United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.

These proceedings will follow guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. When there are no counterpropositions, the only speakers are those listed, who may be in the Chamber or remote, and the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. When there are counterpropositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and capacity of the Chamber. Any intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw.

When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. A participant, whether present or remote, who might wish to press a proposition other than the lead counterproposition to a Division must give notice to the Chair either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for in the Question, if put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, Content or Not Content, to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email—the way to vote will be via the remote voting system.

Motion A

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I strongly support everything that has just been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I hope that my noble friends in the Labour Party will support him in his amendment if he presses it to a vote. The points he has raised are absolutely fundamental to the devolution settlement. The big issue here is what happens in lieu of the big decisions that used to be made about the structural funds. The noble Baroness the Minister said in our last debate that it was the European Union that would decide, which of course was technically true because these were EU funds, but the advice upon which projects are prioritised within the devolved Administrations very clearly flowed from the devolved Administrations themselves. If we do not observe that principle in respect of the Shared Prosperity Fund and whatever may replace it over time—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has explained that we are putting in place within statute a regime that could now last for decades—what we will be doing is substantially rolling back the devolution settlement.

The noble and learned Lord used a slightly antiquated term, “statecraft”, but it is coming back into vogue, because we have so little of it. Indeed, as some noble Lords might recall, the Prime Minister told us some while ago that it would be a failure of statecraft if there was not a deal, which he very nearly railroaded the country into over the past weekend. It would be an equal failure of statecraft if the devolution settlement starts to break down because of irreconcilable differences between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government on fundamental issues relating to the allocation of structural and regional funding within the UK.

The position that we are in, which is why I think it is so important that the noble and learned Lord presses his amendment, is this: can we simply take the rather vague assurances that the Minister has given us today as being sufficient? In respect of the operation of the whole devolution settlement, which is something that one would expect to roll over from Government to Government as a part of our constitution, I do not think that the assurances which have been given as set down in Hansard are sufficient. It is important to have them in statute. Thus, I think that the arrangements that the noble and learned Lord has set out in his Amendment F1 are absolutely appropriate to what we are facing in this area.

The other reason is that in my experience, people’s past behaviour is always the best guide to their future behaviour. On the basis of the Government’s past behaviour, I do not believe that we can accept those assurances as being sufficient. This is the Government that introduced the towns fund under which Ministers themselves could decide on a wholly arbitrary basis that was not related to any objective statements of need, how they would allocated hundreds of millions of pounds—I think in the end billions of pounds under the fund; I have just been told £4 billion—based on arbitrary and essentially political criteria. How can we accept a vague assurance about consultation with the devolved Administrations when we know that that is how Ministers of the Crown have behaved?

It seems to me to be absolutely essential, not simply desirable, that we put into statute the requirements of the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment F1. They seek that the Government should make these further investments only after consultation, which is the crucial element of his proposed new wording for Clause 48

“on the principles under which financial assistance may be provided by a Minister of the Crown.”

That would set out in law the requirement that there must be consultation on principles.

If I have a concern about the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, it is that it is too weak. This is the classic problem when one starts to compromise. You end up by giving up too much ground. As I read it, I think that the wording of his amendment is too weak because it requires consultation on principles. On my reading of the amendment, it does not require the consent of the devolved Administrations to disbursements that are made in respect of additional investments like the Shared Prosperity Fund.

I will put this to the noble and learned Lord: what would happen if, having consulted, the United Kingdom Government do what they now seem to do routinely—the Prime Minister has told us that he does not believe in devolution—and simply override the view of the devolved Administrations and decide on a political basis to make what are essentially politically motivated investments anyway?

I hope the noble and learned Lord can disabuse me, but my reading of the wording of his new amendment is that the United Kingdom Government would, having consulted, none the less be able to ride roughshod over the devolved Administrations and decide what they want to do for political reasons in London and Westminster. The noble Baroness said—we liked her words—that she was seeking to give backing to the principle that it is not the case that Westminster knows best; my reading of the state of the law, which is what will matter on these things, is that it would be perfectly okay for future Governments to say not only that Westminster knows best but that the Conservative Party knows best and will distribute funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in respect of Conservative Party priorities and not any priorities agreed with the devolved Administrations.

I strongly support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. It goes to the heart of what will happen to devolution after Brexit. My concern is that, in the process of compromising as this Bill has gone through, the amendment is too weak to deliver the objectives which the noble and learned Lord so rightly set out.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have had three more requests to speak. I will take them in order: the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, the serious point here is whether responsibility for economic development measures, which are the purpose of the shared prosperity fund, will be devised, agreed and undertaken with the consent of the devolved Administrations and devolved bodies in England.

Last time I spoke on this, the Minister claimed that the distribution of EU funds was decided in Brussels. That is not the case, as she well knows. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would confirm on the basis of his great experience of European matters, the EU established criteria against which funds should be spent and rules for determining the areas of greatest need, which were based on the relative GDP of an area in the European Union—which areas were Objective 1, which were Objective 2, and all the rest. It did not decide on individual projects. That was never determined in the Commission.

The way individual projects were decided under the structural funds—as I think Conservative and Labour Governments have practised since the 1990s—was on a bottom-up principle, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, probably started off agreeing with. If we were to have effective economic development, it had to have the buy-in of local areas, and of the nations when we had devolution. The best way to do this was through mechanisms that brought together locally elected people with businesspeople in bodies at local, regional and national levels to determine which projects should be prioritised.

