House of Lords Reform
Lord Fowler Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords—or perhaps in this new era I should say, “Fellow working people”, because we are fellow hard-working Peers—I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the opportunity of this debate. It was the right thing to do, and I am grateful for the way she opened it. Like her, I will listen carefully to everything people say. However, it is regrettable that the business managers in another place have chosen to schedule the passage of a Bill to expel 92 of our fellow Peers on this very same day. How much better, I submit, would we be governed—even, candidly, under Governments in which I served—if those in another place sometimes listened to the advice and opinions of those in this one before they rushed into action.
In my response to the gracious Speech, I spoke about the plans that the Labour Party sprang—that is probably the word—on your Lordships in its manifesto. I need not repeat all I said then, but I stand by it. The plans have three broad characteristics. First, they are sweeping. Overall, between the excepted Peers and those over 80 in 2029, they would remove 375 Members of your Lordships’ House and 60% of the independent Cross-Benchers, and they would increase the weight of prime ministerial patronage.
Secondly, the plans are ill-thought-through. There is no clear statement about what the Government want this House to be or to do, although there is a declaration that the replacement of the whole House is the intended destination, with broad hints that the new House should be an elected one.
Finally, frankly, they are partisan in intent. That is quite legitimate, whether we like it or not. The aim of the Bill now in another place is partisan—it is to remove 88 Peers who do not align themselves with Labour and four who do. We should at least be honest about that. Declared principle cannot mask deep political purpose.
Aside from the partisan, another aspect is notable. It will be unpleasant and some may not like to hear it, but there is no evading it: the execution will have to be done at close quarters, brushing shoulders in the Lobbies as we go to vote for the removal of much-respected colleagues. You can just imagine it—seeing the Long Table and sidling down the other side to avoid sitting next to a colleague we have just voted to expel. That is not who we have ever been. It is not who we are.
There can be no doubt that the Bill being discussed in another place will cause some great hurt, and it will almost inevitably issue in conflict—conflict that may well spill out in quite unpredictable directions. All that is avoidable; there must be a better way. If the pretext for throwing out colleagues who are here under the 1999 Act or those born in the 1940s is not, in fact, partisan, it is often said to be—and has been said again today to be—related to numbers. As noble Lords know, I am not a believer in the numbers crisis; in the quarter century since 1999, there have been only 40 Divisions in the House where more than 500 Peers were here to vote. The average vote in whipped Divisions so far this Session has been 283, with a maximum of 419. Average daily attendance has never surpassed 500 in any Session in the post-1999 House—so call me a sceptic on overcrowding as a pretext for expulsion.
Even supposing that I am wrong and that we should aim for the number of 600, which many have advocated, would any sensible institution wanting that do it by expelling some of the most hard-working and effective Members in its ranks? How will that improve our effectiveness? Out among the 1999 Act Peers are the Strathclydes, the Kinnoulls, the Addingtons, the Howes, the Vauxes—I do not know how you say the plural of Vaux—the Courtowns and the Grantchesters, and out among those born in the 1940s are the Jays, the Blunketts, the Howards of Lympne, the Reids and the Winstons. These are all Peers with a proven capacity for hard work over many years, and there are dozens more on all sides.
If numbers are the issue, there must be a more discerning way than this. Of course, as I have said before, I believe that the fundamental answer is convention—the route that enabled Clem Attlee, outnumbered 10 to one here, to transform Britain for Labour in the 1940s. Perhaps participation is another route, as some have argued—although I would hate to see a House where worth was measured in quantity rather than quality of speeches. My problem is that Labour has never explained how its participation requirement would work and who would measure it—and the noble Baroness did not do that today. When she sums up, will she say what measure of participation was planned when Labour wrote this into its manifesto? She must at least know that. I can see that, if one wanted to reduce numbers, participation would potentially be a more fruitful basis for consideration than removing the best and most active. But both on exclusion—all exclusion—and on participation, it is clear that we would benefit from further reflection and discussion.
