National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I will briefly respond to that. I am asking for an impact assessment of the Bill. The Bill does not incorporate the whole Budget; it incorporates one policy decision, which is the focus of my amendment. It is clear that I am open to drafting suggestions. I have already spent some time with the noble Lord today in another committee on drafting improvements and I am sure that, between us, we could come up with some better words.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as an employer.

It is incredible to me that His Majesty’s Government should be seeking to impose an increase in national insurance for employers without taking a proper look at what the effect will be. The extra costs will be difficult to cope with for all businesses, but disproportionately so for small businesses. They lack the flexibility and the ability to manoeuvre that can exist in larger corporations. This will be especially true for smaller manufacturing businesses, which are being hammered by the Government from more than one direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, was good enough to say that it is reasonable to set out the rationale for the points we want to make. In my view, this is important, as the increase in national insurance comes on top of many other things that impede business. By itself, it might be bearable, in so far as any tax is bearable, but, on top of everything else—some of which I will mention—it is a significant problem, especially for those smaller companies that this amendment is about.

Before going into the detail of my arguments, I wish to endorse the comments made by noble Lords—most recently the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—that exemptions that complicate tax structure are a bad thing in principle. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on the first group of amendments, there are cases where they are justified.

One reason why the proposed increase in national insurance will be particularly difficult for smaller manufacturing businesses, and why an impact assessment is needed, is electricity and gas costs in this country, which, roughly speaking, are double those of our competitors in Europe. This is caused by the lunatic rush to net zero which, among other things, has nearly destroyed the steel industry, which is now on its last legs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

As my noble friend says, you get a knighthood—possibly even a barony. If you get something wrong, throw more money at it until it becomes an embarrassment that can no longer be hidden and hushed up. HS2’s original budget was £37.5 billion. Only when the estimated cost has risen to £90 billion—and counting—is the project being reined in. The idea of spending £100 million on a bat shelter defies the imagination. I mean: who could have thought of that one?

As economists are being quoted, might I quote Professor Milton Friedman? He said:

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand”.


What the Government should do is what anybody in this Room, faced with the same problem in their own life—too much spending and not enough income—would do: cut spending to solve the problem. Given that that is unlikely to happen, will His Majesty’s Government carefully consider what they are doing and try to reduce some of the negative consequences of this increase in national insurance for employers? A sensible first step would be to prepare a proper impact assessment for those small companies, often described as the engine of the economy.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, we have a lot of sympathy for the amendments in this group. My noble friend Lady Kramer has added her name to Amendment 22.

It is absolutely right that we should be concerned about the effects of the proposed NICs rise on small businesses. These businesses are at the heart of our economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, said several Prime Ministers ago:

“There are over 5.7 million Small to Medium Enterprises in the UK. They are the engine of growth in our economy, driving innovation and greater productivity, finding solutions and creating jobs”.


In fact, our SMEs provide 16.6 million jobs—60% of the total number in the United Kingdom. Their total turnover is estimated at £2.8 trillion. They are in many ways more important than much larger businesses—certainly when it comes to providing jobs—but they are probably more vulnerable than large businesses to these NIC changes, with less ability to absorb increased costs. The SME landscape is very varied, but it seems vital for us to be able to assess the likely effects of the proposals before us on different sizes of SMEs.

That is why I note in particular Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As she explained, this amendment proposes an impact assessment of the provisions in Clause 2 on employers with an annual turnover of less than £1 million, less than £5 million and less than £10 million before the changes in the clause can be brought about; these are probably the sizes of business that are most likely to have difficulty dealing with the additional costs imposed by this Bill. It would have been good to have had such an impact assessment before these debates, but Amendment 33 would go some way to putting that right, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, remarked—pace the charge of underspecification from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. Perhaps the Minister could provide us with more granular estimates of the effects of Clause 2 on the smaller SMEs even if he cannot, or will not, provide us with the traditional, full and necessary impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

There is another impact. Thinking back to meeting that payroll at the end of the month, I say that it is not just the national insurance but also that the payroll has gone up because of the national minimum wage. Where will that money come from in a market that is dead and where growth has ground to a halt? We hear about the £20 billion black hole and all the mistakes the previous Government made, but we are where we are now. I find it difficult to understand how small businesses can cope with that, on top of more coming down the line—