As I understand it, the present proposal is that, instead of this devolved system, which has worked reasonably well over the past few decades, this Government want to take power to centralise decision-making. The precedent for this—as my noble friend Lord Adonis mentioned—is the towns fund, which is a completely centralised pork barrel dished out to Members of Parliament representing constituencies that the Conservative Party has recently won. That is what the towns fund is. I know from my own county, Cumbria, that Carlisle, Workington and Barrow will be recipients of towns fund money. Why? Yes, they have great needs, but it is because they have recently elected Conservative Members of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Motion, she explained clearly that the other place had claimed financial privilege and that it was customary for this House to respect that decision made by the Speaker. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that this was not a financial issue. I respectfully say to the noble and learned Lord that it is not for this House to determine whether or not it is a financial issue. As I understand it, it has been accepted by this House for a very long time that the final arbiter of what is or is not a financial issue for which privilege can be claimed is the other place, through its Speaker. If we continue to disregard the Commons claim of financial privilege in relation to amendments we send to the other place for consideration, we not only show a lack of respect, particularly to the Speaker, but might be starting on a route to a constitutional clash with the other place, which would be most unfortunate.

When I sat where the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, sits, many years ago, we often faced financial privilege being invoked against amendments we were pleased with ourselves for having sent back to the other place for consideration, but we always respected that decision when it came back. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, will continue that tradition in this place. Does the Minister know of any precedence for this place insisting on its amendments not once but twice in the face of a financial privilege claim by the other place, and does she agree with me that this is not a path down which this House should go?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

There is almost no one left in the Chamber who has not spoken. This has been an interesting debate and, no doubt, the Minister is carrying away lots of advice from some of the Benches. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Liddle, for their passion. If that passion is matched by votes in the event that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, decides to ignore the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and press this to a vote, I will have more excitement because otherwise, it is merely a rhetorical gesture.

The noble and learned Lord set out his view on devolution. It is quite clear, as was set out a number of occasions, that in the structural fund process, which this will herald the replacement for, the devolved authorities were in the driving seat of deciding where and on what the money was spent. It is not clear from anything the Minister said today, or in answer to questions last time, that the Government will not seek to impose things on the devolved authorities. The Minister said there would be governance structures; it would be interesting to hear how those governance structures will be introduced and what the Government envisage. In other words, do central Government have the veto in deciding what goes where? In the end, that is the difference between this being genuinely consultative and, as we have heard described around the House, a Westminster-knows-best process. Consultation is fine but only if it is adhered to.

My final point on the quantum of money and its distribution comes back to a question I asked earlier. I think the Minister said that the amount of money envisaged to go into the shared prosperity fund is equivalent to that which came through the structural fund. The Minister also indicated a much broader remit for spreading that money around than was the practical reality of the structural fund. How will the Government manage the process of certain areas that have been particularly well funded through the structural fund, such as Cornwall and Wales, getting less money if there is no increase in funds and they are spread more widely? Furthermore, the European Union distributed that money using classifications of need, so how will the UK Government develop those? Do the Government envisage that they will be different, and can they undertake that they are transparent?

In conclusion, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, decides to call a vote, we on these Benches would support it, but there are a lot of questions we would be grateful if the Minister could answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to a debate that was slightly longer than the one we had during the previous round of ping-pong. I will address the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and in doing so I hope to address those made by other noble Lords too.

On financial privilege, I very much welcome my noble friend Lady Noakes saying that this is not a decision by the Government but one taken by the Speaker in the House of Commons. I do not have an answer for her on whether there are any precedents for twice resisting financial privilege as a reason given by the Commons, but it must be highly unusual. This is not the place to raise further constitutional questions in bringing that principle into doubt in this Bill.

The noble and learned Lord talked about a principled basis for the spending powers being taken through this Bill. I completely agree with him on that. He spoke of consultation, the establishment of principles and advice from jointly appointed advisers. We do not propose a structure involving jointly appointed advisers, but we do plan to have the devolved Administrations represented in the governance structures for the fund. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—I cannot give further details of how that will work at this stage; we will work on that with the devolved Administrations. There are further stages to come in the development of the shared prosperity fund, its governance and the principles around it, after this debate and in future. As I have said to noble Lords before, the fund will not be introduced until the following financial year, which gives us time to work through some of these details.

I hope I have made it clear to noble Lords that the Government have already been engaging in consultations on the shared prosperity fund. To date, we have conducted 25 engagement events across the UK, attended by over 500 stakeholders, including the devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a good point about LEPs and mayoral authorities—of course we will want to consult and collaborate with those organisations as well as the devolved Administrations as we take these proposals further. Those mentioned at the Dispatch Box were not an exclusive list of those whom we wish to engage, but the debate has focused very much on the question of devolution.

As for the establishment of principles, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Liddle, and others, there is not a huge amount of disagreement here. The EU set the terms and conditions for investment in the UK as well as other member states, with which the UK Government and the devolved Administrations alike had to comply. Devolved Administrations and other areas were then responsible for managing EU funds in those projects. The idea of setting out principles in a framework and then collaborating in local delivery is very much something we wish to take forward. We have set out some of those principles already in the heads of terms for the shared prosperity fund that we published at the spending review. We have said that a much more detailed investment framework will be published in the spring, following further discussions.

Regarding the focus of that investment, I would have thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would welcome our saying at the spending review that investment should be aligned with the Government’s clean growth and net zero objectives. Those are the kinds of principles we have already set out and that we want to see in the investment from these funds.

On the establishment of principles and the conduct of consultations, the Government and noble Lords are rather in agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the quantum and the distribution of funding. Again, I apologise and will have to disappoint him slightly. I said at the spending review that the quantum will ramp up to £1.5 billion a year, I think, to match that commitment to, at minimum spend, the previous levels. I also referred in the last debate to our setting out certain commitments in our manifesto that will guide us in future. But there is more work to be done on the detail—from taking the heads of terms to the investment framework—to get the kind of answers that the noble Lord is asking for.

