor body engages with staff and the public in undertaking its work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, again for his collaborative approach in formulating this amendment. I am sure that he, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who made a similar suggestion in Committee, and members of the pre-legislative Joint Committee will welcome this amendment. It will ultimately be for the sponsor body, once established, to determine how it fulfils this duty, but I am sure all noble Lords will join me in encouraging the sponsor body to build on the engagement the shadow sponsor body has undertaken to date.

Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that the sponsor body will carry out the works with a view to facilitating improved public engagement with Parliament and participation in the democratic process, especially by means of remote access to Parliament’s educational and outreach facilities and programmes. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, once again for agreeing to work with the Government on this amendment. The pre-legislative Joint Committee that examined the draft Bill, of which the noble Lord was a member, argued that the term “renewal” requires an outward-facing approach to the UK Parliament’s role at the centre of our democracy. In Committee, I outlined that the Government agree that the outputs as part of restoration and renewal should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate any future reforms which could facilitate opportunities for outreach and engagement. I was pleased to report that the shadow sponsor body had already outlined, as part of its strategic vision and themes, the aim to,

“reconnect people from across the UK with their Parliament through improved education and visitor facilities, physical and digital access”.

I also outlined in Committee the excellent work already done in this area through various parliamentary engagement and outreach programmes across the UK. The UK Parliament’s education and engagement service engaged more than 2.2 million people in 2018-19, of whom approximately 1.4 million were engaged face to face. The quality of this engagement is reflected in the feedback from 94% of participants, who rated it “good” or “excellent”. Furthermore, the education service also welcomed 70,226 school visitors in the year to mid-April 2018. The Lord Speaker’s Peers in Schools programme has seen more than 2,000 Peers in Schools visits since the programme began in 2007. The education service also trained more than 2,900 teachers to help them engage their students in learning about Parliament and democracy. Nevertheless, we have listened again to the will of this House that an amendment relating specifically to remote connectivity and outreach programmes should be included in the Bill. In considering this matter, I encourage the sponsor body to work with Parliament’s education and outreach team in order to build on the excellent work it is undertaking.

The other two amendments, Amendments 3 and 4 in the name of my noble friend, are minor and technical; they merely ensure consistent references to the parliamentary building works in Clause 2(4)(b) and 2(4)(g). The Government have sought to ensure that the will of the House is facilitated when it is clear that a particular course of action is preferred. These amendments are a clear example of our determination to see that this is done. Each of the amendments in this group is designed to ensure that the necessary engagement work is undertaken and borne in mind by the sponsor body.

With renewed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for enabling us to achieve the express will of the House on these important issues, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, and their focus on public engagement and awareness. Amendment 1 creates a duty on the sponsor body to promote public understanding of restoration and renewal, while Amendment 2 introduces a need for the sponsor body to ensure the works facilitate engagement and a participatory democracy. Amendment 5 ensures that the sponsor body carries out its duties with the views of Members, staff and the public at the front of its mind. We also welcome Amendments 3 and 4, which strengthen the reference to the parliamentary building works in regard to ensuring the safety and security of staff and the public, as well as to educational facilities.

At the start of the Bill’s passage, one of the main areas on which we sought government reassurance was engagement with the public, as well as with staff and Members in both Chambers. The Joint Committee recommended that the sponsor body should,

“promote public engagement and public understanding of Parliament”,

and we are pleased that the Government now fully accept this. Engagement must be at the heart of the programme of restoration and renewal, as this Palace, as well as the democratic processes and structures it represents, can often feel very distant to many people across the country. It is vital that there is a strong relationship between the sponsor body and the public, so that they have confidence in the programme throughout the process. These amendments help to alleviate our concerns and ensure that restoration and renewal becomes about far more than the necessary bricks and mortar, rewiring and replacement, and sewerage and stairways. They also allow us to change the way Parliament looks and feels, both inside and out.

