House of Lords: Appointments

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the balance in the House of Lords between members taking the Government whip and members taking the whip of the Official Opposition as a factor when considering future recommendations for appointments to the House.

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

My Lords, the Prime Minister makes nominations in response to the needs of the House for expert and specialist knowledge and experience and to maintain its political balance. This ensures that the Lords continues to fulfil its role in scrutinising and revising legislation while respecting the primacy of the Commons and the conventions between the two Houses.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that, when Labour left office in 2010, the number of Labour Peers exceeded the Tory Opposition by 26 and that, under this Government, the number of Tory Peers exceeds the Labour Opposition by 89? Can he also confirm that Tory Peers now constitute a third of the Members of this House and 50% of those taking the party whip—far higher than in any recent Administration? Is the scale of Tory appointments in recent years not at best a disregard of normal conventions and at worst a clear abuse of prime ministerial power?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords, I do not agree with that. Obviously, it depends what base you take for your statistics. The noble Lord opposite referred to the political House, which is now 32.1% Labour; the Labour vote share at the last general election was 32.1%.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the Prime Minister has read, marked, learned and inwardly digested the Burns report, which has been twice endorsed by your Lordships’ House and points a sensible way forward?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot comment on the reading matter of the Prime Minister. However, I have told the House that neither his predecessor nor the current Prime Minister have committed themselves to the specific proposals on the size of the House.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, pending any further constructive and radical reform of the House, can the Government not at least agree that the appointments body should become a statutory body and that a set of principles, comparable to the Dissolution principles we will discuss tomorrow, could be drawn up by the Government in co-operation with all other parties represented in the House of Commons to form the basis for a common understanding of the principles by which appointments to this House should be made?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the House of Lords Appointments Commission performs an important role but, as I have told the House before, there are no current plans to alter its remit. Following the opening Question from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, one thing I think we could agree on is that the Liberal Democrats are at least very well represented in this House—I do not use the term “overrepresented”, preferred by my noble friend behind me.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said that neither this Prime Minister nor his predecessors had committed themselves to implementing the Burns report. That, of course, is factually accurate, but what the right honourable Member Theresa May did do was exercise discretion in the number of appointments that she made to take forward what was then an approved government policy of reducing numbers in this House. Do we not need to get back to that situation?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the House today is much smaller than when I first came to work in it in 1997. I think your Lordships’ House works well and should perhaps agonise a little less on these matters. So far as these matters are concerned, another factor is the number of defeats inflicted on the Government. Frankly, they have not been in short supply lately, which does not suggest that there is a great imbalance.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, another startling statistic for the House is that the average age of Labour Peers is now 74 years and three months while that of Conservative Peers is 68 years and six months. So, actuarially, the numbers gap will increase over time. When this is coupled with the Prime Minister’s ignoring of the Burns report recommendations and allegedly selling Peerages and blocking my noble friend’s Bill, does this mean that the Prime Minister is now trying to ensure, as in the past, an overall majority for the Conservative Party?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the allegation that the Prime Minister is selling Peerages is a disgrace and should not be made in this House. So far as his broad point is concerned, it is true and fair to say that all Benches in this House need to be considered and that the refresh of the House should go on. My right honourable friend—in addition to a number of distinguished former Labour MPs whom he has sent here—has appointed 11 new Labour Peers since 2019. That is as many as were sent here by Gordon Brown.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not recall that, back in 1999, the then Labour Government removed about 600 Conservative supporters in a single Bill on a single day? A one-clause Bill to repeal that Bill would solve the Chief Whip’s problems.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have no plans to do so.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the Burns report. When the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House reported on 31 October 2017, it made some judgments on what the relative size of the political parties would be in 2022. It suggested that the Official Opposition Benches should have about 166 Peers as the number in the House reduced, while the Conservative Benches would have around 210. Today, we see the Labour Benches at 167—roughly right—but the Conservative Benches are 47 Peers higher than anticipated in the normal reduction of the House, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. That might not have been evident in Monday evening’s votes, perhaps because the Official Opposition are punching above their weight and a number of Conservative Peers just went home. However, is it not the case that the Burns report was accepted by all parties in your Lordships’ House as being a way forward? Is this not another example of the Government thinking that the rules apply to other people but not themselves?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness opposite. I note that the Labour leader has said that he wants

“a democratic second chamber representing the nations and regions of the UK.”

I am sure that that gets fervent support on the Benches opposite. I repeat the point that I made: there is a factor in the way that this House operates. The Government have suffered 164 defeats in this House in two years—well over twice as many as were inflicted on Gordon Brown’s whole Government and more than in the first five years of Sir Tony Blair’s Government.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, in view of the climate emergency and the huge problems facing the world, in which Greens are extremely well versed, will the Minister please suggest to the Prime Minister that in his resignation honours he could perhaps put a few Greens into your Lordships’ House ?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Greens are very capable of making their voice heard in your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has twice referred to the number of defeats. There is no point in having a second Chamber if we always agree with the first Chamber. The whole point is that we have different views here. We ask the other House to think again. But sort of threatening the numbers because we defeat something that the Government have done and ask them to think again is surely not the right way to consider the role of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I made no such threat—I do not threaten your Lordships’ House. I am merely drawing your Lordships’ attention to some empirical facts: 14 defeats in one night were more than in the whole of the last Session of the Gordon Brown Government.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, is that not perhaps a reflection of the quality of the legislation that the Government are bringing before this House? Could the noble Lord expand on his comment about the desirability of achieving “political balance” in this House and define for us what he means by that?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this Government bring forward legislation of a quality that seems to please the other place rather more than your Lordships—that I confess. On an overall balance, I have said that the refreshing of the House needs to take into account the interests of all sides of the House.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, when David Cameron was Prime Minister and votes were not going his way, he elected to abolish the House of Lords. What has changed since then?

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, I am not aware of that, my Lords. To my knowledge, your Lordships’ House has been abolished only once: in 1649—and I am pleased to say that it was revived in 1660.

Downing Street Event

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General to an Urgent Question in another place on reports of an event held in the Downing Street garden on 20 May 2020. The Statement is as follows:

“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Both the Prime Minister and I came before the House in December to set out the details of the investigation being led by the Cabinet Office into the allegations of gatherings in Downing Street and the Department for Education in November and December 2020. As I did then, I apologise again unreservedly for the upset that these allegations have caused.

The Prime Minister has asked for an investigation to take place, and the terms of reference for the investigations that are under way have already been published and deposited in the Library of this House—in fact, of both Houses. The investigations are now being led by Sue Gray. She is the Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and of course a former director-general of propriety and ethics. The Government have committed to publishing the findings of the investigation and providing these to Parliament in the normal way. The terms of reference set out that where there are credible allegations relating to other gatherings, it is open for these to be investigated, and I can confirm to the House that this includes the allegations relating to 15 and 20 May 2020. It will establish the facts, and if wrongdoing is established, requisite disciplinary action will be taken.

As with all internal investigations, if evidence emerges of what was potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the Metropolitan Police, and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. Matters relating to adherence to the law are, as ever, matters for the Metropolitan Police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with it as appropriate. As I am sure Members of this House will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and the Government have committed to updating the House in due course.

I must again point out, as I did in December, and as I know the House will understand, that there is a long-standing practice of successive Administrations that any human resources matters concerning personnel relating to individuals need to remain confidential. But both the Prime Minister and I came before this House in December; we set out the details of the investigation being led by the Cabinet Office into these allegations of gatherings, and those investigations are continuing.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, whenever I hear Ministers talk about “in due course”, the ghost of Sir Humphrey arises. But let us be clear: lockdown was tough. Throughout it, most of us stuck to the rules, despite personal sacrifices. Noble Lords will have heard some of the examples and testimonies from around the country, and some of those stories are absolutely heart-breaking.