I have mentioned some of the details of the shared prosperity fund, and I also talked about our approach to city deals. I gently disagree with certain noble Lords’ use of “pork-barrel politics” terminology. I point to examples of our trying to take a collaborative approach—a principles-based approach from the centre, while also working with those on the ground regarding their needs. That is very much the approach we plan to take with the shared prosperity fund.

I am afraid that I will have to take away the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about a possible replacement for Erasmus and how that might operate. Again, this is an example of the fact that the detail of this matters. The Government take this very seriously. However, we disagree on some points. This power will be used for the shared prosperity fund and may be used in other areas. We want it to be flexible enough for the UK Government to respond quickly and at scale to investment challenges and opportunities. It is not practical to set out a single plan for investment in legislation now, which is why, for the shared prosperity fund, we will set out plans and collaborate with the devolved Administrations as we will have developed that. In other areas in future—the noble Lord mentioned Erasmus, for example—we will take a similar approach.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, will feel able to withdraw his amendment although it did not sound as though he was minded to.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to ask a short question for elucidation.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I want to ask the Minister a very specific question. She talked about consultation, but will she undertake on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government to commit that they will not make investments under the shared prosperity fund, or any of its successors, in the territories of the devolved Administrations without their consent? This is about not just consultation but consent. Further, does she realise that, if she does not do so, none of the other assurances that she has given is worth the paper they are written on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Fox and Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—which has lasted slightly longer than I anticipated.

The debate on both this occasion and previous ones has centred on the question of financial privilege. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their observations on the uncharted territory into which we might be moving. It is important for the future to work out the way in which ancient principles may no longer be applicable to constitutional issues if we are to keep our union together.

In looking at this whole series of debates together, there has been another consideration. At least there is now a much greater understanding of the importance of respecting the devolved settlements and devolution. I was heartened when the Minister referred to an abandonment of “Westminster knows best”. That is progress indeed. I have also taken the Minister’s assurances into account. As one looks at the debates in the other place on the previous debates in this House, it is clear that those from Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and other places within those three nations, pay particular attention to what has been said. I am glad the Minister has given assurances in relation to principles of consultation and heeding advice.

It is a question of weighing up whether putting a structure into the Bill in the circumstances I have outlined would be a sufficient safeguard. Or is there a better safeguard: that is, the deterrence of the catastrophic result for our union if the Government did not adhere to the principles that have been explained? It would be catastrophic not only for the union but for trust in government if there was ever a hint of unprincipled distribution or application of these funds—[Inaudible.]—and of the pork barrel.

Therefore, with considerable hesitation, but bearing in mind that deterrence is a strong way of ensuring people keep to their principles—possibly stronger than structures in some places—with great reluctance I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Is it your Lordships’ pleasure that Motion F1 be withdrawn?

[A noble Lord]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

You wish to test the opinion of the House? The Question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start the remote Division.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe the clerk will give us some advice on how to proceed in hybrid proceedings in these circumstances. I suggest we adjourn for five minutes until we get that advice on how to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. In accordance with paragraph 93 of the Procedure Committee guidance, leave to withdraw cannot be objected to. Therefore, motion F1 is withdrawn.

Motion F1 withdrawn.

Future Relationship with the EU

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

We already have a range of agreements with the European Union over, for example, the Northern Ireland protocol, where arrangements and derogations are agreed. We have other arrangements—for example, we have already announced the phased introduction of border controls. However, the transition period will end on December 31 and that remains the position.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Bishop? We will move on to the next speaker and come back. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the Government have agreed to extend the deadline for negotiation and agreement, genuine compromise on both sides is needed? Does he also agree that there must be further genuine compromise by the European Union and, equally importantly, by Her Majesty’s Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is a masterly negotiator; I remember the Maastricht deal. However, I think he has advanced a syllogistic argument that I cannot follow. The fact is that nations may use their sovereignty in whichever way they choose, and out choice as a sovereign nation is that we wish to control our laws, our borders and our waters.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Future of Financial Services

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

You are on mute. Please unmute. No, you are still on mute. We will move on to the next speaker and come back to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, if we have time. I call the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Flight (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise that my screen has gone wrong while waiting. I first declare my interest. [Inaudible.]

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Lord Flight, could you come closer to your microphone? Do not worry about your screen.

[Lord Flight (Con) [V]]

Is that better?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

No. Let us try again: one more time, Lord Flight.

[Lord Flight (Con) [V]]

Is this better?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

No, you are cutting in and out.

[Lord Flight (Con) [V]]

Is that better now? Hello, hello? Can you hear me?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Let us move to the next speaker and we will come back. Apologies, Lord Flight, but you were breaking in and out.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]]

My Lords, we look forward to the Ron Kalifa report on fintech. The trade credit insurance guarantees making a real difference. Would the Government agree it should be extended until June 2021? Will the Government consider instituting a new 3i-type funding to help provide equity finance for funding, recovery and scale-up? Will the Minister clarify if the Government will consider reinstituting a Green Investment Bank—a question that has been asked before? Finally, will the Minister agree that getting an EU deal with make equivalence much easier to resolve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I am not involved in the intricacies of the trade discussions between the US and ourselves. There is a very simple principle with any trade agreement: the more you try to agree in one go, the harder it is. If you include something as complex as financial services, then it will be very difficult. I am sure that that is why the EU has still not been able to negotiate its own deal with the US. However, we will continue to engage with it as practically as we can.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, that is all we have time for in the 20 minutes.

