House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have been lucky enough to serve on two Select Committees, one in the year before April 2020 and one in the year afterwards. Entirely to my surprise, the virtual committee worked better than the physical one. Witnesses could be selected and called without a thought for where they were based. Ministers could be questioned if anything more effectively, their reactions more revealing in close-up than they used to be at the far end of a horseshoe. A Teams chat running in the background allowed supplementary questions to be proposed, refined and allocated by the chair. Peers who had never physically met developed a real esprit de corps; and when we reported in March, we most certainly held the Government to account. So I welcome the Constitution Committee’s recommendation on the future functioning of committees, and I share the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead that a wholly virtual committee works much better than a hybrid one.

How effective have we been as a revising Chamber? Judging from the changes made recently to Bills on subjects as diverse as the internal market, overseas operations and domestic abuse, I would say that we have done pretty well. New ways have been found of making Ministers available to us—credit to them for that—and of making possible the “innumerable interactions” that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly said are required for the work of the House behind the scenes. What we have not found are ways to replicate the more subtle pleasures of human contact; and here, I turn to the future.

I have heard nobody suggest that our debates, as opposed to our committees, should become wholly virtual. The issue here is whether the possibility of virtual participation should remain once the pandemic is over, whenever that might be. The Minister said that this would cost £90,000 a month but when the impact of reduced or nil allowances for those not physically present is factored in, I suspect that the net figure may be rather different. Having heard the compelling speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Brinton, I can only say that this facility at that cost, or anything like it, is surely a reasonable adjustment for those experiencing chronic ill health or disability. If the same facility enables, at no materially greater cost, the useful participation of people with current work that is relevant to the business of the House, people with caring responsibilities or people who live a long way from London—points powerfully made by the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others—then surely that is a good thing.

From what we have heard so far, it seems unlikely that in normal times the numbers choosing to attend virtually will be anything like as large as they are now. For most of us, the Chamber will remain the place to be if you possibly can. So I doubt that the option of virtual participation will much affect the traditional mood of the Chamber, which some have described as spontaneous, save in desirable respects such as, I hope, the end of the open outcry system at Oral Questions.

However, we can weigh up the pros and cons—this is my key point—only by giving ourselves experience of hybrid proceedings in non-pandemic conditions. For that reason, I agree with those who suggest that we give it to the end of the year, and I will oppose the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, if he puts it to a vote—which I rather hope he does not, because it simplifies and rushes a decision which this debate has shown to have many complex components and because I think that, given time, we may well find that something of a consensus develops.

Being awarded a peerage—and I have this in common with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—was the honour of my life. This has been the year in which I have been able to contribute most intensively to our work, for which I am grateful to our hybrid proceedings and the staff who devised and implemented them. But I love the work of the House, feel a duty to participate in it and will continue to do so to the best of my ability under whatever arrangements this House may decide upon.

Coronavirus Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill introduces across a whole range of public policy areas significant powers, some of them quite draconian. The noble Lord just said that the proposal in respect of abortion was unacceptable because it would have made a fundamental change. The truth is that we are making fundamental changes across the board. The proposed changes on mental health are, in my view, at least as fundamental as that on abortion proposed by the noble Baroness. Although the Minister might have reasons for not wanting to make that change, he cannot pray in aid that it was a fundamental change. This is happening across the whole of what we are doing and, frankly, that was not his best moment.

Because the changes being made in the Bill are so powerful, we believe that they need to be in place for as short a period as possible and that they need regular and effective review and renewal. Therefore, the amendments in my name raise two related issues. The first is how often that review should happen. Obviously, we welcome the fact that the Government have moved from a position where there was to be no review for two years to one where there will be a review after six months. However, we believe that the period should be shorter. The Civil Contingencies Act has a renewal date of 30 days. Some of the measures in the Bill could probably have been exercised under that Act and they would have been subject to that 30 days. We are not going as far as that, but the end of September is simply too late for Parliament to have its first chance formally to decide whether this very wide-ranging legislation should continue.

As to the form, we have several concerns. As the Bill stands, there is no role whatever for your Lordships’ House in respect of the legislation’s continuation and renewal. That is certainly unprecedented and completely unacceptable. The normal way of dealing with legislation that is time-limited and needs renewal is via the statutory instrument route, which obviously applies to both Houses equally. That was the case with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Terrorism Act 2006. The House of Lords and the House of Commons had exactly the same powers and they worked perfectly well. Your Lordships’ House is an extremely responsible body.