This great House is no longer the deposit of ages in which hereditary Peers once inherited a right to sit; it is a House that we created, with massive majorities in both Houses, by an Act of Parliament in 1999. It was created then with an understanding that it should subsist until agreement on reform of the House should be reached. No such reform proposal is on the table. Of course, the Labour Party has a political right to remove former hereditary Peers and people born in the 1940s, but I believe it has a constitutional responsibility to say what follows. It did not do so in 1999 and still has not done so today. All we have is an indeterminate commitment to replace all your Lordships with an alternative House. The implication, clearly stated by the Prime Minister in December 2022, was that this should be “democratically elected”. Sir Keir then said that it should be done quickly. There has been some back-pedalling since, with the Leader of the House back-pedalling particularly furiously—particularly, I understand, in private conversations. But that is still the proposition before us in Labour’s manifesto.
As it happens, having fought seven elections as a candidate in my life and, I regret to say to my Liberal colleagues, having won them all, I have no particular issue with the election principle, and nor does it trouble most other advanced democracies. But there are many, perhaps a majority in this House, who do not want to see that and who believe that nominating Peers under the 1958 Act is the most effective way to constitute a revising Chamber. I think everyone, including me, who knows and loves this great House thinks that, curious though it may seem to others, this House of experience complements the House of Commons and does the vital job that the other place has relinquished over time of scrutinising and revising legislation. Would the exclusion of these Members in the two proposals put forward by the party opposite improve our ability to perform that role? I doubt it.
Whatever one’s view, we can surely agree on one thing: this House is part of our sovereign Parliament and a vital, indeed profound, part of our ancient parliamentary constitution. It has protected many liberties and safeguarded countless citizens from hasty and ill thought-out law. Do we alone not deserve to be safeguarded from hasty and ill thought-out law? Should we not know the details of the fate the Government intend for our House and our Parliament before we begin to vote parts of it through? Should constitutional reform on the scale involved in Labour’s proposals—the progressive purging of this House and its planned replacement by we do not know what—not be the subject of cross-party consideration, whether in a Joint Committee or another consultative process? I submit that it should.
Labour says, “Trust us. Once you agree, albeit with kind words, to remove the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Howe, and 90 others like them, then we will discuss with you. We will discuss with you abandoning our manifesto promise to throw out everyone born in the 1940s at the end of this Parliament. Trust us. If you behave and ease the passing of the 92, then we will consult you on whether we will really implement our manifesto commitment to replace everyone in this House with an alternative Chamber”. What kind of constitutional principle or good practice is that? I am not the totally trusting kind as were, perhaps, the farmers, small businesses, savers, charities, nurseries, shopkeepers and care homes. They were the trusting kind and, in a matter of months, they found their trust broken by the Labour Government. I think we should see the colour of all Labour’s constitutional money before we accept some of its silver.
There must be a better way, a way that satisfies the wish of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches to prevent anyone coming here in future under the 1999 Act. This has always been a House of consensus, compromise and convention. When the Irish peerage was removed from your Lordships’ House in 1922, those who were already Members were allowed to stay. When the appellate jurisdiction legislation was passed in 2009, existing Peers under the 1876 Act were allowed to stay. That is why we continued to have among us the late lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood or the continuing presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and others. The House denied a category of Peer future entry but retained its valued Members, valued their experience and continued to benefit from it. That gradualism, I submit, and not the guillotine, is the House of Lords way. It has served us before and it could serve us again.
After the election, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I made an offer, in the spirit of compromise, that the process of by-elections under the 1999 Act should be suspended for this Session, given the Labour Party’s mandate. We have both been criticised for that by some in our groups, but it was intended to recognise the mandate of the new Government to close the gate to new entry under the 1999 Act, but also to create space for constructive discussion about a consensual way forward in which the Government could be assured that their programme would not be disrupted and in which the House would retain the benefit of its best.
The response so far from the party opposite on the 92 has been to offer no compromise and to stampede to build a guillotine. They are at it down the Corridor as we speak. We can surely do better. What guarantees that a Government’s programme passes is not numbers but convention. As I said on the gracious Speech, I thought it wrong that this House defeated the last Government on record numbers of occasions and with record rounds of ping-pong. Equally, I would think it wrong that the Labour Government should suffer in such a way. In normal circumstances, it would be wrong under this Government.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He has gone on for a long time about consensus. I agree with him on that. Will he therefore explain why he did not support the very good 2016-17 report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would have reduced numbers on a two-out, one-in basis and was approved by the House in a debate? That was consensus. Why did he not support it?