Brexit: Civil Service Code

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not personally responsible for the reading habits of every member of the Civil Service, the special adviser corps or the Government. I am sure people have noted what was said. Special advisers are subject to a code. I think that in public life we should all treat each other with grace and understanding, and every now and again there has to be a bit of give and take, of leave and understanding. The fundamental core of Civil Service impartiality remains. The Civil Service’s role as defined in law and practice is something that I and this Government profoundly respect and I am sure it will continue under whoever has the honour of acting as part of the Government in the future.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th September 2020 Grand Committee

Maintaining the number of MPs from the devolved parts of the United Kingdom will of course still mean that England can outvote them by about 5:1, but at least their voices will be there. The smaller the voices, the less noise will be heard and the more disregard the Westminster Parliament will have for the continuation of the United Kingdom. The Government should take heed. This is something they should take very seriously if they really do care about what they call the precious union, but which they treat with disregard and disdain.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

For me, this is about priorities. I suppose that is what I shall try to appeal to the Minister about. My priority is the future of the union and what I see, if the Bill goes through in its current form, as the undermining of its unity. The argument we are getting back is that the priority has to be the number of electors in a constituency, the size of the constituencies and how that gives equal weight to votes. However, as we heard on Tuesday, our current first past the post system for Westminster, although I support it, does not offer equal votes with equal responsibilities. We would have to change the electoral system, which I do not want to do, to get to a situation where votes are of equal value.

On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, got half of it right and half of it wrong. The half that was right was about the devolution of powers to mayors, the nations, local authorities, councils and local councillors, which I fully support. However, one of his big attacks, which he repeated today, was on numbers. I touched on this at Second Reading: currently, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have 117 constituencies, with London and the south-east having 156. If these proposals go through, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be reduced to 106, with London and the south-east having 164. Even within the history of United Kingdom, MPs in London and the south-east would easily be able to outvote those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That takes me back to the priority of the union. The best way for us to protect the union, which I think the vast majority, if not all, of us in the Grand Committee want to do, would be to have the voices, concerns and issues of constituents, communities and people across the nation aired well and loudly in Westminster. These reductions in Scotland, and in Wales, as we have heard from far more eloquent speakers, will undermine that. The points that my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Hain made about geography and community are absolutely right and important, but my appeal to the Minister is that if we can retain what we have, we will give those who seek to undermine and break up the union fewer arguments. If we move forward with the proposals as they are in the Bill, it will enhance those arguments for the break-up of the union.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I want to speak specifically about Amendment 14. I am glad to see it on the Marshalled List, because it raises some important and specific issues about the situation in Wales, introduced very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

The reference to the 1944 Act in this amendment reminds us that Wales has always been accepted as a special case. In terms of population, its smaller rural constituency sizes have been accepted as a practical necessity. The formula that the Government propose would see 32 Welsh constituencies, which is clearly inadequate. Some would argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has, that, now that Wales has devolution, it no longer requires this protection.

My answer is that the Senedd still has unrealistically low numbers of Members—only 60. That is quite out of kilter with Northern Ireland, for example, which has a smaller population and 90 Members of its Assembly. As it has gained more powers, the Senedd has a greater rather than a lesser problem; it is now within the Senedd’s own power to increase its size, and it has been Welsh Liberal Democrat policy for many years that there should be greater powers for the Senedd and at least 80 Members. If that were to be the situation, we would not oppose a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs. I considered tabling my own amendment on this, but I could not find a way to cast it that would be acceptable because, as I said, it is the Senedd that decides its membership, and I very much hope that it goes on and approves an increase in membership very soon.

The news yesterday and today in Wales is dominated by the UK Government’s internal market Bill, but in Wales there is an additional concern about it because the Government intend to recentralise some powers that were previously devolved. MPs from Wales will therefore apparently be busier than they are now, so it seems a strange time to cut the numbers so drastically.

I looked at the predicted numbers across all the nations of the UK; the totals give a stark picture of 10 more MPs for England and eight fewer MPs for Wales. It sometimes seems that this Government neglect no issue in their attempts to alienate the devolved nations. I warn them not to take Wales for granted. My noble friend Lady Humphreys has pointed out the increasing support for independence. Yesterday’s resignation by David Melding, the Conservative shadow Counsel General in Wales, makes the point that this is not just a nationalist flurry. David Melding is an ex-Deputy Presiding Officer for the Senedd and one of the leading Conservatives in Wales.

When we argue for the special factors in Wales, it is geography which usually dominates the debate. There is an old joke: if Wales was ironed flat it would be as big as England. The mountains are our glory, but they are also powerful barriers, and there are so many of them. In the north there is Snowdonia, in the middle, the Brecon Beacons, and in the south, dividing the valleys. I live in Cardiff, and have to cross Caerphilly Mountain, or go a very long way around the bottom of it, to get to the next local authority. Combining valleys in one constituency means combining totally different communities, served by different local authorities and services. It already takes two or more hours to drive from one end of Brecon and Radnorshire to the other, so combining it with another constituency is clearly ridiculous, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said. All this makes a powerful case for the importance of the Electoral Commissions continuing to take into account local community ties and identities, as they always have.

The truth is that no single system is appropriate for every type of area across the UK, from the Cities of London and Westminster to Orkney and Shetland. In Wales, we have a specific additional factor that must be considered: the Welsh language. It is by far the most developed and flourishing UK minority language. I was proud to be the very first Minister for the Welsh language, and I initiated a strong programme to support and encourage its use. It was all community-based. The language’s areas of strength are geographically based in the west and north of Wales, although nowadays even areas of Cardiff are recognised as Welsh-speaking areas. It would be a mistake to fragment those Welsh-speaking communities by dividing them into different constituencies.