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Given what my noble friend has said, would he agree with what I said earlier: that, actually, the money does not come back into the economy and that, when it is taken out, those companies that have been hit so hard end up going abroad? It becomes so much cheaper and easier to manufacture abroad that, looking at it from a wider perspective, it is completely negative.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I completely agree with my noble friend. Actually, it is worse than manufacturing going abroad. Just think of this: where are the sorts of areas of business, in terms of distribution or marketing, where people are employed who are not particularly well paid but on whom there will be a big impact from this national insurance cost on the employers? They are in places like call centres. Suddenly you find that you get a huge additional bill for running your call centre, which you may be required to do as a matter of government regulation or for all kinds of reasons—it may not be directly related to your product. So what will you do? You will outsource it to India or some other country. The jobs will go, because it will be much cheaper. The quality may not be the same, but it might be the difference between surviving and not. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, this national insurance thing has to be seen in the round. Then add all the other things that are going up: the energy costs, which are going up—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 66 in my name. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. Much in my general points will have been said by many others previously.

Farmers provide a vital role in the country. They grow crops, keep stock, protect land and have engaged with the change from BPS to ELMS, with many farmers seeing biodiversity on their farms increase as a result. Farming is not a career choice for the faint-hearted. The early, dark and cold mornings, the late nights at harvest time and a seven-day week, often for 52 weeks of the year, take their toll. But farmers are essential to food supply.

Amendment 7 is intended for farmers who, on a small farm with a low income, still have to pay national insurance, as would any other low-wage employers. The vast majority of farm businesses are small, with a farmer and a small number of family members. These family members are either paid employees on PAYE or partners in the family business, which pulls them into self-employment and payment of NI through that route.

Class 2 contributions are at a flat rate and used to be charged on self-employed people. From April 2024, self-employed people no longer have to pay them. The self-employed farmer therefore does not have to pay class 2 contributions, but has to pay class 4 contributions on their profits—if there are any.

The next group of farmers employs a small number of people—one or two workers—on PAYE with the usual NI implications. Some farmers with a small number of workers employ the workers as contractors, who work on multiple farms during the season or week. I ask the Minister whether some farms might actually see a saving in NI contributions, as the threshold for small businesses was increased. Would this help the sole or family farmer?

There is, of course, another group of large farms that employ significant numbers of people, many of which will be impacted by the NI increases: dairy farms; horticultural businesses; pig and poultry enterprises; and large arable and livestock farms. These larger farms are profitable and may be able either to absorb the additional cost of the NI rise or to pass it on. It is those farms in the middle range that are likely to struggle and may not survive in their current form.

I came here this afternoon from a meeting discussing the horticulture sector. We were informed that the rise in wage rates, coupled with the NI contributions rise, will cost members of Horticultural Trades Association £134 million. This was causing considerable concern around how the industry would cope. The Horticultural Trades Association has a considerable number of garden centres in its membership.

I shall now move on to Amendment 66. My very real concerns are for those in the food supply chain. In the meat industry, ignoring retail, the total additional cost is in the order of £160 million a year: £60 million is down to wage increases and £100 million to national insurance. In some supply chains, employment costs are huge. For example, in the beef industry, the cost of labour on a farm to produce cattle is not in itself huge but the labour costs in killing, processing and transporting the cattle and meat are significant. The national insurance change for employers and employees in the supply chain will put financial pressure on these businesses, which include meat processors, vegetable packers and dairy processors. The costs imposed on them will inevitably trickle down to the farm gate as the supply chain looks to recover the money from farmers.

The same can be said for retailers. Farmers will be squeezed. Retailers are not making money on basic foodstuffs; they make their money on cornflakes, cereals and similar products. There will be huge pressure on food prices and food supply chains. Some businesses—mainly the medium-sized operations—will go under. The larger ones will pass on the increase and survive. The smaller farmer, by adding value and providing niche products, may survive. The small business threshold is helpful. Such businesses often employ only one person; the national insurance goes down in this case.

