House of Lords Reform
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
Functioning of Government
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
I do not agree with the tenor of the remarks of my noble friend. The announcements on Cabinet appointments were made this morning, and the list is available. It is not the case that all who were in office before will be returning to office—some may and some may not; this is a matter for the Prime Minister. But the Cabinet posts have been filled already.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, following up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, surely the transitional process can be quickened up; it is not written in stone that it should last for three months. It must be possible to allow the constituencies to have their say much more quickly—it is very important that they have their say. It is much better to do that than to try to find some substitute figure to come in as an alternative Prime Minister. In any event, we have far too many people playing in this game. Why do we not just quicken up the process?
Lord True (Con)
I think many of us would agree with my noble friend’s sentiments. I have set out the constitutional position which always applies when a Prime Minister resigns—it applied when Mr Cameron went, when Mr Blair went and when Mrs May went. The Prime Minister will continue until a successor is in place. I agree that that should not take too long, and I also agree that the would-be candidates should be examined to some degree. The position in the parliamentary party is a matter for the 1922 Committee, not for me. I believe an announcement will be made shortly. Ditto, as far as the Conservative Party is concerned; I am sure the announcement will be made. In so far as I as an individual have a view, I agree with my noble friend’s sentiments.
House of Lords: Appointments
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there are a lot of questions there. The original Question, which I answered, was whether there are plans to reform the current system of appointments to this House, and I repeat that there are not. So far as numbers are concerned, I did not notice the noble Lord being reticent when he was advising Mr Tony Blair on appointing Labour Peers.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask a question about hereditary by-elections. Can it be right that membership of this House can be by an exclusive back door marked “hereditary Peers only”? Why will the Government not introduce the kind of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was talking about? Reforming legislation to remove anomalies like that would be widely welcomed, not least by this House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to a back door. The back door is actually the law of the land, a statute passed by Parliament. Hereditary Peers continue to contribute to the work of your Lordships’ House through committee memberships and in debates in the Chamber, and I think they do so in an outstanding manner.
House of Lords: Appointments Process
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (CB)
The Minister mentioned me. I said it should not be the formative reason why someone is appointed to this House. Making a political donation should not be an automatic passport into the House of Lords. That is the—I think for most people unexceptionable —proposal that I made.
Lord True (Con)
I am surprised by my noble friend’s phrase, “an automatic passport”. If one looks at the record of people who have come in under the rubric he cited, including a noble Lord who is often mentioned here, one will find that they have made extraordinary and large-scale philanthropic contributions to society. One needs to see an individual in the whole and a House in the round.
Volunteering and supporting a political party are part of our civic democracy. Political parties are part of public service. In Britain, taxpayers do not have to bankroll political parties’ campaigning. Political parties have to raise money themselves and follow transparency and compliance rules that are laid out in law. Those who oppose fundraising need to explain how much they want taxpayers to pay for state funding instead.
I must conclude. In time, we will have an opportunity to discuss the favourite topic of my noble friend, as I like to call him, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. On 3 December there is a debate on the issue that he and others have put before the House in relation to hereditary Peers.
In conclusion, I repeat that the constitutional position in this country is that the Prime Minister is responsible for advising Her Majesty on appointments to the House. The Government do not see the case for changing this. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament and the people for nominations he makes to the House and how he conducts that work. The Government do not plan to establish a committee—
Hereditary Peers: By-elections
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend puts forward an interesting suggestion. Some would say that what was proposed in 1999 worked well at the time, but I repeat that the Government believe that reform must be considered very carefully. I take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, for those of us who support the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it is a matter not of personalities but of closing a backdoor that gives membership to this House —perhaps I should say another backdoor. I hope that the Government realise that the reputation of this House is not so strong that we can maintain arrangements that seem indefensible to the vast majority of this country. Perhaps the Government do not mind this, but many in this House do.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend talks about backdoors. Of course, the proposition before us would be a backdoor to the creation of an all-appointed House with no assent by people or Commons.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend puts his finger on a key issue that I alluded to in my reply to the noble Baroness opposite, in terms of the scale of the undertaking that would be required. I agree—government publishes data on meetings between Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and external interests. Regulation must balance the need for transparency on third-party lobbyists while not preventing engagement by the voluntary and private sector. These issues require and will receive very careful consideration. I can assure all noble Lords that the matter of integrity in public life is something that this Government take profoundly seriously.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end.
Mobile Telephones: Public Emergency Alert System
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is slightly wider than my responsibility, but the Government are committed to extending coverage as far and as fast as they possibly can. On the specific question, emergency alerts will be available for the whole United Kingdom. Telecoms is a reserved matter, but the Government intend to work with the DAs to enable them to use this new capability within their own jurisdictions to save lives in an emergency.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, so we now move to the second Oral Question.