I realise that a number of other parts of the UK might claim a similar distinctiveness. My noble friend Lord Tyler’s Amendment 20 makes a similar point about Cornwall. The following group of amendments that will be considered this afternoon, to which I will not speak, relates to the different percentages that might be used as the permitted variants, and includes Liberal Democrat Amendment 16. These are all ways of attacking the problem that the current 5% variance is too tight to avoid constant reorganisations of constituency boundaries. I hope that when these variations are discussed, this can happen alongside consideration of the importance of local community ties and characteristics.

The proposal for 32 Welsh constituencies is clearly a product of an inflexible approach and an attempt to standardise the fundamentally different parts of this United Kingdom. The 35 seats suggested in Amendment 14 is one way to tackle the issues. Liberal Democrat Amendment 16 is another. It is a different approach, and I hope that they would achieve similar outcomes; they both have similar intention, and I urge the Government to accept one of the proposed compromises.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Lipsey. I first call the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I want to come back to the Minister. The Government seem to put all their weight behind the equality of the number of electors within constituencies, and have said that all the arguments from all the noble Lords who spoke in the debate are irrelevant because we would move away from equal votes of equal weight across the nations.

How does the Minister explain the exemptions that there are already in place for the islands? Yes, they are islands, but in accepting that they are special cases because they are islands, you are accepting the premise that there can be exceptions. I think that, with the arguments made—specifically the point about protecting the future of the union—these exceptions for Wales and Scotland should outweigh this crass, simplistic, mathematical argument.

I just repeat, because it is really important: under our current electoral system, which I support, if we were to make the changes proposed in the Bill and constituencies were of a similar size within quite a small variation, a single vote in Lerwick would still not be the same as a single vote in Luton. With our electoral system, you cannot make that argument.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The five protected constituencies are islands, as the noble Lord has already said, and I think an island is different. The islands need to be of a certain size in order to merit this, but I think that is correct.

I have mentioned the fact that it is for the Boundary Commissions to listen to these arguments about the specifics of constituencies, and that is not just for constituencies in Wales and Scotland; I am sure, as we have heard already today, that similar issues may arise in certain parts of England. Each constituency is unique; every single MP in this country will say that they have a special constituency with unique features which needs unique ways of dealing with these issues.

So, I am sorry, but I do not agree. I think that islands are different, and that is why we have further brought the Isle of Anglesey into this. Any local issues of geography and community should be brought up with the Boundary Commissions when they do their reviews.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grocott explained perfectly how well my noble friend Lady Hayter introduced this set of amendments. She took us through the main issues and the main points within them. I wish to emphasise just a couple of issues that my noble friend Lord Foulkes touched on at the end of his speech.

British politics is cyclical. Removing proper parliamentary scrutiny is not just wrong but could prove to be a very short-sighted action by this Government. Empowering the Executive over Parliament raises issues and concerns. If this was the only change brought forward in the Bill, we would be questioning it and raising issues with it, but what makes it more concerning is that it is coupled with other changes that make it harder to have that democratic oversight: the timetabling of any future changes—we will be discussing later the 5% that has been mentioned—and the nominating process for the Boundary Commission.

Boundary Commission recommendations deserve a democratic parliamentary backstop. These are judgment issues: major constitutional issues and changes that could be implemented around the parliamentary landscape. Although MPs, political parties and communities can feed into the earlier stages of the Boundary Commission review, the full oversight of all the packages across the different nations really takes place only when they enter Parliament itself.

We have heard that the Commons would now have 600 MPs if we had the system proposed in the Bill. What happens if the Prime Minister of the day decides that 600 is not right, and that 200, 300 or 1,000 MPs are needed? Not having full parliamentary oversight and decision-making power on would just not be right. Like my noble friends who have spoken, therefore, I am more than happy to support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s comments and response.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, the speeches by my colleagues before I was called have left me very little to say that is fresh, but I will try to make some new points, if that is possible.

My first point is that I am instinctively opposed to what the Government are trying to do here—to take this issue out of Parliament’s hands—mainly because I see it as part of the general trend of what the Johnson premiership is doing to Britain. It sees Brexit, and the constitutional changes resulting from Brexit, as an opportunity to strengthen the power of the Executive, and not to bring power back to Parliament, which was what the leave people argued for in the referendum. Across the board we see—for example in the Trade Bill and the Immigration Bill—a concentration of power in the Executive, with Parliament having less say than before. This is a deplorable trend, and it is not giving power back to the people.

My second point is that what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has said about the need for impartial consideration of constituency boundaries, and what the Constitution Committee says about this proposal being appropriate, would be all very well if one felt that one could trust this Executive to behave impartially. The way in which the Government have behaved since the December general election gives one no confidence that they will behave in a decent and impartial way, so why should we give them this power that they currently do not have?

I also believe that there has been inadequate consideration of the Bill, in the Commons and in our own House as a result of the way we are now dealing with the Bill, of the very big issues that it raises. If you apply a strict population basis to representation in this country, you will gradually see a shift in political power to London and the south-east, where most voters are. The Government decided to opt for 650 Members rather than 600 because they were deeply aware of the fact that the redistribution is likely to see a shift of representation from the north of England to the south, and that with the new “red wall” MPs who have been elected, a further reduction in the number of MPs would lead to very considerable party problems for the Conservative Party in the north of England, where it has just won representation.