But for those who did not stick to the rules, the full force of the law was used, leading to criminal convictions. By Christmas, in Westminster Magistrates’ Court alone, there had been more than 2,000 prosecutions for ignoring lockdown, breaking quarantine, and hosting or attending parties. Does the Minister agree that the law should equally and fairly apply to all? I suspect I know the answer to that one; I suspect he is going to say yes. So, my second question is more important: why does the Prime Minister need an investigation into whether he attended a party in his own back garden?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, adherence to the law is important, and the noble Baroness is correct to anticipate my answer on that point. As I have told the House, an investigation is already taking place into a number of events that are alleged to have occurred in Downing Street and elsewhere. The primary purpose will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time. That is an ongoing investigation.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, at about 6 pm on 20 May 2020, just as the Prime Minster and his staff were gathering in the garden for jovial drinks and nibbles, this House was debating the tsunami of deaths in care homes which occurred despite the great efforts and stress of the dedicated care staff in those homes? Does he understand that they were not gathering for drinks at the end of the working day because there was no end to it and they certainly were not in the mood for socialising? Does he also understand the anger of the bereaved families of the many elderly people who died at that time in such large numbers? They wanted the opportunity to hold the hand of the person they loved as they passed away. They did not get that opportunity; they gave it up because they were following the rules. They now want a straight answer from the Prime Minister: was he there or was he not? Tell us now.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, first I will address what the noble Baroness said in the opening part of her remarks, which will strike a chord with the whole House. Frankly, there is not a single Member of this House—including me, if I may say so—who will not have experienced peculiar personal sadness in the unparalleled circumstances of Covid. We should take that as a fact to which we pay due honour and respect. So far as the event to which she alludes is concerned, I can only repeat that investigations are taking place and the findings of those investigations will be made public.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly acknowledges—I take him at his word—that the rule of law means one law for everyone, whether Ministers, officials or ordinary citizens. Of course, ordinary citizens do not get to appoint their ethics adviser to investigate when they are accused of criminal offences. When he thinks it appropriate, could the Minister please explain for the benefit of those outside this place what level of prima facie evidence is sufficient to justify cutting out the ethics adviser and going straight to a police investigation?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as I said in the Statement, as with any internal investigation, if evidence emerges of what was potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police. The noble Baroness is quite right that matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s staff must now be scurrying around trying to find a plausible exit strategy, beyond just saying “Wait for the investigation.” Surely the real problem is one of trustworthiness. Throughout his career, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be a stranger to the truth. There is a simple question which you do not need an investigation to answer—did he or did he not attend the gathering or the party?—or will there be some sort of selective amnesia, as there was over the refurbishment of No. 10?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it will not please the noble Lord opposite, but I repeat that a fair truth in a democracy is that it would not be appropriate to comment on or prejudge the outcome of an investigation. I agree with what was said by the leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, who stated on air that we should let the investigation play out and take its course.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister himself knows whether or not he attended the party. Is not the country entitled to know whether he attended, yes or no? It would clarify matters and give him some respect, which he is lacking at the present time.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not agree; I have respect for the Prime Minister. On who was at these events, as I have said, the primary purpose of the investigation will be to establish swiftly the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, and the findings will be published.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, could the Minister advise those of us on these Benches how we should respond to clergy, who took an enormous personal toll in having to deal with families who were not able to attend funerals or to be with their loved ones? They were very tempted to break the rules for strong pastoral reasons but did not, and they are now faced with this.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I would answer in a similar tone to that in which I replied to the noble Baroness. I pay huge respect to the role of the clergy and faith leaders of all faiths and to their support for people. I understand, as does everyone, the collective pain that has been suffered, but there is also due process, and it is important that the investigation be allowed to run its course and the facts laid out. A number of people are alleged to have been involved in these incidents; let us see the outcome of the investigation.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, a few days ago there was a lot of talk on the Conservative Benches about the damage done to the rule of law by the jury verdict in the Colston trial. Many people who understand the way the law operates would support jury trials and the way that trial was conducted. Will those same Ministers and other Members reflect now on the damage done to the rule of law and what the country will make of this in relation to the rule of law as it goes forward? Would the Minister care to tell the House a little more about the consequences that might flow from the outcome of the investigation? It will go one way or another; why does he not address the consequences that we might expect as regards the action to be taken?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I believe in the rule of law, the sanctity of respect between human beings and in due process. I repeat what I said in the Statement, that as with all investigations, it will be the case with this one that if evidence emerges of what is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, at the beginning of the Statement that the noble Lord read out to us, there was an apology. What was being apologised for?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement read:

“I apologise again unreservedly for the upset that these allegations have caused.”

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, no one who has read this email is in any doubt that there was a party. That means that millions of people in this country who have had the advantage of being able to read it know that it was an invitation to a party. They know that it emanated from the Prime Minister’s private office; we know that it was written in the first person plural, because it started with the word “we”; and they know what “we” refers to when an email comes out of the Prime Minister’s Office. They believe the evidence that has been swirling around—albeit that it is hearsay—that people have said that they were there and that the Prime Minister and his then partner, now wife, were there too. Why have we been treated twice now to the Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Boxes in Parliament and telling people that they should suspend their belief until some apparently independent inquiry tells them what they already know? Why do we not just live in the real world, own up to it, and then we can move on and get on with helping to run the country?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I believe it is a wise course in human events and in life generally to act on the basis of full facts. I have assured the House that the investigation is being conducted swiftly. It will establish the facts, and if wrongdoing is established, there will be requisite disciplinary action. However, I agree with what Sir Keir said, that the investigation should be allowed to run its course.

Legislation: Skeleton Bills and Delegated Powers

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts that this debate would not interest people in the Dog and Duck—though it has to be said I have not felt like either a dog or a duck in this debate but rather like one of those creatures in a shooting gallery at the circus, as each one of your Lordships has risen to take aim. This subject should interest people in the Dog and Duck, and it rightly interests your Lordships. The subject matter and the quality of the debate justifies, amply and fully, the decision of the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish of Little Venice, to bring this important matter before the House. I thank her for the measured and balanced way in which she set out her arguments, and I pay that tribute to other noble Lords who have spoken.

Good, clear, well-scrutinised legislation should be the objective of us all. I am quite happy with the idea expressed—one might not agree with this but I do—that the quality of government is improved by scrutiny. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that it is the constitutional right and duty of this House to ensure that the laws that any Government bring forward are of a high standard in both their policy intent and their drafting.

Many noble Lords made points addressing the ability of each House of Parliament to reject but not amend legislation. That is a matter not for the Executive only but for Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Sherbourne acknowledged, there is an issue that relates to your Lordships’ House in that regard. This House maintains the power and right to examine statutory instruments laid before it. The Government support the declaration made in 1994:

“That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration.”—[Official Report, 20/10/1994; col. 356.]


Between 1950 and 2015, this House withheld consent to seven statutory instruments.

The Government agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his review after the House withheld agreement to the tax credits regulations in 2015 that in respect of these matters the will of the elected Chamber should prevail. There is no mechanism for the elected Chamber to overturn a decision by this House on a statutory instrument, and the Government said at the time that this could not remain unchanged. As we go forward, we will keep that situation under review, and we remain prepared to act if the primacy of the Commons is threatened.

I am sorry to have started on what might seem to be a minatory note, because I am actually profoundly interested in the many varied and interesting contributions made by noble Lords. As several—indeed, all—of them have justifiably noted, we have the benefit of a pair of carefully considered reports on the process of legislation from your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. These are both thorough and learned reports, as one would expect of the committees in question. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hodgson, as well as all those noble Lords who served, on the quality of the reports. They deserve a full and proper response from the Government. I cannot pre-empt that response at the Dispatch Box today; it will be published in the usual way and, I trust, in the not-too-distant future. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—I nearly said, “my noble friend”, as we were noble friends for years—that this debate will certainly be taken into account as we consider the response.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I did not particularly care for the soundbite titles—that democracy has been denied or this Government operate by diktat. I have never got out of bed wanting to diktat and I do not intend to start doing so at this advanced age.

The Government consider that this House’s role as a revising Chamber is of the utmost importance. In this House, we have the privilege of hearing from highly informed and experienced experts and practitioners from every walk of life, if occasionally with a soupçon of political spin. The Government take that expertise seriously and listen carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I share the opinion expressed by all, including in the conclusion of the noble Baroness opposite, that Bills often leave this House better than when they arrived. We should facilitate that process, which is of course down to the hard work, skill and knowledge of many noble Lords here today and the two committees that submitted these reports.

As my noble friend Lord Blencathra underlined, the issues raised here today are not new. For hundreds of years, Parliament has aimed to strike the right balance between allowing the Government to act and ensuring that Parliament’s voice is heard. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, reminded us that this dilemma goes back to Tudor times. Parliament must consent to changes in the law. I understand some of the concerns expressed, and we will consider carefully what has been said. Skeleton Bills attract attention but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, acknowledged, they may have their place and are not unknown; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, will remember from her time in No. 10 that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 and the Childcare Act 2016, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were examples of this.