The employment costs on most family farms are not the big cost. Apart from in the meat industry, where costs are in the supply chain, the other farming sections with large on-farm costs include dairy farms and those engaged in horticulture. In the latter case, workers who plant crops then pick them when they are ripe represent a significant cost. Not all crops can be harvested by machinery. There will always be a role for a real person to be involved in the horticultural side of produce—often a seasonal worker.

When making an alteration to the financial employment arrangements, which could have a significant impact on those employed, it is always prudent to review the impact of the policy change. It will not be acceptable to say at a later date, “Oh, we didn’t realise how this change would affect certain sections of society”. Amendment 66 asks for a review of the effect on farming, which includes those in the supply chain as well as those working on farms. The effect of the increase in national insurance is going to be considerable; a review will be essential to measuring the impact accurately. I realise that the Minister is not engaged in farming, but I hope that he will be able to make the case for these two amendments to his colleagues in the Treasury. I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 36 in my name. I declare my interests as a farmer and an employer. I have already spoken about a lot of what is relevant to this amendment in an earlier stage, so I will spare your Lordships from any repetition.

Farming is a difficult business with unpredictable factors that do not appear in every business: weather; insect life; the ability of animals to damage themselves, and so on. Of course, the most difficult thing of all is the uncertainty of what they will receive for their product. Commodity prices vary greatly, not only from year to year but in the time between the planting and harvesting of a crop. The Government have already hit farmers with the 20% inheritance tax on agricultural land. To burden them now with an increase in national insurance contributions is brutal.

UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the committee on its report and on recommending closer co-operation with the EU. This is to be applauded, although sometimes I wonder how much lack of co-operation is as much the fault of the EU. I have no doubt that the report will contribute to overcoming impediments to closer ties. At the same time as applauding the committee’s desire for closer co-operation with the EU, it is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on how leaving the EU has allowed the UK to pursue an independent trade policy, striking several new agreements with real benefits for the UK economy and leading to closer international co-operation, to the benefit of Great Britain and the EU.

Our free trade agreement with Australia removes tariffs on £4.3 billion of UK exports, making it cheaper to sell iconic products such as ceramics and Scotch whisky. British companies have also been granted the most substantial access to Australian procurement contracts worth billions of pounds. Meanwhile, cheaper imports will save British households up to £34 million each year, and the deal creates new opportunities for young people and professionals to work and travel in Australia.

Last year’s deal with New Zealand is expected to increase bilateral trade by almost 60% in the long run, boosting the UK economy by £800 million. The agreement cuts red tape for the 5,900 UK small and medium-sized businesses that export to New Zealand, as well as ensuring that services exporters from accountancy to engineering can compete on an equal footing. Notably, it includes a world-leading environment chapter to encourage trade and investment in low-carbon goods, services and technology.

The UK has just opened a new gateway to the Indo-Pacific by joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, building our relationship with economies that will account for most of global growth in the decades to come. No one should underestimate the importance of this agreement. These countries account for almost 10% of investment into the UK, creating over 5,000 jobs in 2021 and 2022, and the CPTPP offers protections, which will encourage further growth. The agreements on rules of origin also create opportunities to diversify our supply chains, and membership allows the UK to shape the CPTPP’s fight against unfair and coercive trading practices. Joining the CPTPP also means that the UK will have a trade agreement with Malaysia, to which UK businesses exported £1.7 billion of services in 2022.

Less than two weeks ago, the UK signed a strategic partnership with Singapore to enhance co-operation on the economy, security and innovation. This includes a first-of-its-kind partnership with Singapore’s Digital and Intelligence Service, drawing on common strengths such as AI to tackle emerging cyber threats. This builds on our 2022 digital economy agreement with Singapore, which helps businesses seize new trade opportunities by opening digital markets, protecting intellectual property and digitising trading systems. I look forward to seeing progress in our ongoing negotiations, including work towards new agreements with India and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

None of these agreements impedes closer co-operation with the EU. Indeed, they enable the EU, through having trade accommodations with us, to join in these wonderful things that have been arranged.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I find it difficult to understand the fuss over the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s plan for growth. With the start of money printing in 2008, inflation and the higher interest rates were built into the system before there was a Conservative Government. The 40% rate of tax was in place up until the last days of the previous Labour Government. Most major currencies have fallen against the dollar, with the yen down 50% and the Japanese authorities intervening. The Government can hardly be blamed for the invasion of Ukraine and the resulting fuel crisis. They can take credit for acting promptly to help people.