COVID-19 Vaccine Certification
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Lord rightly sets out a number of issues that will have to be considered as the review goes forward. As the Prime Minister has said, there are deep and complex issues that we need to explore. We shall certainly draw on outside advice and opinion as we go forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. He is not here, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, my right honourable friend is currently scoping the approach to the review. On the point made by the noble Baroness, I repeat what the Prime Minister said: we will reach out to get the best moral, philosophical and ethical viewpoints on this issue. That will include all the points raised in this House today.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. That brings Question Time to an end.
Covid-19: May Elections
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it will be done through every mechanism and through both national and local means. Obviously, as the noble Baroness who just spoke said, local authorities bear a major burden here. We have tried to simplify the system. We recognise not only that some people will not be able to provide proof of Covid symptoms but that doing so would place unnecessary pressure on the health service, so we will not ask for attestation. However, all other security measures will remain in place to ensure electoral integrity.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Vaccination Passport
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the Government’s objective is a safe and sustainable return to international travel. By a miracle of science and endeavour, this and other countries have good—outstanding—vaccines. We have a fine rollout programme right across the four nations. Everybody should support and get behind that programme, the vaccines and the people who are working on them.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, which brings Question Time to an end.
Political Parties: Expenditure Limits
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
That is an interesting suggestion. As a former leader of a London borough, I am not sure where I should go in responding to it. It is certainly true that modes of campaigning are changing and may well continue to change. On my noble friend’s specific point, I will take it on advice and refer it to the Minister for the Constitution.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have not noticed the Green Party fail to target its efforts on specific constituencies, but the noble Baroness may be able to advise me otherwise. I do not think it would be sensible practice to seek to reduce donations to levels that might be achieved by the least popular parties in the country. The truth is that many individuals—whether trade unionists or others—contribute a great deal of money to the larger parties, and I think their contributions should be welcomed and esteemed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
National Risk Register
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I said before, in my judgment—and in that of the Government—it is too early to draw all the lessons from the Covid emergency. Some tend to underestimate its novelty and gravity. This Government and all Governments in the world have sought to respond in the best interests of their peoples. We have drawn on the lessons from the pandemic review, as will be seen when any examination or inquiry takes place.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
House of Lords Appointments Commission
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I disagree that appointments are damaging the reputation of the House, as keeps being put. I am grateful that all noble Lords are, as I am, jealous of the reputation of the House, but if quantity of appointments were the issue, it would have been badly damaged under a previous Administration. The noble Baroness referred also to appointments of hereditary Peers. If we are talking of statutory matters, I suggest that the House of Lords looks at the statute on this matter.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, a large number of considerations were wrapped up in that beguiling question. There is an argument that, as this House is not elected, its reputation rests on its expertise and that therefore a considerable number of Members might be desirable, as they bring their expertise here. I simply rest on the point that we should not be carried away by, sadly, a political attack on a particular individual. All noble Lords should be prepared to welcome all our new colleagues, when they come to your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked. I apologise for seeking to bring proceedings to a close a little prematurely.
Covid-19: Public Health Information
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. In terms of reaching all vulnerable groups, those without access to the internet are important. This is taken into consideration. I can assure the noble Lord that the performance of the Covid campaign is reviewed in detail twice a week between the centre and agencies, but I will underline the significance of the specific point he raised.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Summit of Democratic Governments
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(3 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have not mentioned President-elect Biden and his initiative on democracies—the noble Lord puts words that were never in my mouth. The Government will support any initiative from whatever quarter, including the President-elect, to promote democracy in the world.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and that finishes Question Time.
Ministerial Code
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, I cannot comment on the details of the investigation or on who was involved. I think that many would be surprised by my noble friend’s hypothesis. However, I can say again that the Prime Minister has reviewed the matter, including Sir Alex Allan’s report, and does not consider that the code was breached. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary have issued a letter setting out the joint responsibilities of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. As my noble friend implies, there is a duty on both sides to work together harmoniously. I believe that we should now all get on with the job of doing good public service.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end.
Home Secretary: Allegations of Bullying
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has made an important point. As I have indicated to the House, full assistance is provided to those who make complaints. There is also a facility to make complaints without the disclosure of names. I agree with what the noble Lord has about the Valuing Everyone training, and I confirm to the House that all Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have either taken Parliament’s important Valuing Everyone training or have made arrangements to do so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we have dealt with all the supplementary questions.
Civil Servants: Public Procurement
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my first Answer, humility, respect for proper conduct and ethics are the best guide for any person at any level or in any place in public service. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Question.
EU: Non-financial Services
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Before the Minister replies, I remind Members that we have now gone for four and a half minutes and have had only two questions. If people could keep their questions short, it would be much appreciated by the House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot answer all the questions that the noble Lord has asked, for the reasons discussed, but I will seek out the answer to his question on his report. So far as reciprocal arrangements are concerned, I repeat what I said earlier: namely, that the Government are seeking to make progress but there are technical delays in the negotiations as a result of the EU’s position.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government are not giving a running commentary on the negotiations. We remain in close contact with our EU counterparts. There were discussions yesterday and we look forward to the next round of talks in London next week. I can promise my noble friend that we will publish the agenda for that next round towards the end of the week as usual.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the two Members who have been excluded.