Like other noble Lords, we read with great interest the results of the 2019 Members survey on R&R, confirming the themes and issues raised during the passage of this Bill in both Houses on accessibility, remote and digital integration, and safety, security and protection. The first survey showed just how vital regular communication, consultation and engagement are now and will be as the programme progresses to its successful completion. In particular, this is a working building for more than 8,000 members of staff, and the omissions in the original Bill on the importance of seeking their views about the works have now been rectified. Amendment 5 is a welcome step forward in helping improve their working conditions throughout restoration and renewal, and this must be an aim for the sponsor body.

In closing, I of course pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his tireless work on these issues throughout the Bill’s passage, and to the Government for their willingness to discuss and address our concerns and arrive at the good place to which the Minister referred.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his very kind remarks and the constructive suggestions he has made. I express once again my appreciation to him for working with us as he has done and for the support he has demonstrated for these amendments. I am grateful, too, to other noble Lords who have endorsed the approach that we and the noble Lord have taken. It has been important throughout the Bill’s passage that we should listen to all Members and, where possible, seek to work with them towards an agreed position. I hope and believe it is clear that we have done exactly that. I thank other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate: my noble friends Lord Norton, Lord Cope and Lord Haselhurst, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Wheeler.

My noble friend Lord Haselhurst asked two questions that go back to the issue, which I know has been considered by both Houses, of whether it would be possible to retain a foothold, so to speak, during the R&R programme in the Houses of Parliament regarding Westminster Hall and the Elizabeth Tower. I can tell him that these matters were partly covered at earlier stages of our debates, but it was agreed by both Houses in early 2018 that the Bill should allow for a full and timely decant of the Palace without retaining a foothold. Analysis by the programme in 2017 found that continued use by Members and/or the public of Westminster Hall or the area surrounding it would be highly disruptive and costly for no additional quantifiable benefit. The costs would be connected to maintaining a secure perimeter in close proximity to construction works and the additional cost to construction from managing a complex and partially occupied site. Having said that, access to the Elizabeth Tower could be a different matter. In fact, it is a matter for the sponsor body and Parliament to decide in due course. Members of the other place and noble Lords will be free to offer their view to the sponsor body on this issue as part of its consultation strategy.

As I said, these amendments build on the current work the shadow sponsor body is undertaking in these areas, in my judgment very capably. What matters now is the future. Like all noble Lords, I look forward to seeing how the sponsor body builds on this work and fulfils the specific obligations the amendments set out.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) In performing the duties under subsection (2)(a) and (b), the Sponsor Body must make arrangements for seeking the views of— (a) people employed in or for the purposes of either House of Parliament,(b) people working for members of either House of Parliament (whether or not for payment), and(c) members of the public.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, I am sure that the sponsor body would be happy to meet the noble Baroness and her colleagues—indeed, any noble Lord on any matter relating to this programme. I may regret saying that, but it is important that the shadow sponsor body and the sponsor body are as open and receptive to Members as it is possible to be. I also give the assurance that future-proofing the work is very much part of the design brief that the shadow sponsor body will be working towards. Anyone who has ever spoken to any of the contractors trying to do the work in this place will know that one of their biggest problems is simply getting access to things—they have all been buried and hidden underneath more modern work. Given this opportunity to take it all out and start again, we would certainly expect one of the outcomes to be the facilitation of future work, be it ongoing maintenance or larger jobs that may need doing in 50 or 60 years.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for speaking to this amendment, which, as she made clear, provides that the parliamentary relationship agreement may include provision about recommendations from the sponsor body for the future maintenance of the Palace of Westminster over the longer term after completion of the works.

Let me say straightaway that I agree it is important that, after completion of the parliamentary building works, the Palace of Westminster is maintained for the future and does not fall back into its current state of disrepair. Having said that, I think that there are other mechanisms better suited to achieving what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve than an amendment to this Bill. I would go further and say that this amendment is not at all necessary. I hope I can provide the House with sufficient reassurance on that point.