The procedures for the delegation of powers are now well established. They almost invariably have parliamentary oversight through the negative or affirmative procedure or other procedures that Parliament has decided are appropriate. I remind noble Lords that delegated powers are granted only by Acts of Parliament, each of which will have been thoroughly scrutinised in this House and the other place.

Although it is true that there has been a general trend over the years—indeed, over many years, and not solely under this Government—of increasing numbers of statutory instruments being made, this is not a straightforward issue. As society evolves and becomes more complex, so do our laws. Government does more than it did 50 or 100 years ago. Your Lordships will have differing views on the desirability of that, although I rarely come to this Chamber without being asked for the Government to do more. Be that as it may, the world is more complex. Public expectations of the state are higher, and technological change is accelerating. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, in order for the Government and our laws to adapt to this fast-changing world, they need to have delegated powers to give them the flexibility and speed to act and react; indeed, I think that every noble Lord who has spoken has acknowledged the necessity of delegated power.

Over the last few years in particular, the Government have needed to respond to a changing and complex landscape; first, following the referendum and general election decisions that the UK should leave the EU, and then, of course, with the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, to which many noble Lords have referred. It was right that the Government responded in the face of the pandemic to protect lives and livelihoods, while reducing the spread of Covid-19, including variants.

The alternative to delegated powers is to continually return to Parliament for every minor or technical change. I venture to suggest that this would not be the most practical use of noble Lords’ time or expertise— I do not think that anyone has suggested in the debate that that should be the case. The Government share the view of their predecessors that delegated powers are necessary. We believe that the processes around their creation and implementation are robust and have sought to improve them.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He was kind enough to quote me, but he quoted only half of what I said. I said that life is more complicated and therefore we would need more delegated legislation on important issues, but the Government had to give more and better methods of scrutiny. He quoted half of what I said about the concessions by the legislature, but he did not give the concession that the Government must make in response to that.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sad; I was seeking courteously to acknowledge the contribution made by my noble friend. I am grateful that he has reiterated what he said. I have said, and will say again, that the Government will carefully consider the points made by his committee and others, which embrace much of the second part of what he said.

I was referring to the efforts made by the Government to improve implementation. In the last few years, all departments have been asked to appoint a Minister and senior official to be responsible specifically for secondary legislation. Departments are responsible for the quality of their own secondary legislation, and Ministers can be asked to account for their department’s performance to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee. All statutory instruments laid by Ministers must now go through the PBL Committee triage process. This is relatively new. Departments are given laying dates to limit the number of statutory instruments being considered at any one time by Parliament. This process ensures that there is a steady flow of statutory instruments being laid before Parliament and therefore, I hope, facilitates better scrutiny. These changes have strengthened the Government’s approach to secondary legislation and created a clearer structure for accountability.

Before a Bill is introduced by the Government, we take steps to ensure that any and all powers contained within it are justified. Ministers are brought before the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee, where the Bills are examined in detail. The Lord President of the Council, who chairs that committee, told the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee earlier this year that he will

“invariably ask for the powers to be justified”

and that

“it is in the interests of the Government to be as specific as possible in the Bills that have been brought forward.”

I have the privilege of being a member of that committee and can assure noble Lords that the Lord President is as good as his word.

Ministers must seek the agreement of the PBL Committee prior to introduction of a Bill. They must provide the committee with a delegated powers memorandum and the committee will examine each power and the justification for it. The Lord President wrote to the chairs of the DPRRC, SLSC and Constitution Committee setting out that—and I profoundly agree with this sentiment—

“Bills with substantial powers, though sometimes essential, should not be a tool to cover imperfect policy development.”

I agree with what the noble Baroness opposite said about that. The PBL Committee is one mechanism through which this is safeguarded as the committee must be satisfied that the powers are necessary and essential before agreeing a Bill’s introduction. The committee, as the Lord President went on to say,

“discusses every single power and every single Henry VIII power that comes forward. It has a note provided to it on the use of powers and the legal consequences of those powers. The law officers sit in and we have to be convinced that those powers are needed and are proportionate. The law officers are very important in this, particularly in relation to Henry VIII powers.”

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, asked about the control mechanism. PBL is the check and the pressure to ensure that Bills are fleshed out at the first stage. Noble Lords can be assured that any Bills with delegated powers have been interrogated internally before being brought to this House and the other place. In every meeting on delegated legislation, consideration is of course given to the likely challenges to be presented in your Lordships’ House. As this debate demonstrates, your Lordships have a great interest in delegated powers, and I repeat that it is in every Government’s interest to ensure that before a Bill arrives here, each and every power is justified and subject to the appropriate parliamentary procedure.

Of course, this is a matter of judgment. Sometimes the DPRRC will make a different judgment. I and all Ministers fully respect that. The Government examine any report and concerns about these powers in a Bill seriously and bring amendments when necessary. There is, of course, further scrutiny of such powers when a Minister decides to use them. Your Lordships will be well aware of the differences between these procedures, and the Government greatly appreciate the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and others in holding us accountable through their examination of instruments.

I am aware of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and that of my noble friend Lady Williams, on the code of practice for non-crime hate incidents. I look forward to hearing speeches, but it is not right to begin the debate on the police Bill here or to discuss the amendments tabled to it. That is for another day, and other noble Lords will wish to take part. The House will have its chance to consider whether that is an appropriate delegation of power, as is right and proper.

I am also aware that the noble Lord’s committee has made recommendations in its report relating to guidance, and that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, have spoken on this. I agree that guidance is not law, as the Leader of the House of Commons said in evidence to the noble Lord’s committee when he stated:

“I very strongly agree … that guidance is guidance, and the law is the law.”


That is right, but I have heard what has been said in this debate and we will carefully consider the recommendations of the report. We will carefully consider the reports of both your Lordships’ committees and will publish the responses shortly.

I am tempted to respond to many suggestions made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin and my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley cast particularly fruity-looking flies. Your Lordships will appreciate that I will not respond specifically at this stage, but I can assure you that we are carefully considering those recommendations, including those that suggest amending the language of the Cabinet Office’s guide to making legislation. I do not wish to pre-empt the Government’s response today. I hope that we will have a further opportunity to consider that, but I cannot speak for the usual channels.

In a changing and complex world, delegated powers are necessary for the proper functioning of government. I acknowledge that the particular circumstances of the last few years have at times meant legislating at pace and taking a greater number of powers that at one time would have been inconceivable to many of us, to ensure flexibility as the situation evolves, especially in responding to the pandemic. As the pandemic abates, I am hopeful that we will find ourselves returning to a more predictable rhythm of producing and passing legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to this. He will forgive me if I refer to his specific points on the Elections Bill separately.

The Government have confidence in their processes, and the processes in Parliament, to ensure that laws are necessary, clear and effective. I repeat: we will take on board the reports of the two committees and your Lordships’ comments, in what has been an outstanding debate. Where the Government feel that processes can be improved, we will endeavour to do so.

It is the Government’s constitutional role, and indeed their right, to put before your Lordships proposals for legislation they judge to be expedient to deliver on their manifesto commitments and to address the issues of the day. It is Parliament’s role to ensure that this legislation is effective, necessary and balanced. Your Lordships have a fundamental place in that.

Your Lordships’ views have been heard. I have listened to the debate with very great care. The debate is timely. I am confident that this balance between government and Parliament will continue to evolve for the better. I repeat that I hope the Government will, before too long, be able to respond to the reports recently published by your Lordships’ committees.

Downing Street Christmas Parties

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question made in the House of Commons:

“Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, he understands and shares the anger up and down the country, as do I, at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures. I join the Prime Minister in apologising unreservedly for the offence that it has caused to people who have been through what everyone in this House knows is immeasurable pain and hardship as a result of this appalling pandemic.

The Prime Minister has been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken. However, the Government also recognise the public anxiety and indignation about this, which I share, in that it appears as though the people who have been setting the rules may not have been following the rules.

Now, as the Prime Minister confirmed to the House yesterday, he has asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate the facts and I would like to update the House now, if I may, on the details of this investigation. The terms of reference for the investigation are being published and I will lay a copy in the Library later today. I can confirm to the House that the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation will establish the facts surrounding the following allegations: a gathering at No. 10 Downing Street on 27 November 2020; a gathering at the Department for Education on 10 December 2020; and a gathering at No. 10 Downing Street on 18 December 2020.

The primary purpose of the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, and with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time. If required, the investigation will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted. The work will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office at the direction of the Cabinet Secretary, with support from the Government Legal Department. Those officials will have access to all relevant records and be able to speak to members of staff.