Lord True (Con)
I am speaking of numbers at present. I have addressed that question. The noble Lord understands the principles of collective responsibility; I was a member of the Government and successive Prime Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady May, and her successors—all made it clear that the Government could not assent to those proposals. Our urgent need is to address the future of this House and potential threats to it. There is shared ground across the House to find the best way out of this impasse which will secure the continuation of service to it of the best people here.
I have been slightly distracted. I will reach a conclusion. When I was Leader, I reached out, as did the Convenor of the Cross Benches, in a valuable series of papers on conventions, to suggest discussions to refresh the conventions that guide this House—as the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, did in 2006—to preserve your Lordships’ freedoms and give security to all Governments. I believe that to be the best course. Once again, I ask the Leader, who has intimated that this might be possible, and perhaps those in Whitehall behind her, to move off the narrow ground of composition and on to a broader discussion about how we keep the best of this House and how the conduct of His Majesty’s Government will be guaranteed by convention, as it properly should.
Restoration and Renewal
Lord Fowler Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord has just said about the Government and their role. One of the more misleading statements in the general debate so far—not in this debate this afternoon, but outside—has been that it is all a decision for Parliament. That is patently not the case. If Parliament was to make a decision on financial spending which went over the accepted limits, then it is a pound to a penny that the Government would intervene; there is no doubt about that whatever.
As it is, over the last eight years, government Ministers such as Mr Rees-Mogg have not thought twice about intervening in the debate of Parliament. Even more to the point, Governments can take decisions which limit the action of Parliament. If we take the issue of a decant of Members—I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about Members working while it is going on, and I do not want to argue the case because he has done it so well, as have others—the obvious place is the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre.
However, the former Secretary of State, Mr Gove, whose department ran the centre, said bluntly—rather like a 19th century mill owner—that this was not acceptable to him and that the House of Lords should not go to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre but hundreds of miles away. We have a position where a Secretary of State—here yesterday and gone today—appointed by a Prime Minister who is still here today but gone tomorrow has vetoed the most sensible proposal for a decant of this House, if it ever decided to go that way. I hope that the Leader of the House in replying to this debate will say if the veto on the Queen Elizabeth II Centre is still part of the Government’s policy—or was it just Mr Gove’s policy and not the Government’s? It is rather a crucial question. If we cannot go to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, that limits where a decant could go.
I cannot resist saying in passing that I am puzzled by a process that has a commercial conference centre run by the Government and not the private sector. I see that my old friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, is here. We worked together very early on in the Thatcher Government in transport. We found a company called National Freight Corporation, which included a removals company called Pickfords. We came to the conclusion that you did not need a nationalised removals company in this country. I do not think its abolition as such has caused any controversy with any known political party.
In my position as a—what am I?
Lord Fowler (CB)
In my position as a Cross-Bencher, I think that it is a very odd position for the Conservative Party. I do not believe that it is in our national advantage. I gently say that it might be better for the Government to go down the privatisation route in this area rather than in one or two others that they seem to support.
That brings me to my second point about the joint report. Frankly, I did not find it to be the clearest exposition of the case or the clearest piece of writing. I give one example, from page 6:
“The Panel recommends that the parameters ‘should be augmented by clear evaluation criteria’ which are designed to support option assessment, and key trade-offs which will need to be made to arrive at a progressively shorter list of possible options for the works. These criteria should take account of longer-term perspectives and link to the programme’s end-state vision and intended outcomes.”
I am sure that that is persuading people around the country to be in favour of this report, but I am not altogether sure that it persuades me. There is much in the joint report about generalised vision but precious little about some of the real issues, such as the real cost of eight years of work—carried out prior to what is now called a “new mandate”—that we are turning our backs on.