Instead of applauding the outstanding plan for growth, which will result in greater prosperity, we hear a cacophony of unjustified abuse from the anti-growth coalition, made up of those who believe that if nothing changes and the handouts are kept going, all will be well. I tell them to face up to reality. You have to create wealth to spend it, and that is what this Budget is about. The other complainers are the metropolitan elites and the bien pensants who believe they can decide better what to do with other people’s money than those people can decide for themselves. That just does not work either morally or economically. People should be entitled to the fruits of their labour and to get what they work for, not have it confiscated for fashionable projects.

Economically, high taxation and redistribution by government is inherently inefficient and results in massive waste. Everyone wants better roads, a better health service and other essential services. These cannot be achieved by living in the cloud-cuckoo-land of believing that all you have to do is tax more to be able to spend more. You cannot. It does not work; the tax take shrinks. By lowering taxes and removing stultifying regulations, a framework is created that will allow the genius of the people of Great Britain to deliver growth in the economy. This will permit government debt to be repaid and public services to be enhanced. It will inevitably take time, but the reality is that if the top-class public services we would all like to see are to be delivered, there is no other choice.

Taxes are at their highest level for many years and must be reduced for the economy to grow. Money left in people’s hands grows; they do things with it. Governments consume wealth; they do not create it.

Peerages: Recommendations

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, one of the glories of this House is the wide range and diversity of its Members. If you wished to divide them up into categories, you would find that difficult. There are all sorts of opinions and views, and hurrah for that.

I recall, when I was on the Opposition Front Bench, going through Bills, and however late in the evening it was there would always be a number of Back-Bench Peers on all sides of the House. They had huge knowledge of the matters being discussed and were articulate in expressing their views. They made huge contributions to debates. Frankly, they made my own attempts to call the Government to account as a Front-Bench spokesman seem rather puny. I mention this because a number of those doing such sterling work would have been extremely unlikely to have passed the rigours of a vetting committee. Almost by definition, they had become such experts in their own fields that, on occasions, they might have appeared slightly odd when not discussing their own subject.

In a recent letter to the Times, Paul Dacre, that most eminent and distinguished newspaper editor said—oh, I have lost it.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

Maybe he did not say it.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Well, I think he did. He said—the noble Lord will enjoy this:

“To anyone from the private sector, who, God forbid, has convictions, and is thinking of applying for a public appointment, I say the following: the civil service will control (and leak) everything; the process could take a year in which your life will be put on hold; and if you are possessed of an independent mind and are unassociated with the liberal-left, you will have more chance of winning the lottery than getting the job.”


I do not think for a moment that the committee suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to give approval to anyone nominated for a peerage, would be in the least bit biased or show anything but the most even-handed and scrupulous attitude, and nor would they be likely to take a year. However, members of committees change and the new members may not always show such admirable impartiality.

Even if that was the case, it is inevitable that, as time goes by, the views of committees are reflected in those selected. This House could end up losing its independent thinkers and eccentrics, and those prepared to challenge the fashionable groupthink of the day. As things stand, there may be appointments that raise eyebrows. But rather that and retain the individuality of the Members of this House, and their willingness to call the Government to account, than the dreary sameness which would result over time from these proposals.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as a layman and an unashamed politician, I want to make a couple of layman’s/politician’s observations in what has been a largely legal argument.

Much of this discussion—in fact, the whole of this Report stage—has been considered with the ghost of the 2017-19 Parliament at its back; the cloud over us, one could say. It was a very unfortunate Parliament—in the past I have called it poisonous—and we need to be careful about drawing all sorts of long-term constitutional conclusions from that period. This relates to my observation on the debate about the ouster clause: it is, as others have said, trying to solve the problem of Miller 2.

To me, as a layman, Miller 2 did present some problems. One is unarguable—and I am cautious about saying that—in that it did massively involve the courts in an intensely political situation. I know it tried to give disclaimers in its judgment, and all the rest of it, but I can tell you, as a politician, it is hard to imagine a more intense, political, biting debate than the one that existed in relation to Britain’s membership of the European Union, and the courts went slam dunk right into the middle of that debate. In my view this is not a good precedent.