This amendment places a provision in the Bill that the parliamentary relationship agreement may require the sponsor body to provide recommendations for future maintenance of the Palace. The contents of this agreement will be for the sponsor body and corporate officers of both Houses to determine. The overarching reassurance I can give about the future maintenance of the Palace over the long term is that this is not at all an afterthought. There are already several mechanisms in place that will shape such maintenance.

First, as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, it would not be the sponsor body itself which would be undertaking future maintenance of the Palace. As noble Lords will be aware, it is likely that the sponsor body will be abolished following completion of the parliamentary building works, given that the purpose of the Bill and the bodies it establishes is simply to complete the parliamentary building works—that is, the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

That said, the Bill enables the sponsor body to work with the parliamentary authorities to put forward recommendations and practices to ensure that a robust maintenance plan is established for the future. Here I direct noble Lords’ attention to Clause 2(2)(h) of the Bill, which places a duty on the sponsor body,

“to deal with matters relating to completion of the Parliamentary building works, including the making of arrangements for the handing over of the buildings to which those works relate”.

It is common practice with major construction works where long-term maintenance is envisaged for maintenance teams to work alongside the construction engineers in the final stages of the project when major infrastructure is being commissioned. This ensures that a thorough understanding of operating and maintaining the installed systems is provided for. Incidentally, I understand that this kind of training and familiarisation could well extend over the final year of the project.

Therefore, before the sponsor body is abolished and as part of the duty set out in Clause 2(2)(h), the sponsor body may wish to consider training House maintenance staff to ensure they are fully briefed on the new equipment and assist in developing appropriate plans to ensure that, as much as possible, the Palace is appropriately maintained in the future. As it is envisaged that the sponsor body would not be responsible for future systems, it is likely that it would work closely with the House administrations as part of the training on new systems and formulating future plans.

In terms of monitoring the future maintenance of the Palace after it has been handed back to Parliament, House authorities could provide updates on ongoing maintenance of the Palace through the appropriate domestic committees. In addition to Clause 2(2)(h), the parliamentary relationship agreement—the PRA—could also further outline what is expected in terms of future training. The PRA is expected to include an agreement between the sponsor body and Parliament about the process for handing the completed works back at the end of the programme, before the sponsor body is abolished. This would likely include further details regarding the training on the matters I outlined a second ago. However, as I said, Clause 2(2)(h) is crucial in dealing with this matter, given that the sponsor body is likely to be abolished following completion of the works, thus limiting the means to enforce any of the obligations in the PRA.

I said that future maintenance is not at all an afterthought. The shadow sponsor body has already demonstrated that it is thinking about the future maintenance of the Palace. Through the publication of the vision and strategic themes document, the shadow sponsor body has already committed to taking account of the need to deliver an outcome which provides an effective future maintenance solution for the Palace. This document has already been approved by both House commissions and published on the restoration and renewal website. Among other points, the document states that the sponsor body must:

“Deliver a refurbishment programme that minimises but also facilitates future maintenance and improvement”,


by delivering “operational efficiency and longevity”. Secondly, it states that there must be a focus to:

“Optimise operating and capital costs through a focus on whole-life costing; and achieve operating cost targets”.


Whole-life costing means that decisions must be taken based not solely on capital costs but on the sum of those, plus the costs of operation and maintenance over the whole of the operational life. In essence, this means minimising the sum of capital and operating costs averaged over the lifetime of the installation.

I mentioned mechanisms plural. The second point for noble Lords to bear in mind is that the future maintenance of the Palace will also form part of the outline business case brought before Parliament for approval. Importantly, the outline business case will be developed in line with the principles of Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book, which require that the costing is done on a whole-life basis. This includes maintenance over any future timeframes as appropriate, which may of course differ between different aspects.