Thirdly and finally, after the Great Fire of 1834, to which the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, referred, various efforts were made to agree a rebuilding plan, and it took 30 or 40 years for it all to be agreed. We should learn from that. I am concerned not just because of the complexity of the task but because of the many interests, including the Government’s and government Ministers’, all intervening at the same time. Unless we are very careful, we are likely to face exactly the same kind of indecision and delay as they did in the Victorian times—we have certainly done that in the first eight years. So far, we lack both leadership in this project and a determination to stay on the plan.
I agreed with the spirit and almost every word of what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, but I was not encouraged when the Leader of the House said that it would take “decades” to complete this project—I think I quote her right. Is it really going to take decades? If it is, we are in for a certain amount of difficulty. We need to get on with this; we should decide a plan and stick to it, rather than having the kind of debate and discourse that we have had over the last eight years.
Tributes: Lord Fowler
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (CB)
A very few words. I thank the Leaders, the Convenor of the Cross Benches—who is now my boss—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and, of course, the Lord Speaker, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Faulkner, for their very kind and generous remarks. Had I known that this was the collective view, I might not have stood down quite as early as I did—but, seriously, I am very grateful. I did not know that the Front Bench was so enthusiastic about Private Notice Questions, but I hope that will be noted by all Back-Benchers. Seriously, I am very grateful, and it has been a great pleasure working with them all.
I am also grateful for the good wishes in my new post as ambassador for UNAIDS. I know that it was just a coincidence, but I noted that my appointment came at a time when the Government cut aid to the organisation by 80%, but that is perhaps an issue for another time.
Most of all, my thanks and tributes go to the Members of this House for their help and encouragement over the last five years. I do not thank just Members; I also thank the excellent staff that we are fortunate enough to have in this House. I must mention my own private office, which has been quite exceptional. I mention in particular on this day the appointment of Chloe Mawson as Clerk Assistant, announced earlier today; 10 to 15 years ago, she was invaluable to me in setting up the first Select Committee on Communications, which I chaired. I was always very grateful for that assistance.
It has been a great privilege to have been Lord Speaker. Having served almost five years in this job and seen the Lords at work, I can say with some authority that my view is that there is a range of talents here that serve this nation very well.
Lastly, I say this to the Lord Speaker personally: thank you for your quite exceptional help over the last five years. No one could have been better supported than I was by you. Lord Speaker, we all now look forward to your period of office and wish you the very best of fortune in the future. Thank you very much.
Election of Lord Speaker
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the comments of the Lord Privy Seal and offer our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, on his election as the next Lord Speaker of your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, may recall that, when he was newly elected, we congratulated the Lord Speaker on breaking through the glass ceiling as the first male occupant of that post —there are very few times that us women can say that. There will be time later to pay proper tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but at this stage I want to thank him for his service to this House. We look forward to the opportunity to pay tribute to his work.
This was an unusual election and I think that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, the whole House will want to thank the officials of the House, the Hansard Society, and Mark D’Arcy and Jackie Ashley for hosting the hustings. I also want to thank the other candidates; I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McFall, will join me in this and has probably been in touch already. It was a difficult election and all the candidates showed the best of your Lordships’ House. As those of us who have done so in other lives know, standing for election is always difficult; you want to win and need to be prepared to lose. They all showed this House at its best and showed themselves at their best. They gave us an excellent and difficult choice, but from these Benches we send our warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I have worked with him for many years already, but look forward to working with him in his new role.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, if I may add this briefly, I first met the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in the House of Commons when he came up to congratulate me on a political book that I had written. I of course immediately recognised him as a man of sound judgment and discernment. But over almost the last five years, I have recognised him as a man of action who brings forward his plans to completion and success. No Lord Speaker could have had a better or more loyal deputy, and no Lord Speaker has ever had a better preparation for the Woolsack as the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I congratulate all three candidates on the way that they have conducted their campaigns but, today, I congratulate him most sincerely and wish him the very best of luck for the future.
Tributes: Baroness Williams of Crosby
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I will just add this very briefly. I saw Shirley Williams in action both in the Commons and in the Lords. When I was in the Commons as a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, I did not get the impression that she was one of our natural supporters. She was in fact a formidable critic, but I will say that she was always fair in her criticism. When she came to this House, as we all remember, she retained that fairness of judgment. I remember with gratitude her support for my campaign on phone hacking, for example.