I would also say—and I am sure I will be stopped if I trespass here—that it involved the courts in arguments which I know are legal arguments, doubtless very good legal arguments, but they do not make much sense to the layman. Part of the Miller 2 judgment was to say that the Prorogation had not happened. Although I understand the lawyers’ argument for saying so, it does not make much common sense to an observer. It is like saying that the sun comes up in the morning, and it is up there now, but the law says that the sun has not risen. I say, “Look, it is up there now,” but the law says it is still where it was before. That kind of ugly language and reasoning is—at least to me—something that we do not want to see employed too often. It is employed in the Bill itself; it is as though the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never happened, but both those things—the Act and, unfortunately, the Prorogation —had happened.

I simply make the following observation. If I am right that we want to make things intelligible to both lawyers and non-lawyers, if I am right that 2017-19 was a really bad patch, and if I am right in saying that we really do not want the courts—however exceptional it might be—telling the people when they can and cannot have a general election, then I have offered a solution. I am sorry I keep coming back—actually I am not going to apologise at all, because it is right—to the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. If only the House of Commons would apply its mind to the arguments that have been deployed in this House during the consideration of previous amendments, that would solve all the problems. If there were a resolution of Parliament then the courts would not intervene, the monarch would not have decisions to make and there would be no need for the ouster clause.

Let us lift up our eyes and hope that the Commons weighs the merits of the amendment that we have sent back to them, recognises those merits, votes not on a purely partisan basis but on the basis of the strength of the arguments, and retains the change that we have already made to the Bill.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I must also apologise for not being here in Committee, although I have followed your Lordships’ arguments with great interest.

One point is abundantly clear to me: the idea of not using the royal prerogative to call for an election is, at its very best, curious. The concept that a Government should limp on without the confidence of the Commons, when that Government no longer have the wish, or possibly the ability, to conduct the affairs of the nation, can do only harm to the well-being of this country. I have listened to a lot of erudite and hypothetical—indeed very hypothetical—arguments today. We cannot get away from the fact that, if a Government feel that they no longer wish to govern, then it is not only pointless to keep them in place but potentially very damaging.

In line with what my noble friend Lord Bridges said, restricting people from voting is anti-democratic. There should be no impediment to the freedom to allow the electorate to express their opinion at any time at the ballot box. Allowing the courts to interfere with that and to have a say may have unknown effects and cause serious harm, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and others have pointed out. After all, the courts can produce some very weird results.

My only other thought, standing here among so many noble and learned Lords, is that I wonder what the collective noun for lawyers is. Do your Lordships think it is “a bear pit” of lawyers?

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asks whether the sun has risen. Yes, it is still up there, but for those who lived in the Mexican desert during the testing of the atomic bomb, the sky was so full of light that nearby farmers woke up and started working, but three hours later the light had gone. Of course, at the usual time of 6 am, the sun rose. They said, “We saw the sun rise twice”, but it had not. Physical things may help us, but also they may not.

For myself, I find phrases such as

“A court or tribunal may not question”


very difficult. Putting that in statute sets a bad precedent. The courts are restrained in the way that they approach many things; they would never simply say out of hand, “We are not going to look at this”. That is why my friend Sir William MacPherson, when someone did not want the election to take place in 1992, looked at that and then dismissed it. Now there is the idea that he should not have done so. I have always had great admiration for the British Parliament and for the Civil Service and the way that it works, which is just really lovely—some of your Lordships who were born here and live here may not appreciate it, but I do—but this measure worries me.

I was in the judiciary when we questioned Mr Amin for expelling Uganda citizens who happened to be Asian. There were two kinds: those who were Ugandan Asian citizens and Asians living in Uganda who were British. We questioned whether he had the right to do this. He did not like it. What did he do? He passed a decree that no court in the land could question the expulsion of Asians. That caused me a lot of problems. This measure sounds almost like that.

There should be no Act of any sort which is not subject to the possibility of challenge in the courts, because they are the custodians of the rule of law. We cannot say by statute, “You should not challenge this particular prerogative”; if it is not done according to the rule of law, they should be able to look at it. I have a lot of confidence in judges, lawyers and the people, because they are the guardians of the rule of law. If they do not guard that, the likes of Mr Amin will have a field day. I support the intention the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the clause should be deleted.