An exception to the principle of the two Houses having the same powers in respect of legislation was the EU withdrawal Bill—subsequently the EU withdrawal Act. It was agreed that, although there would be a meaningful vote in the House of Commons, there would be a meaningless vote in the House of Lords. That was on the basis of the circumstances being exceptional, as we were following the democratic mandate of a referendum. I opposed it at the time on the basis that it set a doleful precedent, but that view did not prevail.

Now, a second set of exceptional circumstances is being brought before your Lordships’ House in a very short period. I believe that the more often we see exceptional circumstances occurring, the less acceptable it is, if your Lordships’ House is to perform the function that it has done until now in respect of the renewal of legislation. We therefore propose that the former precedent of renewing a Bill by statutory instrument should be followed in this case.

However, in Amendment 12 we also suggest an alternative method of achieving the same involvement of your Lordships’ House by proposing that it mirrors what is proposed in the Commons. Personally, I would prefer us to go back to the traditional SI route but, in a spirit of generosity, if the Government would prefer to do it the other way, we are, reluctantly, prepared to accept that.

The other amendments in this group have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. They have our full support, and no doubt they will be spoken to more eloquently than I could, so I will not attempt that.

I would like to ask the Minister about a practical point, which I hope he will be able to accept. At Second Reading yesterday, my noble friend Lady Barker suggested that the Government should produce a grid to explain which clauses of the Bill have been implemented, and exactly how. That is a very good idea and I hope the Government can accept it, but could they go slightly further by having, as part of that grid, a list of all the other provisions introduced to deal with the coronavirus, but not necessarily under this Bill? I cite, for example, the power to close restaurants and all other places where people congregate, which was introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That would be helpful not only for specialists, as it were, like us, but for those who want to find and then look at the legislative basis for decisions. For others, who just want to see where a particular provision that might affect them comes from, if the Government have a single source saying, “Here’s the whole raft of provisions that have been made and this is exactly where you can find them”, that would be extremely helpful for public information. Obviously, I hope the Government will agree to our more substantive amendments but, at the very least, I hope they can do this. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

.My Lords, I support Amendments 11 and 12, which I think means that I support the idea of six-monthly reviews with debates in both the Commons and in the Lords. However, I rise to speak in particular to Amendment 10, tabled in my name. Regardless of how often the reviews take place or precisely who conducts them, surely one needs a degree of information from the Government. Clause 97 provides for that, but in an absolutely minimalist form. As I read it, all that is required is that the Government should explain which provisions have been switched on or switched off in the previous two-month period and that they should certify that they are content with the switching on and the switching off.

I have two points to make. The first concerns effective review in Parliament. As I said yesterday, my experience of reviewing exceptional counterterrorism powers suggests that one really needs at least some basic information from government on how the powers are being applied and how effective they are judged to be. There is also a point for the Government in this. Reports of this kind will provide them with an excellent opportunity to communicate to Parliament and to the wider public what they have done, why they have done what they have done, whether they believe that the measures are having some effect on the disease and, if so, why. I was encouraged to hear the Minister say yesterday in introducing the Bill that the Government would update Parliament regularly on how these powers have been used across the UK, but I suggest that that does not go far enough. In the Bill as written, things are not provided which go even that far.

My Amendment 10 is very modest, and deliberately so. I have sought not to invite the riposte that I am requiring some new power to collate or put forward statistics or that I would overburden an already burdened Civil Service. The Government will of course make their own assessments of whether these powers should be switched on or off and how effective they are. All I ask is that that assessment should be shared with Parliament in an appropriate way. It is a document that the Government will control, so it is very much up to them to decide in what form that communication should be made. If the amendment cannot be accepted, I ask the Minister at the very least to give an undertaking today that these reports will provide information about how the powers have been used across the United Kingdom, what measures may have been necessary to ensure compliance, and whether and why the various powers have been judged effective.

I have saved perhaps my best point until the end. Yesterday, the Minister raised by proxy the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who sits beside me in spirit, if not physically. He contacted me this morning and has authorised me to say that if he had disregarded his own advice not to attend today, he would have supported my amendment. If I have not persuaded the Minister, I hope that the spirit of my noble and learned friend will have done so.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in great detail. In the debate yesterday, we spoke about the seriousness of the situation that the country faces. We are all deeply conscious of it; despite that, we must not be lulled into simply abiding by the pressure of the moment and not consistently thinking our way through the detail of what we are now putting into law. In his statement to the nation the other night, the Prime Minister referred to three weeks. Whether that stands or not is to be debated, but to go from three weeks to six months, as the Bill now provides, is a very long gap. It would be wise to agree to this amendment for three months, which on their return allows this House and the other place to consider the nature of what has been applied, whether it is appropriate and whether it should be retained or removed. That would be a sensible time to allow for national consideration; let us hope we have gone through it by then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, my amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is also in favour. It is pretty self-explanatory and should not cause the Government any problems in accepting it. Indeed, the Minister, in replying just now, talked about getting advice from scientists on what was necessary.