Above all, I will remember her for one thing: in an age when politicians are criticised, rightly or wrongly, for being more interested in what they can get out of politics, she was entirely motivated by what she could give, what contribution she could make to the public good—and her contribution was vast. I will remember her as a true politician and an example to us all.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I am very glad that I do not have to answer those questions, because I do not know the answers. However, I want to add a few words from these Benches, paying tribute on behalf of the Lords spiritual. My colleagues and I have greatly benefited from Ed Ollard’s sound judgment, diligent support and practical guidance in his time as the Clerk of the Parliaments. We on these Benches are immensely grateful for his calm and steady stewardship during, as others have said, this very unpredictable time. Navigating a unique transition to a hybrid Parliament, the role of the Clerk of the Parliaments has been challenging. He has met it head on, and it is a testament to his adaptability that your Lordships’ House has functioned so well and effectively during this pandemic. We warmly welcome Simon Burton to the role and very much look forward to working with him, but today, we want to say a huge “thank you” to Ed Ollard and to wish him all the best for the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, before I put the Question on the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, I add that Ed has been invaluable during my time as Lord Speaker. The advice he has given on a range of issues has been an enormous support. His approach was always cautious. On more than one occasion, he counselled that what I was proposing would not be appropriate, and what was worse was that he was always right. Importantly, he always spoke with authority, and the Deputy Speakers also thank him for the enormous support that he gave.
When Ed assumed office as the Clerk of the Parliaments in 2017, little did he know what lay ahead. His advice and practical guidance acted as a bedrock during one of the most tumultuous periods in recent political history, as the United Kingdom left the European Union and the House found itself at the heart of a landmark Supreme Court case. Recently, of course, he has led the radical procedural changes and wholesale operational transformation that has enabled the House to keep working during the Covid-19 crisis. It was an enormous achievement.
On behalf of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the Deputy Speakers and the whole House, I express very sincere gratitude and wish Ed a very happy and well-deserved retirement.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
To move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows—
“Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to convey to Your Majesty the heartfelt sympathy of this House on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
Prince Philip gave selfless public service to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth for over seventy years. He will be remembered for His distinguished Naval service in the Second World War and, following marriage to Your Majesty, for His energy and commitment across so many areas of national life, including conservation, science and technology, design, sport and Your Armed Forces. His major achievement in creating the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme has transformed the lives of millions of young people around the world. Above all His role at the side of Your Majesty, supporting Your life of service as our Sovereign and encouraging the work of Your family, has been a steadfast presence for us all.
We assure Your Majesty that His memory will be held dear by those who knew Him and honoured in the history of our country. Our prayers join with those of the entire nation for His Royal Highness, and for Your Majesty and all the Royal Family at this sad time of loss and sorrow.”
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, it is right that we come together today, in person and virtually, to pay tribute to His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Our thoughts are first and foremost with Her Majesty the Queen, who has lost the person whom she described as her “strength and stay”. The humble Address rightly conveys the heartfelt sympathy of this House and assures Her Majesty and all the Royal Family of our prayers. Together with them, we mourn.
The nation and the whole Commonwealth has lost one of its greatest figures, but let us also remember that he was a Member of this House. He was introduced on 21 July 1948, just before Earl Mountbatten of Burma—someone who was supremely formative in his early life. Although he never spoke in this House, he attended countless times alongside Her Majesty the Queen for the State Opening of Parliament. The images of them walking through the Royal Gallery and seated on the Thrones behind me are some of the most iconic of our age.
Looking beyond the splendour and pageantry, however, it is an image that goes to the heart of their relationship. It speaks of patience, constancy and fidelity. The visible presence of Prince Philip alongside Her Majesty the Queen for over seven decades provides a glimpse into the unique role he played in private, supporting Her Majesty and serving the Crown humbly and selflessly. Today, we give thanks for the sacrifices he made and for the immeasurable good that he did. His legacy will live on, as will our sincere gratitude.