Ireland/Northern Ireland: Solid Fuels

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, there has indeed always been some complexity in interpretations of this matter. It is certainly true that in areas such as red diesel, for example, where there is a need to avoid fraud due to different excise rates between Northern Ireland and Ireland, there is very good co-operation between HMRC and the Irish Revenue Commissioners. There is lots of multiagency and cross-border co-operation, intelligence and information sharing and so on, and that works perfectly well. I do not necessarily say that is a model you can generalise to absolutely everything, but it certainly shows that this issue is not quite as black and white as it is sometimes painted.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Can the Minister say whether the discussion and fuss over fuel is merely an example of Mr Castex’s call for aggressive action against the United Kingdom?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. We have been concerned about the threats made against us in the last few weeks, which are not really consistent with a reasonable negotiation. I am glad to see that the French Government have, for the moment anyway, withdrawn those threats. I hope they will do so permanently, because they do not make it any easier to conduct a good process and put relations on to a better footing.

Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in the first part of her question, the noble Baroness followed on slightly from earlier questions. There are issues of clarity, and Ministers should understand what is being done. My view is that the Government Security Group is obviously responsible for existing departments in securing Ministers’ security across Whitehall, and that work continues. As for the use of private machines for emails, I have referred to that, and they are subject to FoI.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I make no comment on Matthew Hancock, but what happened to him raises questions. Is the recent filming of the Secretary of State for Health in his office part of a systematic intrusion into ministerial offices? Is it appropriate to have cameras in the offices of a Secretary of State or, indeed, any other Minister? It is quite possible that highly classified documents might be photographed. What happens to the recordings? Are they erased? If they are, what method of security is there to ensure that they are erased? The recent sale to the Sun is evidence that not all is as it should be for the security of these recordings. Are there bugging devices as well as cameras located in ministerial offices? Could that explain why there are so many leaks from all sorts of government departments—senior, junior or wherever? Might that indicate that there are a lot of recording devices all over the place? The mind boggles about where all this could end up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is meant to be a short question.

Northern Ireland and Great Britain: Trade

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the best way of dealing with the issues that are arising on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is for the Northern Ireland protocol to be implemented in a pragmatic and proportionate manner that is consistent with all its aims. That is what we intend to do and we are working with the European Union to that effect.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

My Lords, by its recent actions the European Union has shown that it respects the Belfast agreement only when it suits it. The actions of the European Union on 29 January surprised and shocked all those who understand the importance of the peace process. How does the Minister propose to act to safeguard the Belfast agreement and the peace process?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, this Government stand fully behind the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is central to our policy on Northern Ireland. The most important thing about the Northern Ireland protocol is that it should guarantee the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the peace process. If it is failing to do that, it is not working well; that is why we think that a pragmatic, proportionate and appropriate implementation of the protocol is the right way forward.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Border Controls

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I certainly undertake to do that. The noble Lord has asked a number of detailed points and I will write to him, but while I am on my feet, I will say that I believe that the Irish/UK strand is an important one that might help in assisting to resolve some of these problems.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

Is the recent imposition by the EU of a land border between southern and Northern Ireland, for however brief a period, by invoking Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol and without even informing the parties to the agreement, including the Irish Prime Minister, a serious violation of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, to which the EU claimed to attach so much importance during the withdrawal negotiations?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that it is highly regrettable, and this point was made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday. We should all attach importance to the Good Friday agreement and I hope that the Commission will now give lasting attention to that point.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister of the day is the monarch’s principal adviser on the exercise of patronage, which is part of the royal prerogative.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

Does my noble friend agree that the opposition of this House to the clearly expressed view of the British people on leaving the European Union means that there is a danger that if the House of Lords Appointments Commission—drawn largely from the same pool—has statutory powers, it could lead to appointments that divorce this House even further from the population of this country?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I would not follow my noble friend entirely in the course of his question. It is certainly true that the reputation of this House rests not on who might come here soon but on those of us who are here and how we have conducted ourselves. In that, I agree with my noble friend.