As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. In conclusion, I must emphasise that matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with the police as appropriate. All Ministers, special advisers and civil servants will be expected to co-operate with this investigation.

Finally, I can confirm, as I have said, that the findings of the investigation will be provided to the House and made public. Following the long-standing practice of successive Administrations, any specific HR action against individuals will remain confidential.”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading out the Answer to the Question. I know him to be a decent and honourable man, so I do feel for him that he so often has to come to this Dispatch Box and defend the Prime Minister’s failings.

The picture emerging of the attitudes of staff working for the Prime Minister at No. 10 is pretty unedifying. While the Government were instructing the rest of us not to spend Christmas with loved ones and not to spend time with friends and family who were frail, sick or even dying, back at government HQ, at No. 10, it was party time. Across the country, we stuck to the rules—not just for ourselves, but to protect others. So we have a tale of two situations: the best of times for the PM and his friends, and the worst of times for everybody else. It is a total and utter disgrace.

I have two questions for the noble Lord, aside from the fact that I find it quite bizarre that we are having an investigation as to whether there was a party—just ask the people who were there. The Prime Minister has been forced to announce that the Cabinet Secretary, who himself is rumoured to have been at this party, will carry out an inquiry into those events. In the House of Commons, the Paymaster-General, as we heard in the Statement just now, said that any evidence of criminal behaviour will be passed to the Met. Given the public’s absolute lack of confidence that the Prime Minister has been telling the truth, surely it is for the Met to decide what is criminal behaviour and what is not. Can the noble Lord confirm that all information will be passed to the Met, not just that which is filtered through government? Secondly, can he confirm whether any members of the Government from your Lordships’ House were either in attendance or even invited to the parties and other social events at No. 10 last December?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I reject the characterisation of both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the many people who work in No. 10 Downing Street and elsewhere, whether political employees, political figures or civil servants. Whatever emerges from the findings of these alleged events, I think it is quite wrong to extrapolate from that to besmirch a whole class of people who are seeking to do their very best for this country.

So far as the facts are concerned, as I have said, the Cabinet Secretary will investigate. As the noble Baroness said, matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.

I believe it is best that we should now wait for the findings of this inquiry, which the Prime Minister has directed should be produced as soon as possible.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that the morning newspapers and the other blogs that many of us have read now list a good deal more than three parties as having broken the rules at that time. Do we have a guarantee that the findings will be published in full when they come out?

I turn to what I think is the most important thing for all of us now. Public trust and public confidence in the rules to beat this pandemic have clearly been very badly damaged and need to be re-established, particularly as the new variant is sweeping through the country. How do the Government plan to ensure that public confidence and trust in the rules can be rebuilt? Are the Government providing a strategy on that? Do they think, for example, that, in the current circumstances, the Prime Minister is the best person to lead that, or that perhaps another Minister might be more capable of commanding public confidence for the next few weeks?

[Lord True (Con)]

As a preamble, I failed to respond to the noble Baroness opposite on who might have been at any of these alleged events. I can assure her that, obviously, that is part of the investigation and report that the Cabinet Secretary will complete, but I am not in a position to make a statement on that myself.

So far as what the noble Lord has just said, I do not believe that this should damage trust. Obviously, there are several strands here. There is proper public concern and indignation, which I referred to in the Statement, about the tape that came out, and a proper wish to establish the facts on these events. We have to be candid that, separate from that and wider than that, there is a persistent political campaign against the Prime Minister to besmirch his character—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord True (Con)]

Those who participate are very vocal on the matter.

The third factor, in response to the noble Lord, is that there is a vital task—which the Prime Minister is engaged on and has been engaged on from day one—to address the challenge of this pandemic. That work goes on. I suggest respectfully to all noble Lords that mixing one of those strands with another of them also undermines public trust. We are all committed, I hope on all sides, to defeating this pandemic, and we should focus on that.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the Minister failed to answer my noble friend Lady Smith’s second question on whether any members of the Government from your Lordships’ House were either in attendance or invited to attend these parties.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I just responded to that in answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister confirm that deliberately misleading Parliament and the House of Commons is contempt under the rules of Parliament? If it is shown that the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament on what he knew, he would be in contempt of the House of Commons, and he would have to resign. Will the Minister confirm that that is the position?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the rules of the House of Commons are for the other place. As far as I am concerned, every Minister acts on his or her honour to be truthful to whichever House they are a member of.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister confirm that anybody who works in No. 10, or elsewhere in government, who was or was not invited to that party, will not have their career prospects jeopardised by giving evidence to the courts, the police or indeed this inquiry?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely hope that that would be the case. Obviously, the Cabinet Secretary is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry. He is the senior civil servant and will own the responsibility to which the noble Baroness referred. I should make it clear—following on from something that I did not reply to from the noble Lord—that the terms of reference, which I will lay in the Library of your Lordships’ House later today if they are not there now, will make it clear that where there are credible allegations relating to other gatherings, these may be investigated.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose that it is really not surprising that the Labour Party should try to make so much political hay out of this, as it has done this afternoon. But in this House we can take a more measured view of these events. As my noble friend the Minister has just announced in his repeated Statement, the Cabinet Secretary has been asked to make an investigation, where he will come out with the full facts. Therefore, the allegations that have been made cannot really be relied on until we have seen the results of that investigation. Would it not be a good idea for everybody, not least in this House, to wait until we have seen the results before making any more comment?

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend is entirely right—he perhaps put it more elegantly than I did—that there is a political strand to this. In this country, there is an ancient presumption that people are innocent until proved guilty, and I believe that it would not be appropriate to comment on or prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. I will hold to that position.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

The Minister referred to everybody being required to make their records available to the inquiry. Will that include their electronic records, such as their mobile phone and email system, so that those are available for the benefit of the inquiry?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as I said, the terms of reference will be published by the Cabinet Secretary later today. If that is not clear in the terms of reference, I hope that it will be made clear. We are asking all Ministers, all special advisers and all civil servants to co-operate fully with the investigations. Any staff with information relevant to the investigations should provide it.

Covid-19: National Memorial

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards the creation of a permanent national memorial to those who lost their lives as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and to those who risked their lives to save a great many others.

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

My Lords, while the Government’s focus is on protecting lives, there is none the less the need to come together as a nation to mourn those who have sadly died during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Prime Minister announced the establishment of a UK commission on Covid commemoration to consider how to remember those whom we have lost and to commemorate what we have all been through. We will set out the membership of the commission and the terms of reference in due course.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

I thank the Minister very much for his reply. Does he agree that, when it comes to creating a national memorial in due course, it will be possible to commemorate the courageous actions during the pandemic of doctors, nurses, medical staff, specialists and members of the emergency services and the Armed Forces, all of whom risked their lives in order to save the lives of a great many others?

[Lord True (Con)]

I strongly agree with my noble friend. Already, of course, in a striking gesture, Her Majesty the Queen awarded the George Cross to the National Health Service across all parts of the United Kingdom. However, as my noble friend asked, the commission will also consider how we can remember the courage of countless working people and volunteers, not just in the NHS but the Armed Forces, delivery drivers, transport staff, pharmacists and teachers—it is invidious to name just some of them; they are legion —who have put themselves out to serve this nation.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, on these Benches we fully support preserving the Covid-19 national memorial wall across the river. It is a people’s memorial and every heart there represents a beloved person lost to their family and friends. So I ask the Government to work with the stakeholders involved to preserve that wall because, whatever and however the formal memorial is planned—quite rightly, it must be a national memorial that covers everybody affected by the pandemic —does the Minister agree that this is not a choice between one or the other?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we all need to find ways to remember. My aunt died in the Spanish flu pandemic, which was a lifelong sadness to my mother, 70 years after her death. Memories of this pandemic will last equally long and bite equally deep, as the noble Baroness said, in many personal ways. We are aware of the call for the memorial wall to become a permanent national memorial and we welcome the discussions being led by Lambeth Council on this.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is perhaps a bit premature to decide on one national memorial at the moment, as we are far from near the end of this pandemic? Does he know about the memorial forests initiative, whereby people can plant a tree in memory of somebody they know? That campaign has the additional benefit that people can access it online—they do not have to go to London to pay remembrance. Does he think that is worth promoting more generally to the public?