I now call on the Lord Privy Seal to move the Motion for the humble Address.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Marland. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Questions for Written Answers
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have asked the Department of Health and Social Care specifically about very long-delayed Answers, which I agree are deeply regrettable. The number is coming down; I understand that there are only a handful. Often the reason for such a delay is either the practical difficulty of gathering data or the rapidity with which the policy environment is moving, precluding an accurate answer being formulated.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Business of the House
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord says “Hear, hear”, but he must be embarrassed by this—I forgot, he is past embarrassment—because with just 15 days to go, there is no clarity about the terms on which we will engage, do business or co-operate on security with the EU. That is not just an embarrassing position for businesses struggling with the twin challenges of the uncertainties of Brexit and the hokey-cokey of tiers, where they may be in lockdown or shutdown. It is embarrassing for the UK to have got this far.
Most of us in your Lordships’ House understand that the worst possible option for the UK would be a no-deal exit from the EU. I appreciate that we have seen some efforts in the last few days to reach a deal, but it was quite extraordinary listening to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who has now left the Chamber, saying on the last Question how much effort has gone into securing medical supplies, for example, in the event of no deal. If only so much effort had been put into securing a deal earlier on. A little over a year ago the Prime Minister said, when he was in Dublin for talks, that no deal would be a “failure of statecraft”. I really hope that, with just 15 days to go before we crash out of the EU, so dangerously close to the wire, we will not see that failure of statecraft and no deal.
We stand ready to be recalled as and when required to ensure that we do not plunge the UK into a crash-out crisis. I hope that, even before the House rises tomorrow, we may get some clarity on this. There is huge uncertainty across the nation and the Government must bear responsibility for that.
I hope we will have the opportunity tomorrow to pay the usual tributes to staff as the House rises, but I join the noble Baroness in her thanks. The staff of the House and Peers—from the most important Peer in the House, the Lord Speaker, right down to the cleaners who clean our offices, for which we are very grateful, the catering staff, the doorkeepers and everybody—have gone to tremendous efforts to ensure that we can function, in however limited a way. They all deserve a very merry Christmas.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
That is very kind of the noble Baroness. I call the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, of course I share the noble Baroness’s view about the importance of the Lord Speaker and, indeed, all those who have made the House work so well. I have to say, my office has never been as clean as it currently is, and I am extremely grateful for it.
On the Trade Bill, one just wonders what has been happening in the Department for International Trade which meant that it realised there was a gap in the legislation only a few days ago. It has been obvious for ages that we were not going to get through the Trade Bill proper, so it is rather worrying that this panic-stations Bill has had to be introduced.
As for Parliament being recalled at some point between now and the new year, there is of course precedent for Parliament to sit on Christmas Day; in 1654, there was an extremely erudite discussion on a number of major issues, although with a rather thin House. Given that the Government appear to have no idea whether they are likely to get a deal or not—or, if so, when—could the noble Baroness at least give the House an assurance that Parliament will not be required to sit during the five days, literally over Christmas, when households are able to meet together? We all have plans over Christmas, and some of us would want to come back and give what little scrutiny we can to this very major piece of legislation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I participated in a debate in the other House when Parliament was recalled when the Falkland Islands were invaded. However, since I came into Parliament in 1979, through the Falklands and through the resignations of Prime Ministers and all sorts of other crises, I have never known such chaos as we have at the moment. The chaos is not because of the epidemic—in fact, this House has dealt with the Covid epidemic very well and is operating very well, and I pay tribute to all involved—but is the man-made chaos of Brexit. It really is astonishing that we are dealing with this. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said. It is astonishing that this House, and this Parliament, are dealing with it in this way.
Nevertheless, I take this opportunity of wishing everyone, and particularly the Leader of the House—because she does deserve it—a very merry Christmas.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Does anyone else wish to speak? No. I call the Lord Privy Seal.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that we will be returning to the Trade Bill. I believe it is scheduled for the first week back, and it will be in Forthcoming Business when that is published either later today or tomorrow. I hope that that reassures her concerns.
As I said in my opening comments, I absolutely accept that this has been done at very short notice. I apologise to your Lordships’ House for that. I thank the usual channels for their co-operation in dealing with this, because we do need these clauses in place during this short period. At one point we were going to add these to the future relationship Bill, but obviously that has not come forward. To be honest, that is part of the reason why, I am afraid, they have come as a stand-alone Bill.