We ought to be taking a bigger look at these issues. Representation is not just a feature of the arithmetical equality of the size of constituencies; it is also about whether, within a union such as the United Kingdom, all parts are fairly represented. I deeply regret that the numbers of Scottish and Welsh MPs are being reduced—when the debate about the union’s future is becoming critical, this is a grave mistake.

Similarly, within England, we need to think about the balancing of power between the regions of the country. My noble friend Lord Foulkes and I would probably agree that we would like to see this done through reform of the upper House—but, while we cannot achieve this, it is a bad political and constitutional mistake for the Government to go down the road of strict arithmetic equality. The different parts of the United Kingdom have to be decently represented.

So I support these amendments, for the fundamental reason that you cannot trust this Executive to behave fairly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow my noble friend Lord Randall, who was a superb Deputy Chief Whip when I had the privilege to be Chief Whip of the Conservative Party. We are both supporting the excellent arguments made by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who, among his many jobs, was Chief Whip of the Conservative Party at least once. I say to the Minister that if he has three colleagues who have served at senior rank in the Conservative Whips’ Office, our point of view, as we are unanimous in this, should not be dismissed too lightly.

Since I am speaking from the cheap seats at the far end of the call centre, let me make the cheap political point first. The Conservative Party, of which I am a proud member, has absolutely clean hands on Boundary Commission reports. I want to keep it that way and I want the perception to be that way. The only parties that have mucked around with those reports were Labour, when Jim Callaghan ditched the boundary commission proposals in 1969, and the disgraceful ploy by the Lib Dems to kick into touch the 2011 review. They are responsible for our boundaries being eight years out of date. Those are the political points. The Conservative Party has never done that and I do not want it ever to do that and I do not want there to be the slightest ability for it to be perceived to be able to do that.

That is why it is terribly important that, in a Bill that has got everything else right—reducing the number of seats and cutting out the possibility of Parliament interfering and kicking Boundary Commission reviews into touch—we have an amendment that says it must be delivered within three months. I do not need to go through any of the excellent details that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham delivered—in any case, I do not have that ability—but a couple of other points struck me as crucial. One is that everyone else in this process has to perform within strict time limits, but not the Government. The Government should also be held to a strict time limit, and three months is right. Six weeks is too little.

This has nothing to do with the Delegated Powers Committee, which I have the privilege to chair. We did not comment on this Bill because there was nothing relevant to us, but time after time in the Delegated Powers Committee we see skeleton Bills coming along with all the details to be filled in later by complicated regulations. Yesterday, I participated in the Chamber on the immigration Bill. The opposition spokesman criticised the Government, understandably, for bringing in a regulation which would run to dozens of pages on highly complex new Immigration Rules, which would be made under the “made affirmative” procedure and take effect immediately.

If it is possible for the Government in that instance—they are doing it on dozens of occasions—to invent, almost overnight, highly complex regulations, it is a piece of cake for them to pass a simple regulation that, as my noble friend pointed out, on the last occasion consisted of no more than 27 lines. It would be simple for them to produce an Order in Council implementing someone else’s report. The Government have no work to do: it has already been done by the Electoral Commission. All they have to do is make a simple order in Parliament and bring it into force within three months.

My noble friends Lord Randall and Lord Young of Cookham have made impeccable arguments for implementing the Boundary Commission reports within that three-month timescale. I conclude by repeating my opening remarks: the Conservative Party has had an impeccable record on this and the Bill is excellent in every detail, except for this one lacuna. I say to my noble friend the Minister: let us plug that lacuna and remove any possible suspicion that a Conservative Government could muck around with Boundary Commission reports and delay them.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

The word of the day seems to be “automaticity”. The noble Lord, Lord True, wants to remove any political interference or influencing from future boundary reviews. But as the noble Lord, Lord Young, eloquently said, this is the one area where any future Government could use political influence or interference, with the Executive slowing down the implementation of such future boundary reviews. You cannot pick and choose your automaticity. If it is good enough to remove Parliament from the ability to debate, question and vote on the boundary review, it is good enough to remove any possibility of the Executive delaying the implementation of a boundary review, especially if they do not like it. I offer another word of advice to the Minister. I seriously suggest that, apart from adopting this amendment, the Government should look at getting the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, back on to the Front Benches.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Young, on the exemplary way in which they have introduced their amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Young, suggested that I might follow on from some of his detail. I do not want to bore the Grand Committee with excessive detail, but I will make one or two further observations on the process.

Until 1986, there was no timetable for any part of the process of boundary reviews. The 1986 Act introduced one change: to identify the point at which each review should start. Later legislation introduced timetables for each stage with one notable exception, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra has just said, which is the concluding stage. If we have moved to a position where we should identify the timing for each stage in the process, it would be sensible to do so for the conclusion as well.

As I have said, there is just one stage that has no timetable, but it is worth looking at the justification for “as soon as reasonable”. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, it is just 27 lines with vast quantities of pages thereafter. The argument made to me on previous occasions was, “Well, the maps have to be prepared; we have to ensure that we have got the wards right and all the rest”. As already identified in an earlier debate, however, all the political parties spend their time throughout the process trawling around the edges of every single ward—and nowadays even the polling districts—with a view to ensuring that the right arguments are put forward and the right boundaries are set.

There is absolutely no reason why much of the work cannot be done in advance. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has identified many of the timescales, but it is worth while looking within the process of each review. When a review is brought forward, the initial recommendations are tabled by the boundary commissioners. Some 50% of those are changed, meaning that 50% are not. Some of the changes are agreed across the political parties. In the last abortive review, all three parties put forward exactly the same proposal for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. This means that officials can start working if there is excessive work, which I am not convinced that there is, since the councils have much of the detail anyway. Given the way the review process works much of the preparatory work on maps, street identification and the like can be done well in advance.