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Baroness of course makes a very good point; I would always commend the planting of trees. We have received a very large number of views and suggestions from parliamentarians, as we have heard today, and the public on how this period should be remembered and commemorated, which we will pass on to the commission as it is established. I assure noble Lords that it will give full consideration to all initiatives and ideas and provide recommendations to the Prime Minister.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we owe it to the dead, as a memorial, to find out how this pandemic began? I declare an interest in having co-authored a book on the topic.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do agree, although that is obviously not entirely under the control of Her Majesty’s Government. However, there are billions of people across the world who will need to be satisfied and have their minds put at rest in the way my noble friend asks.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps one of the best memorials to those who have died, and those who may still die, from this virus would be that we are better prepared for the next one?

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, we should always seek to be better prepared for everything in life. When we have the inquiry, I have no doubt there will be lessons to be learned by this Government, and I agree with the noble Baroness that the Houses of Parliament and the whole community will want to learn every lesson.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, will the memorial encompass our entire country—all four parts of our United Kingdom?

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, it will be a United Kingdom commission.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord fully answered the question from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. If we are to be prepared for this eventuality, are we preparing ourselves for those eventualities that we might not yet be able to foresee? Will the Government look at their contingency arrangements—I declare my interests in the register on this—to make sure that they report regularly and in full to Parliament on the mitigations in place for each of the risks on the national risk register?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is an indefatigable—I am not sure that I can say that word with the current state of my voice—advocate of the national risk register, and I accept where he is coming from. Obviously, there are certain unknown unknowns that are difficult to know, but I absolutely accept the spirit behind his question.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, which are the unknown unknowns that are easy to know?

[Lord True (Con)]

I will bow to the superior ingenuity of the noble Lord opposite on that question.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, the question has been raised about trying to prevent mortality from a future epidemic. The present epidemic is largely due to—or at least made much worse by—the fact that 71% of British people over the age of 70 are obese, and obesity and Covid are a fatal combination. If we want to prevent future mortalities, we have to get the nation to slim down. The Prime Minister has raised the whole question of reducing obesity by himself taking three stone off and advocating that that is what we should all be doing.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend lays a gentle stiletto between my ribs. Apart from the humorous side of it, there is a very serious side to what my noble friend says. There is an unequivocal connection in the terms that he describes, which each of us should bear in mind and which we should all be well aware of.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, are not nurses and those working in care homes among those who gave most to save people during the pandemic? Would it not be a worthy way of recognising that to give them all a decent pay settlement?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to debate pay policy from the Dispatch Box, but I will take the noble Lord’s comments—to which I heard some assent in the House—and pass them on to colleagues in government.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I am very taken with the idea of planting trees; it has been done in other parts of the world. In the years to come, there will be many more victims of Covid-19, and it would mean that anybody in future could have a tree planted, and that would help with the greening project ahead of us as well.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again I see a wonderful unity across the House, which I do not always sense, on the idea of planting trees, and I am sure this will be something that the commission will very much consider.

Ministerial Code

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Ministerial Code is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day. It is customarily updated and issued on their assuming or returning to office, and any amendments to the code are a decision for the Prime Minister.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I recognise that the Prime Minister issued the latest version on almost the same day when he advised Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament so that he could avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his actions for another couple of months. Is not it time now, given the widespread concern about behaviour in public life and the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, for a more measured review, which might well include asking for comments and contributions from the relevant committees of both Houses?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, high standards in public life are of fundamental importance. I respectfully submit, regularly from this Dispatch Box, that we are fortunate in this country in the high standards we have in public life. Of course this Government look carefully at reports and advice given on various aspects. As the noble Lord will know, we are carefully considering a number of recently published reports and will respond in due course.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Would it be a good idea if Ministers obeyed the law, rather than seeking to overturn it either in judicial review or by a court should they be found to have flaunted it?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not certain what specifically the noble Baroness is referring to. This Government respect the judgment of the courts and that is a principle of our polity, but any Government are entitled to review the existing law and submit to Parliament proposals for changing it.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend read paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code? It says:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”


Does he agree that in the last 20 years that paragraph has been widely overlooked? Would he agree that it should either be abolished or enforced—with Ministers who breach it losing their passports?

[Lord True (Con)]

That would be a novel sanction for Ministers; obviously I welcome the proposals made this morning on another matter. I have read that, and I personally take it very seriously. As a Minister in your Lordships’ House, I believe that the first duty is to your Lordships’ House. Like my noble friend, I am advancing in years and I remember the days when news was news and not spin disseminated aforehand. We should all aspire to respect for Parliament.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Prime Minister respects Parliament, he surely has to respect the Ministerial Code. It seems that he has a rather arm’s-length relationship with it at times. Perhaps, instead of having a review, we should see the code adhered to, which I think would please your Lordships’ House more than seeing it change. When the code is reviewed, we should also look at the foreword from the Prime Minister, because I think perhaps his priorities were wrong when he drafted that, as Brexit is mentioned three times yet integrity is mentioned only once.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that events evolve and that what must remain constant is high standards of behaviour. Personally, I am proud to be a Member of my right honourable friend’s Government, and I do not share the view held of him by some on Benches opposite.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the first paragraph of the Ministerial Code requires Ministers to follow the principles of public life, which include integrity, openness, honesty and leadership. Did the Prime Minister exhibit these qualities when he allowed No. 10 to be used for an illegal Christmas party on 18 December last year?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said: standards in public life are important. I believe that the Prime Minister respects those fully. As far as the alleged events the noble Lord refers to, I point him to the statement made by Downing Street: that No. 10 has always followed, and continues to follow, Covid regulations at all times.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister sets the Ministerial Code and is the ultimate judge of standards of behaviour, but now highly reputable bodies are increasingly calling for reforms. It is the age-old question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Does the Minister agree that, to restore public confidence, the code needs to set stronger standards on how Ministers should use social media and respond to lobbying?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, obviously the use of social media and lobbying are important and relevant matters. As the noble Baroness will know, there are recommendations before the Government and the country on lobbying, for example. My right honourable friend recently wrote to the Speaker supporting action on lobbying in the other place.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, as it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to update the manual, has he been asked whether he will do this? If not, will my noble friend undertake to ask him?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the answer to the first question is that I think your Lordships have frequently suggested it. I will draw my right honourable friend’s attention to the remarks of my noble friend.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I recently wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to investigate a breach of the Ministerial Code by Ministers misquoting the cost of HS2. He said that, under section 1.4, he would have to ask the Prime Minister first. Is there not a conflict between the Prime Minister’s personal and possible political role and that of making a judicial decision on such issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, a case was determined this morning relating to the operation of the Ministerial Code, which I am sure your Lordships will wish to study. The independent adviser has confirmed that he is content that the Transport Secretary followed the process required under the Ministerial Code for the declaration of his private interests.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the simple fact that the only person accountable to the British public is actually the Prime Minister, through elections, and all these people who call for some other person to be in charge of the Ministerial Code forget that any such person would be non-electable?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, that seems to be causing some surprise on the other side—perhaps some of them have never actually faced the electorate, as many of us have.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord True (Con)]

Others can investigate who has stood for election here and who has not. I agree with what my noble friend said. Ultimately, any Prime Minister is accountable in the conduct of his duty to the British people and is always conscious of that high responsibility.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Will the Minister think again? The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, and Members of the House of Commons individually are elected by the British people. The Prime Minister should be accountable to Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, by making Statements and by answering Questions—which the Prime Minister never does; he tries to make it leader of the Opposition’s Questions and challenges my right honourable friend Keir Starmer. Will the Minister, however, confirm that a number of organisations, including the Institute for Government, have recommended that the Ministerial Code should be incorporated in statute and that the independent adviser should be given more powers, including to start investigations? Why is this taking so long? Why is something not done about it, so that we have real democracy in this country?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have repeatedly answered this question in the House. I know that the noble Lord does not agree with the answer, but the answer is that the Prime Minister’s constitutional role as the sovereign’s principal adviser means that the management of the Executive is wholly separate from the legislature. It is for the Prime Minister to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of the resignation of other Ministers. That is why it is right that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Ministerial Code, which was underlined in the judgment this morning.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does the Ministerial Code regulate the private and public use of social media, which is a relatively new phenomenon and was not in place when it was first drafted? Is it not better to have strict rules so that diplomacy and tweeting do not become confused?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have never tweeted and I am not an assiduous reader of tweets.

Beyond Brexit: Institutional Framework (EUC Report)

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, perhaps I may say in preamble that it is never, and certainly is not, the intention of this Government to be triumphalist, aggressive or divisive on these questions. That has always been the position of Her Majesty’s Government. We see the European Union as a close friend and partner, as the Prime Minister repeatedly states, and we wish for nothing other than good relations with our partners. I hope that I can disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Desai, of his fears on that count.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the contributions made today. As noble Lords will know, parliamentary scrutiny is invaluable and essential in my judgment. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that this House can play a full role in making this new relationship with our European partners a success.

