Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord True

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I do not believe that we have been able to recover the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, so on that basis, I call the Minister.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I should open by congratulating the son of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on his great achievement in the channel. I think many noble Lords know that I am descended from generations of fisherfolk, and genetically the greatest horror I can imagine is finding myself swimming in the open sea, miles from land. I congratulate the team on their extraordinary achievement.

Moving on to the serious business of the amendments, I strongly disagree with the repeated tenor of the remarks made in your Lordships’ Committee that the proposal for a Boundary Commission with permission to have a plus or minus 5%—that is, 10%—tolerance in the size of seats sweeps away, as someone put it, all local ties. I say with respect that that is exaggerated talk. In discussion of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Hayward and I have made no secret of the fact that we believe that having broadly equally sized constituencies is pre-eminent, but there remains an allowance for recognising local ties and geography and so on, and it is to caricature the nature of the Bill or the Government’s objectives to say that it will sweep away local ties.

Without being in any way critical, because I know it is a long-held aspiration of many in your Lordships’ House, I can say only that as we have listened to the debates over the past three days some of these very arguments about local ties have come from people who for many years have argued for massive, multi-member constituencies in the name of proportional representation. There are difficulties in arguing on the one hand that small local ties are important, as I would argue and the Government recognise, while on the other saying that all these constituencies should be swept away and rolled together. I respect everything that everybody says in your Lordships’ Committee, but I note with interest that outside this Committee many of the self-same people have spent many years calling for massive multi-member constituencies.

We have talked on many occasions about tolerance. It is an important issue. There must be some degree of tolerance. There is disagreement in your Lordships’ Committee about what that might be, and that is reflected in the amendments before us. I will come on specifically to the points on Wales, which we have already discussed in this Committee, but it is an extremely important issue. It is not true to say that this Government do not respect Wales or that they are playing fast and loose with the union. Political comment and knockabout are fair enough, but this Government are passionately attached to the concept of our great union and all of us who speak about it should not feed the impression that we think otherwise. I will come back in detail to those points.

Starting with Amendment 18 and the idea that the Boundary Commission should have the ability to ignore the tolerance range wherever, in its opinion, local ties demand a more flexible approach, here the same arguments that we made during our previous discussion of the benefits of limiting the discretion of the Boundary Commission apply. Like many of us, I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said. He knows very well that if he tugs at the issue of local government, he certainly tugs at my heartstrings, which perhaps shows what a sad individual I am, but he is absolutely right about the importance of local government. Many of us here in your Lordships’ Committee will have had the privilege of serving either a constituency in Parliament or a local authority ward and, whether we have or not, we have all come from a local community. Several of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I, have recognised that somewhere that we represented in our titles. Like every citizen, we feel strongly about those places and about what defines them: their geography, community and particular cultures, as my noble friend Lord Hayward said. I am a historian by training and vocation, and I could never be blind to those issues. These are our local ties; they are important and our experience is rich with them.

However, this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would place an obligation on the Boundary Commission to judge the respective merits of different local ties and to reward those deemed particularly strong with special treatment by relaxing the rules, but what of the neighbouring constituency where no special treatment applies? Perhaps in the neighbour’s case, the community might fit neatly into the constituency proposed and all within it will be content, but that will not always be the case. It is inevitable that some local communities where ordinary tolerance rules will apply will feel that if only the Boundary Commission understood their character fully, they too could have a different, more appropriate and more generously drawn constituency.

These are the essential ingredients of dispute and challenge, the kind of process that my noble friend Lord Blencathra described for us and that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, drew our attention to in talking of the importance of clarity. They bring a potential to undermine in some ways, and certainly make more difficult, the work of the Boundary Commissions. I repeat that the Bill allows respect for local ties and the Government believe that what is in it is sufficient and the Boundary Commission will respect that.

Amendment 22 seeks to allow the Boundary Commission for Wales to use a tolerance range of 30%—plus or minus 15%. As was powerfully argued by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the intention is to provide more flexibility to the Boundary Commission for Wales in how it responds to the particular geography of Wales, which in parts is rural and sparsely populated. I do not accept that Wales has been treated, to repeat a phrase that was used, punitively. My noble friend Lord Hayward addressed this point. I and the Government do not believe that equal representation in our Parliament is punitive; it is equal representation, which should apply across England, Wales and Scotland. We all have an equal stake in our union and should be equally represented. Wales, of course, has the great benefit, which England does not, of having its Senedd.