From 50% of the initial recommendations being changed, depending on which review you look at you might get down to changes of perhaps 8%. There was one review where the final stage resulted only in the change of the name of Yvette Cooper’s constituency. There was an argument about whether two locations or three should be identified within the constituency name, rather like that of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

There is an enormous opportunity, in this day and age, for a large amount of preparation. Most of the data is already computerised. It is readily available: you can go on the web and look for the ward map or constituency map. I could do it for any constituency in the country within 30 seconds. It was suggested that it needs a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Young, identified the timescales. I must admit that when he showed them to me, I cynically observed that they seemed to be getting longer, despite the advances in technology associated with the process.

--- Later in debate ---

The history of this long campaign is that we are gradually moving closer and closer to this important addition to the franchise. Therefore, it is only right that we should take some preliminary, precautionary steps along the lines recommended in the amendment. The franchise is such a fundamental foundation stone of the UK’s representative democracy that we should work constructively to achieve consistency throughout our country. If the UK is still a united kingdom, surely that must be the eventual outcome. I am delighted to support the amendment. It is just a modest step in that direction and I very much hope that it will be passed. I am glad to be one of its sponsors.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, 16 and 17 year-olds already participate very actively in politics, whether as young members of the parties in the Grand Committee today or through involvement in single-issue campaigns. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, touched on the Scottish referendum and how well the lowering of the voting age worked in 2014, with individuals registering, taking their responsibility seriously for such an important issue and delivering their vote, and on how they handled it afterwards.

Lowering the voting age will also encourage more politicians to listen to what young people have to say. Especially through Covid, when they have not been at schools, colleges or universities but have been at home, many have been through a very difficult period. They can also feel very ignored.

Young people’s lives would also be improved if they felt that they had the ability to influence the wider country and wider communities. Interestingly, no advocate for lowering the voting age argues that all young people will always vote intelligently—especially since not everyone can agree on what that means—but the same could also be said for those aged over 18. When one of the strongest arguments against lowering the age is that young people do not have a mature enough understanding of the world they live in or of politics, why are they held to a higher standard than everyone else who is allowed to vote?

As my noble friend Lady Hayter said, this amendment is very short. It is not even looking to change the position or the law. It asks the Boundary Commission to carry out a review of

“the impact on constituency boundaries of extending the entitlement to vote at a parliamentary election to those aged 16 or 17”.

It is not going the full way. It is basically a first step to look at what the impact of making those changes would be. I support the amendment.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab) [V]]

Like many who have spoken, I welcome the Bill. The first eight clauses are probably the meat of it. I will try to touch on a few points on Clauses 2, 4, 5 and 8.

Clause 2 touches on the need for the approval of both Houses. This is sensible, as can be clearly seen. If we had not had a system of the approval of both Houses when the previous discussions about the boundary changes and the move to 600 went through, the changes would already be in place. So needing the approval of both Houses is both sensible and a very good backstop.

I have a question on Clause 4 regarding public hearings, which I do not think has been touched on yet, and the move from the first to the second consultation. It is sensible for input on the public consultation to be in the second round. That will allow communities and parties to have sight of other proposals that are made. My concern would be with the boundary commission having more set plans and being less able to effect or bring forward changes if we have already gone through the first part of it. Most importantly, public consultations need to be fair, open and transparent.

I have another point on Clause 5 with regard to the voice of the smaller nations. I completely understand and get the idea of moving to constituencies of a similar size. The 5% plus or minus will make it very difficult to fit in more council boundaries, so looking to move that would be sensible. However, my point goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Hain said about the nations. Currently, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have 117 constituencies, with London and the south-east having 156. These proposals will change it so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have 106 and London and the south-east will have 164. That will further endanger the unity of the union. Other considerations could be brought into the Bill with regard to rural constituencies that are distant from Westminster, et cetera, that would trump the size of the constituencies.

Finally, on 23 July Jon Cruddas MP wrote to the Prime Minister raising real concerns about Havering Council’s Conservative group and conversations about the gerrymandering of boundaries. That obviously brings back for all of us memories of the wilful misconduct that happened in Westminster City Council. I raise this to put it on the record as a concern. It needs to be addressed and dealt with.

Finance Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 17th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also speak to the remaining Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. I call the next speaker: the noble Lord, Lord Livermore.

[Lord Livermore (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this Finance Bill gives effect to the tax measures announced in the Chancellor’s Spring Budget. Although just four months ago, that already feels like a Budget from a different age. The subsequent Covid-19 pandemic created an unprecedented shock to the economy and the Government’s policy response was unparalleled. At 20% of GDP, it was the largest peacetime fiscal expansion in British history. Now, in his summer economic update, the Chancellor has continued to accept that he needs to intervene to support the economy by announcing an additional £30 billion of measures that bring the total cost of economic support, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, to £192 billion, with a further £122 billion spent on loans and deferred taxes since the start of this crisis. Government borrowing is now on course to reach more than £350 billion this year. At an estimated 18% of GDP, the deficit will be twice the size reached during the 2008 global financial crisis.

The UK economy was already exceptionally weak before this pandemic, recording its worst ever average annual growth forecast in the Spring Budget. Going forward, the impact of coronavirus will be vast. This is the deepest recession in history; the economy could contract more this year than in any year since 1706. This week’s monthly GDP data show a steeper decline in March and a slower pickup in May than had been expected, leaving the economy still 25% smaller than before this crisis began. Now, as well as the UK recording the highest excess death rate in the world, Britain is also forecast to suffer the worst recession of any country in the G7.