These reports were published in March and have all been responded to in writing by the Government, but it is welcome that the Committee has had this opportunity to debate them. I have found it a fascinating debate. Progress has been made since the reports were published, even in the face of a global pandemic and the resulting international economic downturn that has affected our partners and ourselves in different ways.

First and foremost, the trade and co-operation agreement has been fully ratified, both in the EU institutions and in the UK by this House and the other place. This landmark moment fulfilled our promise to take back control of our laws, borders, money, trade and fisheries. The importance of this crucial first step was rightly highlighted in the reports debated today. I therefore thank noble Lords on all sides of the argument for their efforts, which ensured that ratification occurred as swiftly as possible in what were challenging and unprecedented conditions.

I also place on record my thanks to the then European Union Committee of this House, along with its sub-committees, which duly scrutinised the trade and co-operation agreement in its series of Beyond Brexit reports. I am grateful to the committee for its valuable work on each of these. Equally, I thank the successor committees—the European Affairs Committee and the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland—for continuing the work of scrutinising our new relationship with the European Union. I hope that it will not be invidious or embarrassing if I express what I think is the sense of all noble Lords who have spoken: that is, the affection, respect and gratitude that we all feel for the noble Earl who initiated this debate for his leading role in all these fora.

On trade in goods, the trade and co-operation agreement was the first free trade agreement that the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. This is in line with our aim to provide liberalised market access for goods. I remind noble Lords that the intention on our side was not to seek fully frictionless trade, as the EU was clear that this would require regulatory alignment with its rules. Instead, a balance was struck that safeguarded the UK’s regulatory autonomy and sovereignty as an independent trading nation.

The report notes the importance of establishing the governance—I will return to this—that underpins the TCA as a route to improving UK-EU trade. I am therefore pleased to confirm that, immediately following ratification of the TCA, the Government have established the committees that support the agreement. With one exception, all those committees have already met, including the Partnership Council chaired by my noble friend Lord Frost. As I say, I will return to this point, but the UK and EU have already begun to discuss shared objectives and address the agreed commitments made in the TCA that will help to promote trade in goods between us.

The report also reflects on how important support and good communication between government and industry is; I agree with what many noble Lords said on that. The Government have committed significant funds and resources to supporting and listening to industry and others, and will continue to do so. We are also ensuring that they have a formal voice in the implementation of the TCA, through the civil society forum and the domestic advisory group. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about them; I will return to them later.

On trade in services, the Government welcome the report’s recognition of the unprecedented and highly liberalised provisions in the TCA for digital services and professional and business services, which will help to ensure that these important UK sectors continue to thrive. The Government also agree that UK businesses need our support to maximise the opportunities of our new relationship with the EU as they recover from the impacts of this pandemic. That is why we have provided extensive guidance for those exporting services to the EU and introduced the new Professional Qualifications Bill, which will provide certainty to business and help to maintain the incoming flow of professionals by giving more autonomy to UK regulators to tailor recognition according to the needs of their profession.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made important points about the law. The Government recognise the importance of the legal services industry in the UK and the role that it plays in facilitating professional services generally. That is why we fought hard for this sector in last year’s negotiations to secure unprecedented provisions regarding the right of UK solicitors, barristers and advocates to practise in the EU using their UK title in both UK and international law. This will be key in ensuring that the UK remains an attractive and competitive trading partner in professional services with the EU, and that, as the noble and learned Lord hopes, UK law remains popular as the governing law of choice for commercial contracts worldwide.

The Government recognise the major contribution that the financial services sector makes to the UK economy. We took swift action to ensure a smooth end to the transition period and have since set out the forward path for the UK’s regulatory landscape in financial services. The UK remains committed to world-leading regulatory standards and has been clear that it stands ready to work with the EU to promote important emerging sectors such as green finance and fintech.

I turn to the report on institutional frameworks. As it helpfully sets out, there is a wide range of supporting governance that underpins the agreement. The breadth of this institutional structure and the mechanisms that it contains are designed to reflect the significant breadth of the agreement, the wide range of areas of co-operation that it covers and the unique nature of the agreement itself. This is only right. As I set out a few moments ago, the UK and the EU are now using these channels to implement the agreement and improve the trade between us. I assure noble Lords that the reports being debated today have contributed significantly to the helpful discussions being had in these fora.

The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, made an interesting and penetrating speech about UK-EU trade in goods. She referred to a number of factors, most notably Covid lockdowns across Europe and businesses adjusting to our new trading relationship, which made it inevitable that exports to the EU would be lower at the start of this year than they were at the start of last year. Indeed, the Office for National Statistics cautions that it is difficult to disaggregate the various factors and identify the underlying causes at this point, so we cannot yet draw any clear conclusions. Despite this, overall freight volumes between the UK and the EU were back to their normal levels by February 2021, and we are seeing food and drink exports grow. Exports increased in seven out of 10 of the UK’s leading export markets during the first half of 2021.

As I said, the deal maintains zero tariffs and zero quotas on trade in goods between the UK and the EU. This is the first time that the EU has ever agreed to complete tariff-free, quota-free access in an FTA. It provides for streamlined customs arrangements, including recognising our respective trusted trader schemes, to support the smooth flow of goods at the border and reduce administrative costs for traders. I agree with the noble Baroness on the need to improve, for example, conditions for road hauliers.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others said that sanitary and phytosanitary checks were creating difficulties for some sectors exporting to the EU. We proposed equivalence commitments in line with the WTO SPS agreement and the EU’s past FTA practice during the TCA negotiations. Given this, the EU’s refusal to include equivalence mechanisms was, to us, surprising. Nevertheless, the TCA contains provisions to co-operate with each other to review our respective SPS measures to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.

The EU is applying a number of trade restrictions on UK exports. Some of these are due to blanket bans in EU legislation, such as the prohibition on the import of live bivalve molluscs from class B waters from third countries. Others are due to the EU not granting the UK full listed status, such as the ban on the import of seed potatoes and the granting of Part 2 rather than Part 1 listing for the movement of pets. I put in a plea for Dilyn the dog.

We remain unconvinced of the risk basis for these restrictions given our high biosecurity standards, and have consistently raised these trade barriers with the European Commission, including through the specialised committees. Any solution will need to safeguard UK sovereignty and autonomy and cannot involve aligning with EU law. However, I assure noble Lords that we stand ready to discuss such an equivalence-based agreement with the EU, and have raised it through the partnership council and the specialised committees that noble Lords referred to. In general terms, EU member states can, and do, attend specialised committees.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, the noble Earl and others raised financial services. In his Mansion House speech in July, the Chancellor set out the Government’s vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across the United Kingdom.

The UK and the EU’s financial markets are closely linked, and the EU remains a key international partner for us. We hope that the EU will continue to be a champion for international trade and openness. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle: international free trade has been one of the greatest boons to poor people and raising people out of poverty across the world in the history of mankind. We look forward to collaborating with the EU on a range of issues, such as green finance, in the next year.

The Chancellor was clear in his Mansion House speech that the EU will never have cause to deny the UK access because of poor regulatory standards. We welcome the European Commission’s recent announcement regarding the extension of an equivalence decision for the UK’s central counterparty clearing houses. The Government have made sure that the EU has all the information it requires to make a positive decision for the UK for all equivalence regimes, and we remain open to answering any further questions that the Commission may have. On the MoU, raised by the noble Earl in his opening speech, technical discussions have been concluded; the MoU can be signed once the EU has completed its formal processes that are required under its rules.

Many noble Lords referred to the UK’s participation in Union programmes. The Government are committed to the UK being a science and research superpower, and we value the strong collaborative partnerships that we have globally in the areas of science, research and innovation. Through the TCA, the EU and the UK agreed terms for participation in Horizon Europe, Copernicus and Euratom research and training. As the underpinning EU regulations were in draft at the time, a joint declaration was agreed, setting out the parties’ intentions to formalise the UK’s participation at the earliest opportunity and with the view that the UK would participate from the beginning of the programmes.

Although the UK stands ready to uphold the agreement reached last year, we continue to see delays from the EU in formalising UK participation. That is disappointing. The EU is obligated to finalise our participation under the TCA; it would in fact be a breach of the treaty if this were not delivered in a timely manner. Our priority is supporting the UK’s scientists and researchers. That is why the Government announced on 29 November a financial safety net, in the form of guaranteed funding for the first wave of eligible and successful applicants to Horizon Europe who have been unable to sign grant agreements with the EU as a result of these delays. We will support our science and research community, no matter the scenario. We had a set of alternative plans developed in 2020 and are revisiting these. We will certainly keep the House informed.