However, notwithstanding the comments of noble Lords, negotiations are ongoing, and I think we all believe that that is absolutely right. All efforts are being made to secure a deal, and I know that is what we are all hoping for. That is why, although we intend to break tomorrow, we all stand ready to do our duty, should we need to, over the course of Christmas, as the noble Baroness said. I am afraid I cannot say any more than that on timings or anything else, but we will of course keep noble Lords updated. I thank everybody for their patience, and once again wish them a happy Christmas.
Covid-19 Update
Lord Fowler Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and questions. First, they are right to point out some of the statistics to highlight the situation we are in. As the noble Baroness rightly said, there are now more people in hospital with Covid than when we went into lockdown on 23 March, and the number of people testing positive for Covid has quadrupled in the last three weeks, so we are very cognisant, as I know we all are in this House, of the issues that face us.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness referenced the need for action in September. We did take robust and proportionate action when introducing measures in England, including the rule of six and the 10 pm curfew, which we discussed in this House, as well as advising people to work from home when they can. Each of those was carefully judged to protect lives and reduce transmission, while minimising the impact on people’s livelihoods.
So, we did take robust action, but with the step change in cases, more action is needed, which is why we made the decision to move to the tiered approach. The reason we have gone for the tiered approach rather than the circuit breaker is that, as the Prime Minister said to the leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s Question Time today, the disease is appearing more strongly in some areas and regions than others, which is a different situation from March. That is why we are introducing this approach, which can be tailored more effectively to local situations. However, having said that, we regularly, and will regularly, keep measures under review to ensure that we are always taking the best action we can.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned evidence. Evidence is considered by SAGE and its advice is published regularly online when it is no longer under live consideration for policy decisions. That is exactly what happened in this case. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we will continue to take advice from a wide range of scientific and medical experts, as we have done throughout the pandemic, to inform our decisions. We are, as the noble Baroness rightly said, constantly having to evaluate the balance between protecting the NHS, saving lives, keeping our economy moving and keeping our children in school. These are very difficult issues to balance and I think the tone of the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s questions, which I very much welcome, expresses the gravity of the situation and the difficult decisions that are being made.
I can assure the noble Baroness that as a member of Cabinet I have regular briefings, along with my Cabinet colleagues, from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser about the latest data. As I have said, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have to take decisions based on the best available science, along with considerations of the economic, operational, social and policy implications that follow, and that is what we do.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both reiterated criticisms of the test and trace system. I remind noble Lords that our daily capacity for testing is now around 340,000, with the aim of reaching more than 500,000 by the end of October. We increased capacity by around 30% in September alone. We are testing at a higher rate than other European countries and we have assembled the largest testing network in our history, including 96 NHS labs, 151 walk-in sites, 258 mobile testing sites and 77 regional sites. We are also looking to combine, as effectively as possible, the national framework and local expertise, which is why, since August, NHS test and trace has provided local authorities with dedicated teams of contact tracers to work alongside local public health officials to provide a more specialist service. We have provided more than £300 million to local authorities to help with this and, across the country now, we have 95 local authority contact tracing teams that are live, and more are coming online in the coming weeks. We have been very cognisant of some of the criticisms and are improving the situation on the ground. More than 700,000 people have been contacted and advised to isolate through the system and the latest figures show that more than 82% of contacts were reached and asked to self-isolate where contact details were provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about moving between tiers. Decisions on which areas are in which tier are made on a number of factors, including the rate of transmission, how quickly it is increasing and the effectiveness of current interventions, as well as hospitalisations and hospital capacity. Of course, all is also done in line with work and conversations with local leaders to discuss all their evidence and what they are seeing on the ground. It is a collaborative effort, but a range of factors is taken into account.
The noble Lord also asked about the Harrogate Nightingale Hospital. I am not sure whether he is aware, but it is currently being used. CT scanners have been made available to provide people with safer and faster access for a range of conditions, including cancer. As he will be aware, there are two hospitals providing that kind of support, Harrogate and Exeter, and another three Nightingale hospitals in some of the areas with the highest rates have been put on standby in order that they can play their part, along with the rest of our fantastic NHS, as we deal with this crisis.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
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.