The Minister has made a declaration that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but the amendment would provide further reassurance. According to the long title, the Bill is to:

“Make provision in connection with coronavirus; and for connected purposes.”


That is quite wide. There are references to a test of necessity—or, variously, necessity and proportionality—in some provisions in the Bill but not in others. There is no consistency, for instance, even between Schedules 21 and 22.

Our Constitution Committee, which I thank for its report, says at paragraph 16 that

“there may be a need to resolve difficult legal questions concerning the proportionality and necessity of restrictions and directions, and of their compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998”,

and by “resolve” it means in the courts. It would obviously be preferable to front-load those tests by requiring the Government to observe them in exercising all their powers under the Bill, which is what this umbrella amendment would provide, rather than load up the courts.

In parallel with these tests, the Delegated Powers Committee report, which I thank the committee for, drew attention to the absence in some clauses of a reference to the coronavirus crisis as justification. That mainly concerns postponement of elections, but not exclusively. I am therefore doing precisely what the committee suggests in paragraph 9 of its report—I have given the Minister notice of these requests: I

“seek an explanation from the Minister about why these powers are not, on the face of each individual clause, explicitly linked to coronavirus”,

and

“look to the Minister to provide an ironclad assurance that the powers contained in the Bill will be exercisable in relation to the coronavirus outbreak only and in no other circumstances.”

Lastly, will the Minister clarify the situation with regulations? The ones issued last Saturday under the Public Health Act, on premises, are not abolished by the Bill, but the February ones, on persons, are. In a reply during Second Reading yesterday, the Minister said that the powers to enforce the Prime Minister’s instructions regarding essential travel and gatherings

“will be introduced by regulations under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.”—[Official Report, 24/3/20; col. 1733.]

But I have learned from tweets by journalists that those will be introduced tomorrow, when we are not here. As I asked at Second Reading yesterday, how will these regulations mesh with the Bill and with regulations to be made under it? I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 13 and I offer two sentences on it. The amendment will have no legal effect because, admirably, nothing in the Bill seeks to oust or modify provisions of the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act. But if the Minister can confirm that there is no intention of departing from those important statutes, that would be a powerful signal to the sceptics and conspiracy theorists, both here and abroad, who might otherwise wrongly suggest that in enacting this unfortunately necessary legislation, we are abandoning some of the fundamental legal and moral principles that bind us together.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, rightly said, we on these Benches support these provisions. I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, just said and it would be of enormous importance if the Minister gave the assurances that the noble Lord seeks.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: Special Report

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Prime Minister has not provided confirmation within the usual 10 days that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament’s Special Report on Russia may be published, and whether that confirmation will be provided today so that the report can be laid before Parliament in advance of Dissolution.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and declare an interest as an occasional reviewer of national security matters.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament must go through a number of processes before publication. Those processes apply to the report to which the noble Lord refers in his Question. The Prime Minister will respond to the committee’s request to publish this report in due course, once the usual processes have been completed.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

The Minister’s response echoes two unsatisfactory explanations aired in recent days for this irregular state of affairs. The first is that redaction remains to be completed. This report has already been through the full redaction process with the agencies and the Cabinet Office. In the ISC’s experience, prime ministerial confirmation has always been a formality. The second explanation is that time is needed for the Government to respond, but the Government’s aim and usual practice, as set out in a 2014 memorandum of understanding, is to respond not when a report is published but within 60 days. This unjustified delay undermines the ISC and, I am afraid, invites suspicion of the Government and their motives. Will the Minister advise No. 10 to think again?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord in several respects. The length of time for which this report has been with the Government is not at all unusual. It is one of a number of ISC reports which the Government are currently considering. In this instance, the Government are following the standard process which applies before every publication. A memorandum of understanding with the committee sets out the relationship between it and the Government. This does not include a timetable for the Government to clear such a report for publication and there is no set timeline for a response. Nor is such a deadline set in governing legislation.

Having said all that, I realise that the subject of this report is a matter of particular public interest and have no doubt that noble Lords’ comments will not be lost on those in No. 10.