As to Erasmus, I know that is a matter of regret to some noble Lords. We considered carefully which programmes were in our interests to join. The UK would have made a large net contribution to the Erasmus+ programme. We have chosen instead to pursue a global exchange programme under the new Turing Scheme, providing opportunities in Europe as well as around the world for young people to experience international education.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised the important question of touring musicians. She was echoed by a number of noble Lords in their rightful concern about creative industries. The UK has a creative heritage of which we are rightly proud. It was perhaps inevitable that, following the UK’s departure from the EU, there would be changes in how creative professionals toured. I know that this, exacerbated by the pandemic, has led to uncertainty in the sector, since working and touring in Europe is such an important part of their professional lives. In the negotiations for the TCA, we sought to ensure that touring artists and their support staff would not need work permits to perform in the EU. Our proposals were rejected by the EU, although we have been able to agree similar measures with other like-minded partners, for example Norway and Iceland.

I am aware that there have been calls for the Government to negotiate a visa waiver. It is not government policy to seek such agreements and neither did the EU propose a visa waiver for paid activities during the TCA negotiations. What was proposed by the EU was a reciprocal visa waiver for short stays, for example as a tourist. However, nothing in this proposal would have compelled member states to change their visa regimes for paid engagements such as performing at a concert.

Our focus now is on working directly with member states, which are principally responsible for deciding the rules governing what work UK visitors can undertake. Having engaged with EU member states, we have established that UK musicians and performers do not need visas or work permits for some short-term tours in at least 21 EU countries. This includes Spain, a key touring market for the UK, which changed its rules on visas last month. This change is testament to the efforts of the sector as well as the Government.

I was asked about the governance framework. The first partnership council meeting took place on 9 June 2021. The meeting marked an important milestone in the relationship between the UK and the EU as friendly trading partners and sovereign equals.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Minister unfortunately did exactly as I predicted, which is to describe in great detail why nothing was done for the performing artists in the negotiations pre Brexit. He explained carefully why our proposal was rejected by the EU and its was rejected by us, but he has not said anything about what we propose to do to remedy the damage being done, other than to refer to the bilateral contacts that we have had with member states. I am sure that the Minister knows perfectly well that many aspects in that sector cannot be dealt with successfully bilaterally. There is a need for both bilateral and collective discussion as things such as cabotage, carnets and so on cannot be dealt with bilaterally. Can the Minister not simply say that the Government will pursue, bilaterally and through the TCA, all avenues possible to get a better deal than we have at the moment, and not go back to Tweedledee and Tweedledum saying, “They said this and you said that in the negotiations”, but to see whether we cannot move forward on this bilaterally and collectively?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord repeats the points that he made earlier. I have repeated and set on record the efforts made by the United Kingdom Government on behalf of these important industries and drawn your Lordships’ attention to progress that has been made. Without going over this ground again, I reassert the Government’s concern for the well-being of these industries. It is time to move on. I have already pursued, without an intervention, a good deal of time.

I was asked about the number of meetings of the specialised committees that have taken place. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the Government take these seriously. As of Monday 6 December, almost all the TCA specialised committees have met. Nine of the 10 trade specialised committees have met. The SC on VAT is due to meet on 15 December. The delay is due to internal EU processes to prepare for decisions to be taken jointly by the UK and EU at the initial meeting. The Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes is the only outstanding SC yet to convene. I understand that it will convene later this month. If I am incorrect, I will come back to noble Lords.

On the civil society forum, about which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, asked, the Government sought public views on how to engage with business and civil society groups on TCA implementation. We published the official response on 19 October. An expression of interest campaign was launched to determine membership. We received 83 expressions of interest. Individual businesses are not included in the scope of the domestic advisory group and the civil society forum, but they can engage departments through existing channels outside these fora. After careful consideration of possible dates, the first meeting of the domestic advisory group is planned for early 2022. The Government are in discussions with the European Commission to finalise the exact date for the first civil society forum, which is also planned for early 2022.

As for the parliamentary partnership assembly, noble Lords will be aware—I know I invite another intervention, but it is the reality—that this is a matter for Parliament rather than the Government. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire in the other place for their continued work on this important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked whether my noble friend Lord Frost was responsible for relations with individual member states. That is true, but he works hand in glove with the Foreign Office, with the active involvement of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.

I was asked about parliamentary scrutiny of the TCA. My noble friend Lord Frost of Allenton has been discussing these matters with the chairs of committees tasked with scrutinising the Government. These discussions are approaching their final phase and will, I trust, be agreed shortly. While I listened carefully to the noble Earl’s requests and will pass them on, I do not wish to cut across these discussions. The scrutiny of individual departments on matters relating to their individual policy remits, through EU committees and the normal committee processes, is included. In the interim, the Government are working diligently to ensure that committees can properly scrutinise government policy.

In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, my noble friend Lord Frost has reminded colleagues of the importance of scrutiny and of Explanatory Memoranda being timely and of the highest quality. It is an important point, and I assure him that it has been taken on board.

The noble Lord also asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. In referring to this, I apologise—I know that he would wish me to do so—that my noble friend Lord Frost is unable to be here. Noble Lords will understand the current activity on this front. The Government are in intensive discussions with the EU with the aim of delivering significant changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. Most recently, my noble friend Lord Frost spoke with the European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, last Friday via a videoconference. They covered the full range of outstanding issues; my noble friend welcomed the Commission’s professed readiness to make progress on them. The UK Government still want to find a negotiated solution if possible; we are ready to keep working constructively and intensively to that end. I must tell noble Lords that the gap between our positions is still significant, and progress on many issues has been limited. The UK Government’s position remains as before: the threshold has been met to use the Article 16 safeguards to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement if solutions cannot be found. However, my noble friend Lord Frost will speak to Vice-President Šefčovič again this week, and the UK and EU teams will have intensified talks in the coming days.

There has been some potential convergence on the medicines issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked me about, but agreement has not yet been reached. So far, we have been unable to consider all the details of the EU’s proposals in the way we need to in this sensitive, critical and highly technical area, where solutions must work in practice and genuinely solve the problems. We continue to believe that more progress is needed on customs and SPS arrangements if we are to deal with the fundamental issue of improving the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There have been some constructive talks on subsidy control, but the issue remains unresolved, as does the wider issue of governance.

I have a detailed response on Gibraltar that I should give to the noble Baroness, but I am looking at the clock. I can give it to your Lordships now; perhaps I should. In 2020, the EU insisted on a two-phase process for negotiations which required a separate UK-Spain agreement—the framework—prior to formal UK-EU negotiations on a legally binding treaty. On 31 December 2020, the UK Government, the Government of Gibraltar and the Spanish Government reached agreement on a political framework to form the basis of a separate treaty between the UK and the EU regarding Gibraltar. The negotiations between the UK and the EU on that treaty began in October, and three rounds have taken place so far; the FCDO is leading on these negotiations. In the discussions to date, the UK has made clear the need for an agreement that reflects the delicate balance in the political framework and Gibraltar’s unique circumstances and is proportionate to Gibraltar’s size and the small volume of trade at stake. The UK remains steadfast in its support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy in any scenario and will not compromise UK sovereignty.

I have spoken at great length—I apologise to your Lordships for that—but the reports were of fundamental interest and importance. I have sought to answer many of the questions asked in the debate, though perhaps not to everyone’s satisfaction. I conclude by thanking noble Lords not only for their valuable contributions this evening but for their extraordinary hard work, intelligence and thought that have gone into producing these reports. I have no doubt that they will help us going forward as we seek to cement our new relationship with the EU alongside other international partners. That is our wish, and I hope it is a wish that all of us, whatever our past feuds and differences, now share.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd December 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be here on a Friday again on this subject. This is a House of Peers; that is what makes us so special. All of us are here for different reasons, with most of us appointed on the recommendation of one man or woman. It is sad when, directly or indirectly, anyone disparages any part of our membership, when all of us are here legitimately and by statute. One of the attractive features of this debate was that, almost all the time, we managed to stay on the right side of that and not to stereotype individuals but to argue about principles.