Against this backdrop of a pandemic-induced recession, the Government have decided that the end of this year is the right time to end the transition period, imposing a red-tape bill on British business of between £7 billion and £13 billion a year. The Government’s paucity of ambition in seeking only a free trade deal, and focusing solely on tariff reduction for goods trade—when modern trade is dominated by supply chains and Britain’s strength lies in services—means that even if they achieve the deal they seek we will still see a reduction in GDP of some 6.7%, compared to staying in the single market. This puts further pressure on business, the economy and the public finances at a time of already unprecedented economic disruption.

This week’s Fiscal Sustainability Report from the Office for Budget Responsibility highlights the risk of huge job losses from this pandemic unless we see further government action. It estimates that 15% of furloughed workers will lose their jobs, meaning that unemployment would peak at 12%—some 4 million people—by the end of this year. The Labour Party has consistently argued that the furlough scheme must now evolve to deliver sectoral-specific support, targeting help where it is needed most, supporting employment in industries that are viable in the long term and protecting our country’s economic capacity for the future. Instead, the Chancellor announced in his economic update that the furlough scheme will be wound down in October, replacing it with a much less generous and very poorly targeted jobs retention bonus. The risk now is that billions of pounds will be spent on a policy that does very little to protect jobs.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that a majority of this money will go to jobs that would

“have been returned from furlough anyway”

while the Resolution Foundation argues that

“the deadweight in the scheme will be large”

while

“the scale and temporary nature of the bonus means”

that it will have no “major impact on employment”. The Resolution Foundation went on to conclude that this lack of further action on jobs leaves the Chancellor risking higher unemployment this autumn.

The temporary cut in stamp duty, also announced by the Chancellor, raises further questions about the Government’s willingness to target support on the areas that need it most. He announced about the first £500,000 of residential property purchases would be stamp duty-exempt for the next nine months—a measure we are also debating today. All measures which help to get the economy moving are of course welcome and, at a cost of £3.8 billion, it is a very significant revenue giveaway. But the main beneficiaries will be buyers of costlier properties in London and the south-east. The average buyer in London will be more than £14,000 better off, while the average buyer in the north-east will gain nothing.

The threshold increase also temporarily removes one of the few advantages that young people had in the housing market, while doing almost nothing to help first-time buyers. By including second-home buyers and buy-to-let investors, this measure will cost an additional £1.3 billion. It is surely right that we examine whether this delivers value for money, or whether these funds could be better spent supporting much-needed genuinely affordable and social housing.

The Chancellor’s announcement of targeted VAT cuts on hospitality, leisure and tourism are of course welcome, when local businesses are desperately in need of that support, as is the kick-start scheme to create jobs for young people, particularly since young workers have been among those hardest hit by this crisis so far. This policy is almost an exact replica of the Future Jobs Fund, introduced during the global financial crisis and previously cancelled by this Government. The scale of job creation required will be a major delivery challenge, requiring many jobs to be created by local authorities decimated by a decade of cuts. In a signal of a potential return to such austerity, the Chancellor warned in his statement last week:

“Over the medium term, we must, and we will, put our public finances back on a sustainable footing.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/20; col. 974.]


Before this crisis, public finances were already rapidly deteriorating, with debt having doubled to £2 trillion and being set to reach nearly 80% of GDP. If the Chancellor now decides to increase taxes before the recovery, or to cut public services, he risks damaging demand and inhibiting the growth that our economy and public finances desperately need. The Chancellor must also ensure that the distribution of any such measures is borne more fairly than in the previous decade, when money was found to reduce the top rate of income tax while the incomes of the poorest in society were cut by some 15%.

Ultimately, very few of the measures announced by the Chancellor so far will make a significant difference if people are unwilling, or unable, to leave their homes in the months ahead. The British economy is being held back, not because families are waiting for £10 off their restaurant bill but because they are still worried for their health.

The Government were too slow into lockdown, too slow on track and trace and are now too slow on saving jobs. They have damaged public confidence and, in turn, harmed consumer demand. Only when the Government have in place an exit strategy that generates confidence will they be able to genuinely address the huge challenges that our country and economy must now confront.

[The Deputy Speaker]

With the leave of your Lordships’ House, I now call the Minister to make his opening remarks.

David Frost

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I strongly agree with what my noble friend has said. Mr Frost has shown remarkable skill in negotiations so far, and I am sure will continue to do so. He will be a vital and important Member of this House for many years to come.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allocated for the Private Notice Question has elapsed. The House will now adjourn until 12.30 pm for questions on an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons on Monday 29 June.

UK-EU Negotiations

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allotted for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

[Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]]

I wish the Government well in delivering a far-ranging, successful set of negotiations that will serve all sides in the long term. It is to be hoped that an eye is being kept in parallel during these complex negotiations on the central necessity of broad relationship-building with civil society, the Commission and the capitals of the 27. If that is the case, will the Minister offer the House specific examples of programmes that are being and will be implemented to ensure that a deep and special relationship will be the outcome, whereby both sides are mutually satisfied?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, is not with us, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Ministers have frequently referred to the Canadian or Australian models as “oven-ready” recipes for a deal. Can the Minister therefore confirm that our negotiators are including arrangements for the provisional application of such a mixed-competence agreement while we wait for national ratification? The Canadian FTA was signed in 2016 but ratification is not yet complete. Does he understand what the Prime Minister means by the Australian model? The Australian Government website tells me that the seventh round of negotiations on a potential agreement took place last month.