Parliament: Restoration and Renewal Project
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, a number of factors have been raised by noble Lords during our various exchanges of which I have taken careful note, and the considerations that my noble friend has put forward are among those. Indeed, they were alluded to in the Prime Minister’s letter, along with timelines, the effect on the work of Parliament and so on, which were specifically referred to.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, I certainly endorse what the noble Baroness said: we have no quarrel whatever with the Russian people, their great culture and their achievements. I have said that we are fully aware of the activities of the current regime. The Government are fully engaged at all times in trying to protect the integrity of democratic processes within this country.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True [V]
My Lords, again, I cannot anticipate the announcements that the Government will make. The noble Lord is quite right, as always: the Act stipulates that the majority on the committee should be Members of the House of Commons, but it says nothing about the others.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: UK-wide Discussions
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. [Inaudible.]
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I am sorry to interrupt but the reception is so bad on this Question that I ask the House to adjourn briefly, for five minutes, so that we can get the difficulties sorted out.
Lord True [V]
My Lords, regardless of where a person lives, if they are in Wales, they are subject to Welsh rules, and vice versa if they are in England. That is a clear position and one that I reiterate.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed; I thank noble Lords for taking part today. That concludes the hybrid proceedings on Oral Questions.
National Risk Register
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, everything should be subject to rigorous and unrelenting questioning. I agree with my noble friend about updating; it so happens that the current iteration has been drafted and circulated for consideration. But, in the light of what my noble friend said, he will understand that that iteration will come after the full absorption of the lessons and experience of the Covid crisis. But I assure him that its publication will come as soon as possible, once those lessons have been absorbed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I congratulate colleagues on the fact that we got through all 10 questions on this occasion. The third Oral Question is from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
EU: Plans for No Deal
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, we have put into law a withdrawal agreement, including the NI protocol, and that is the basis of our continuing policy. The Government have published a number of documents which have been laid before your Lordships’ House on our approach to negotiations and, most recently, on the Northern Ireland protocol. That is the basis on which we are proceeding, in good faith and hope.
Lord True
My Lords, I cannot give a particular figure in reply to the noble Baroness, but, as I have tried to stress to her before, the Government recognise fully the importance of securing the internal market with Northern Ireland and will do all in their power to assist with that and to maintain the position that exists now.
The Lord Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in Question Time. That concludes the Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions. The Virtual Proceedings will resume at a convenient point after 12 noon for the Private Notice Question on Hong Kong.
Covid-19: Restrictions
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
European Union: Future Relationship
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, various decisions on future arrangements under the Covid crisis will be considered in due course. On my noble friend’s main question, there is a clear mandate from the British people to leave the European Union. We have left the European Union and Parliament has enacted that the transition period will end on 31 December. The Government are conducting themselves in accordance with the direction of the British people and the direction of Parliament.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Lord Hope of Craighead. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, then.
Lord True
No, my Lords. That is again a lengthy question with various premises in it. The Government are confident that we will have appropriate arrangements in place for the end of the year, but I remind the noble Lord that our objective is a free trade agreement with the European Union. I hope very much that that will be the outcome of the negotiations.
The Lord Speaker
I call the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, then. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, seven months ago the Government presented to Parliament the political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship which did not talk about a free trade area, but rather about,
“an ambitious broad, deep and flexible partnership”
including
“foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of co-operation.”
The paper presented to us by the Government in February set out a much narrower free trade agreement, as the Minister has just said. It says nothing about a wider partnership. Should we now accept that the declaration made last October is no longer a reference point for the Government’s negotiations?
Lord True
Yes, I certainly agree with my noble friend, and the Government believe that that will be possible. The Government are asking nothing of the European Union that it has not agreed in free trade agreements with other nations. On fisheries—I should declare an interest as a descendent of six generations of fishermen—the Government’s position is that Britain will be an independent coastal state; we will make our own arrangement but we will negotiate with all parties, as is done with Norway, on the future use of what will be our waters.
The Lord Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I just mention in passing that it is rather intervening to hear announcements that noble Lords are “now exiting”. If they could stay until the end, I would be grateful.
House of Lords: Membership
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, as a matter of fact, the recent history is not of numbers increasing. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for the inventive and constructive suggestions they have made and commend the spirit with which many in the House are following them. However, the longer-term proposals of the committee to maintain a steady-state size require further careful thought and wider engagement, particularly with the House of Commons. That was a point made by the previous Prime Minister.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I think we can take it that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is not there, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.
Lord True
No, my Lords. This matter has been given extensive debate—I think “extensive” is a fair word in the context of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The Government’s position remains that reform of the House of Lords should be considered at the due and appropriate time, and not conducted in a piecemeal fashion.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I very much apologise to those Members who were not able to ask their supplementary questions.
EU: Negotiations
Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord True(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Does the noble Lord want to say something more? It seems not.