I cannot accept the amendment. As with the other amendments we have discussed, we cannot accept an amendment that will allow a greater degree of variation in the size of considerable numbers of constituencies, in this case only in Wales. We cannot prejudge how the Boundary Commission for Wales might apply this proposed tolerance range, but the result could be that, as was pointed out today, more urban constituencies—for example in Cardiff or Swansea—would have considerably more electors than more rural, less populated constituencies. That variability in electorate size means one thing: voting of differing strengths for the people of different parts of Wales and the people in different parts of the union. Therefore we cannot accept the amendment before the Committee.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and supported by my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. “Shall Trelawney die?”—in my day at school we used to sing these good old songs. I am fully aware of the passion—the word has been used by others—that is rightly held for the history and spirit of Cornwall and Devon. The noble Lord’s amendment looking at Devon and Cornwall seeks to erect inviolable borders around each of those two counties. I am sure this will find great favour in parts of the south-west. In effect, the amendment treats Devon and Cornwall separately, with their own allocation of constituencies, just like the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Once the allocation for Devon and for Cornwall had been set, presumably using the same method as for the four nations—consequential amendments would be needed to establish this, but I will not go into the technicalities of amendments as we are arguing the issue—it would be for the Boundary Commission for England to propose the boundaries of those constituencies within the boundaries of Devon and Cornwall.

EU: Trade and Security Partnership

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord True

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True [V]]

My Lords, the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee next meets on 12 June. I repeat that the Government do not consider an extension of the transition necessary or desirable. It will not happen from a UK Government point of view. The political declaration sets out the potential scope of our future relationship. We and the EU signed up to it, but any agreement based on it must be balanced and represent a balance of benefits to both sides.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard? No? Lord West of Spithead.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord True

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords. I had noted down to say that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had always been constructive in his responses, but I was a bit disappointed when he opened by accusing the Government of duplicity. The Government have been clear from the start that they will stand by their obligations under the protocol. The fundamental issue here is that the protocol exists to ensure that the progress the people of Northern Ireland have made in the 22 years since the Good Friday Agreement, which we all support, is safeguarded and maintained. That means, as both contributors from the Front Benches opposite acknowledged, that this matter must be dealt with delicately, recognising the interests of both groupings within Northern Ireland and addressing both the lawful and reasonable desire of the European Union to protect the single market and the UK’s requirement to protect our own internal market and the inalienable place of Northern Ireland as part of the UK customs territory.

I will try to answer some of the questions raised. I do not want to be diverted by the role of the outstanding Sherpa, Mr Frost. I repeat my comment about the criticism made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, of his role, which she acknowledged and repeated today. Mr Frost is the appointed representative of the Prime Minister in these negotiations. I understand that he will come with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster next week to give evidence and be accountable to your Lordships’ House.

I think it would be fair to say, diplomatically, that the response was not entirely enthusiastic from the parties opposite. The noble Baroness spoke about border checks. We are in the business not of border checks, but of light-touch administrative arrangements that will enable and facilitate trade. It is in the interests of both parties in this negotiation. It is a negotiation and discussion on how we will implement the protocol, not how we will renegotiate it. It is not in the interests of anybody to see a heavy-handed system. Indeed, Monsieur Barnier himself said that it is important that the procedures of the protocol should be as easy as possible and not too burdensome, in particular for smaller businesses. I agree with that and I am sure that noble Lords opposite do.

The noble Baroness rightly asked about business. Many businesses want clarity. I assure her that there have been extensive discussions and consultation with business, but as she will know, the Government are now moving forward as we go into this stage of discussion to establish a business engagement forum on the protocol. We will set out details shortly, but it is obviously important as it goes forward that we draw on the experience of businesses in sectors right across Northern Ireland. The interests of business are fundamental. Again, I hope that the European Union and the United Kingdom would agree in implementing this that the burdens on business should be as light as possible and that neither party should demand excessive burdens.

The noble Baroness asked about unfettered access. I assure her that there will be unfettered access. That is the objective and intention of Her Majesty’s Government and we intend to legislate to achieve that for goods from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom.

As far as smuggling and abuse of the system is concerned, such practices go on at present. They are normally addressed by market surveillance and effective, targeted action. I am sure that market surveillance will continue in the unlikely circumstance that the noble Baroness posits of some mass attempt to subvert legitimate trade.