It might be helpful if I explain that, in following the HMT Green Book principles, the business case will adopt a five-case methodology to provide decision-makers with a framework for structured thinking. The cases are as follows: strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management. The consideration of whole-life costs is a fundamental focus of the financial case and is a critical input for the economic appraisal in the economic case. As I have mentioned in previous debates on the Bill, the shadow sponsor body has already given the assurance that the outline business case it prepares will follow the Green Book principles, thus taking this matter into account. Therefore, the requirement and cost of future maintenance will be a consideration during the design stage of the programme, which will require approval from noble Lords.

Thirdly, the Bill already permits the sponsor body to make recommendations for the future maintenance of the Palace. It could do so as part of the reports that it produces, relating to the progress and completion of the parliamentary building works under paragraph 27 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which must be laid before Parliament and published. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the combination of the mechanisms that are already in place to address the future maintenance of the Palace makes her amendment unnecessary. I am sure that, if she wants to discuss this matter further—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, helpfully indicated this—members of the shadow sponsor body would be more than willing to engage with her.

In both Houses, we have outlined throughout the course of the Bill that, at its core, its key aim is to secure the Palace of Westminster for future generations. The process of restoration and renewal offers a great number of opportunities in which we as Members will be able to influence and prioritise what we want the outcomes to be. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, we welcome and fully support the principle behind Amendment 8, which underlines that the work should be carried out without delays and must be cost effective. The sponsor body has said it expects the current timeline for the project to be around 10 years, from the mid-2020s to the mid-2030s. Of course, there remains some vagueness around this length of time, and we hope the sponsor body is able to provide a more detailed timeline as soon as possible, with some clarity on milestones and gateways for both the decant and the completion of the full works. Obviously, this will most likely come after the business case has been presented and discussed by Parliament. Nevertheless, providing clear information on timelines and milestones will most certainly be important for public engagement and the engagement of staff and Members. We very much support this amendment.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his amendment, which would require the sponsor body’s reports on the progress made on the parliamentary building works to incorporate a timeline for the works that would include likely dates for decant and completion. As the noble and learned Lord said, he tabled a similar amendment in Committee, to the effect that as part of its consultation strategy the sponsor body must publish a timeline for completion of the Palace restoration works, including details on the dates of decant and return to the Palace.

In my response in Committee, I agreed that all noble Lords would—quite obviously—wish to seek further clarity on dates around decant, and I am in absolute agreement with the noble and learned Lord’s point that the sponsor body should publish details regarding decant and completion of the works not just once but throughout the course of the project. Here it is important to convey that the shadow sponsor body has always explicitly recognised that, as part of the sponsor body’s reports as set out in paragraph 27 of Schedule 1, it would rightly be required to include timescales on decant and the progress of the works. I can confirm that the shadow sponsor body is in agreement with this approach and therefore the expectation is that the reports produced by the sponsor body will include information on the timetable for the works, including details on timings for decant and return to the Palace.

I spoke at some length in Committee on various points addressing the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord. However, I thought it important to clarify what the Bill requires the sponsor body to do as regards reporting. Under the Bill, the delivery authority is required to formulate proposals for the parliamentary building works, including the timing of those works. These proposals are provided for in Clause 2(2)(e). Parliament will need to approve the proposals before any substantive works commence. If for any reason those timings change significantly, the sponsor body will need to come back to Parliament for further approval. The parliamentary approval of these proposals, as well as the shadow sponsor body outlining its agreement that the sponsor body should include information relating to the timeline for the works in reports it produces, will, I hope, provide noble Lords with the reassurance that this information will be forthcoming.

This is a matter that will surely interest all noble Lords throughout the currency of the works, whether that is before commencement, during or near their completion, so let me again thank the noble and learned Lord for tabling this amendment. I hope that I have provided him with significant reassurance on this important matter.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their comments on this amendment, and in particular for the noble Earl’s reassuring words and the wider clarification of the roles of the sponsor body and the delivery authority in these matters. As he rightly said, the timeline for progress, decant and the likely completion is of interest not just to Members but to the wider public. What he has put on the record today is very satisfactory indeed and we look forward with interest to watching progress. With these words, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.