We intend this to be a light-touch approach. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord were both sceptical on this matter. The forms that the noble Baroness referred to will be processes administered electronically and will be light-touch in action. We will be negotiating and discussing how those matters will be implemented in the joint committee and specialised committee, which were set up under the protocol to provide just these sorts of discussions.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to the Government setting great store by the matter being temporary. A provision for consent was agreed by both sides and in consultation with parties on both sides of the border in the original protocol. The capability exists for the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to alter the situation in four years if they wish to do so, but that matter is entirely for the Northern Ireland Executive and is not being pressed, as was implied in the Statement. Time will see. I hope that we will find an effective way of operating. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory and that bureaucracy will be kept to a minimum.

The noble Lord asked about the idea of an EU office in Belfast. Without wishing to be contrary, I have pointed out in this House that, in the context of wishing to maintain and protect the Good Friday agreement, a physical building of that sort might not be the most light-touch operation, but the British Government of course acknowledge their responsibilities within the protocol to satisfy everyone that the protocol is being complied with. If I might say so, the Belfast office is becoming a little bit of a totem on the side of those who wish to say that Britain is not acceding to its responsibilities. I remind your Lordships that such an office was not provided for in Article 12 of the protocol. How matters are implemented will continue, I hope, to be discussed constructively in the joint committee.

The Government are very grateful for the positive response—rather more positive than we have heard so far—from many people in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive, our friends within Europe and many in the Republic of Ireland. They see the Government’s document as a reasonable, sensible and measured one, on the basis of which we wish to seek a sensible, balanced, workable and practical way forward. It is in that spirit that we will pursue discussions in the next few weeks.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, I will be on the virtual Woolsack for the remainder of this session. We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. I call on the first speaker this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I always try to be honest: I have human frailty, as does everyone else, but I seek to tell the truth. The noble Lord has confirmed what I just said about the content of the protocol. It does not require cement, but it requires the United Kingdom Government—who will themselves, as I underlined, administer these arrangements—to be ready to facilitate methods of assurance by the other party. Those methods of assurance do not need a heavy touch. I do not think that is envisaged by the European Union; certainly it is not by the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom Government’s desire is to build on this agreement and persuade all parties, including the European Union, that this kind of approach satisfies the interests of all parties and does so in a way that puts the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and the peace agreement, first. I hope we can all unite on that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, the day’s Virtual Proceedings are now complete and are adjourned.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord True

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Let me answer my noble friend Lord Elton. If we are not able to move it forward, it will not be just an instruction—he is quite right—but the law. That is different, because it will be the law that will move forward, and we as a Government will struggle with that deliver what we need, which is a safe and secure system that places women at its heart. We will not be able to do so in the time limit we have set out, and that is the reason we have a problem. My noble friend Lord Elton, is absolutely right: we are not talking about an instruction. This is a law that will come into force, which we will have some difficulty trying to maintain and will potentially allow itself to be opened up to further judicial interrogation and review. Ultimately, this will do a disservice to honourable Member in the other place who has tried to move this forward in the manner in which he has.

[Lord True]

This is a minor point, in some ways, but it is fundamental. Nothing can be law unless both Houses agree to it, so while this is not agreed by both Houses and assented to by the monarch, it is a law in the making. I am concerned about the process here, as I referred to in an earlier debate. It is not desirable. In the light of that, in a fast-track process we must have clarity. This has been asked by various Members in this House: what is the guarantee that there will not be a case in Northern Ireland where a child—or foetus, if the Minister likes—is aborted after more than 24 weeks in the period after the passage of this law? What is the guarantee? What is the safeguard in law? What is the case law on the subject? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will able to advise the House before Third Reading.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The challenge that my noble friend sets me is a difficult one. I cannot give a guarantee in that regard because I am not in a position to control the situation in Northern Ireland nor the medical profession. It is beyond my ability to do so. What I have said is that before we have been able to bring in the necessary elements of the new regime, there will be a period during which we will be bound by the established earlier Act from the 1940s which will give the confidence that we are not seeking to undermine in any sense the practice that has gone on there. But we have to recognise that during that limbo period, health practitioners, doctors and others will not be in receipt of guidance from us because we will not be in a position to draft that guidance by that point and that will be the reality that we will face. It is not one, unfortunately, that I can answer or offer or afford any guarantees on.