I of course congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who knows of my personal respect and affection for him, on securing the debate. I was unkind enough in a debate earlier this week when he advanced a rather dubious argument to say that I would not want to play the three-card trick against him, but I would want to give him some money to put on the National for me in a betting shop, because his success in the ballot is remarkable. I am not a betting person, but if I see him at Grand National time, I will be coming his way.

This is the fourth Private Member’s Bill seeking to abolish the by-elections that are held when a hereditary Peer vacates their seat in this House, as established under statute in 1999. I regret to say that the Government’s position on the noble Lord’s proposals remains unchanged, however commendable the resolve.

The intention of this Bill, in common with the earlier Bills, is to stop by-elections taking place when a hereditary Peer—

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

Since there is overwhelming support for this Bill right across the House and since the Government are committed to reducing the size of the House, why do the Government not give time for the Bill to complete its stages in this House so that a final decision can be made, rather than our going through this whole thing year by year?

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, my Lords, not everything that your Lordships are in favour of necessarily becomes law, and some things become law that your Lordships are not in favour of. I am not going to go back to the debates of 1999, and I am certainly not going to go back to the debates of 2019, unless provoked further.

The Bill would stop by-elections taking place when a hereditary Peer vacates their seat through retirement, expulsion or death. Over time, that would remove the presence of 90 of the 92 hereditary Peers. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, wishes to keep the Lord Chamberlain and the Earl Marshall, but 90 of the hereditary Peers who sit in this House by statute, under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999, would go.

It has been a very wide-ranging debate. There is nothing that your Lordships like more—and I like it myself, actually—than talking about your Lordships’ House. A lot of wider issues were brought in—even robes, although I do not see many of them here today. I do not propose either to reiterate the Government’s reservations about this Bill in full, because they have been detailed by successive Ministers, very frequently, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham reminded us, during the several debates on previous iterations of the Bill, one of which reached Report. However, I shall draw a few brief points to the attention of your Lordships.

First, the House of Lords, as we all agree, has a key role in scrutinising the Executive and as a revising Chamber. It is important that how it is constituted reflects that role and the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected Chamber. My noble friend Lord Attlee early in the debate was followed by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, opposite, stressing the importance of considering the overall role of the House of Lords going forward. The Government respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that his Bill represents an incremental or piecemeal—whichever word is to your Lordships’ taste—reform to this House. Indeed, it is the opposite. The proposed removal of hereditary Peers through this Bill, albeit gradually, would constitute a significant reform to the composition of this House. It would become, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft observed, a de facto appointed Chamber—saving the presence of the right reverend Prelates. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, that that would be a significant change. It was certainly considered when the first Bill was conceived that there would be a stage two; that was the assurance very firmly given. Recollections may vary of the negotiations, but I was also involved, and a very firm commitment was given at that time by the party opposite to move to stage two.

An all-appointed House is certainly the preferred model of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, my noble friend Lord Cormack, and others who have spoken, and they are entitled to that entirely reasonable view. But others across this House hold different and, as we have heard today, equally reasonable views as to how we should be constituted. The point is that the Bill should not seek to address that matter through the back door. As the Government set out in our manifesto, we are committed to looking at the role of the Lords, but any reform needs careful consideration and should not be brought forward piecemeal, and certainly not reform of this kind, which would clearly change the composition of this House in a significant way, even if gradually.

Removing the excepted hereditary Peers would have further consequences, as Members on Benches opposite said, on party balance within the House. Presently within this House there are 47 Conservative hereditary Peers, 33 Cross-Benchers, four Labour hereditary Peers and three Liberal Democrats. I am not quite sure where the other two Liberal Democrats went to, but the numbers were not quite the same originally. There are also two non-affiliated hereditary Peers. That means that, if this scheme had not operated since 2003, there would now be 18 fewer Conservative Peers, 18 fewer Cross-Bench Peers and a far smaller reduction in the numbers on the Benches opposite. That is the flipside to the argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in that obviously the passage of this legislation would be a great Labour Party gain, relatively, in party strength.

While some feel strongly that by-elections to replace hereditary Peers should end, others have disagreed, as we have heard in what has been a measured debate—and I welcome that. I hear no sign of some of the things that the noble Lords opposite may fear. We have heard from my noble friends Lord Trenchard, Lord Mancroft, Lord Northbrook, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, Lord Moylan and others who believe that, while the issue of comprehensive reform remains unsettled, the excepted hereditary Peers should remain, as was the explicit undertaking and agreement in 1999, underpinned in statute. No one would deny, and actually no one has denied—and to go back to my opening remarks, I welcome that—the great contribution of excepted hereditary Peers to the work of your Lordships’ House through their committee memberships and during debates in the Chamber. We all of us, wherever we sit in the House, feel that to be true.

While focusing on the issue—and I agreed with some elements of what my noble friend Lord Moylan, said, as a new Member, about how we are perceived—I certainly do not believe that we should be driven by elements of the media on this issue. As I have always said, we should concentrate not on knocking ourselves but on doing our work well, in playing a crucial role in scrutinising the Executive as a revising Chamber, while recognising the primacy of the elected House of Commons. While we have listened to debates on this topic, and will listen attentively and respectfully, if the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, moves that the Bill should be committed to a Committee, the Government’s reservations on his proposals remain.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Constitution Committee

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

My Lords, if any noble Lords are concerned by the state of my voice, I should say that I have recently had a negative Covid test, but I have just had that cold which your Lordships will know all about. I would like to say how much I am looking forward to the contributions from everybody who is to speak, and congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester, who was recently elected to this House, on making his maiden speech later; we all look forward to that.

It is a great privilege to open Second Reading on the Bill, which I trust will be welcomed by your Lordships’ House. Repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a manifesto commitment both of the Government and of the Official Opposition. As the Labour Party manifesto put it, the Act

“has stifled democracy and propped up weak governments”.

I agree, and look forward to unequivocal support from the Benches opposite today and in Committee—you always travel in hope in your Lordships’ House.

The 2011 Act fostered uncertainty and stasis in our democratic arrangements. It led to paralysis when the country needed decisive action. It undermined the effectiveness and responsiveness of our democratic system overall. The flaws of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act are understood and have been analysed by many noble Lords, including your Lordships’ Constitution Committee—I am pleased to see the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, on the speakers’ list today. I am grateful for the depth of expertise and knowledge that your Lordships’ House has brought to bear on the scrutiny of the 2011 Act and that it will bring to bear on the scrutiny of this legislation.

The Bill seeks to return to the tried and tested position of the past over many centuries, replacing the 2011 Act with arrangements more in keeping with our best constitutional practices: delivering stable and effective government; upholding proper parliamentary accountability and public confidence in our democratic arrangements; and, above all, placing the British people at the heart of the resolution of any great national crisis.

The Bill will provide increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament. I emphasise at the outset that the Bill focuses on the Dissolution and the calling of Parliament only, not any other part of the constitutional process. Ensuring that these arrangements are clear, stable and widely understood underpins the integrity of our constitution.

Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, in its report of December 2020, warned correctly that the “origins and content of” the 2011 Act

“owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand”.

Indeed, the Act led to paralysis and uncertainty at a critical time for our country. An untenable situation arose in the last Parliament, when the Government were neither able to pass vital legislation through Parliament on their central policy nor call a new election and put the question to the people, who had already voted in a referendum for the very proposition Parliament was seeking to block. The result was deadlock and paralysis. The fact that Parliament had to introduce bespoke primary legislation in 2019 to bypass the Act in order to hold the necessary election was surely the final, damning indictment. In summary, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is a political experiment that failed. It is neither credible nor effective and does not serve future Parliaments or Governments, whether they are majority or minority formations or coalitions.

I now turn to the details of the Bill. Before I begin, I reiterate my sincere thanks for the valuable work of Parliament, particularly your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, and the Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, who I am also pleased to see here in his place today. I also add my thanks for the Constitution Committee’s most recent report on the Bill, which was published on 19 November. The Government welcome its consideration of the Bill and I can give an assurance that they will respond to the report before this House goes into Committee. Its consideration of the 2011 Act and the Government’s Bill has been valuable and has informed our approach, as will become evident.

The Bill is short; its purpose is clear and its objectives are known, because the British people lived with the previous system for centuries. It is a focused Bill of six clauses and one schedule. It restores the status quo ante, except in a few cases, particularly where practical changes to election arrangements made since 2011 have proven beneficial to the smooth running of elections—although I am certain that we will discuss that aspect of the Bill. It returns us to the tried and tested constitutional arrangements that have served successive Parliaments and Governments and that are a feature of our constitutional system.

Clause 1 repeals the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Clause 2 makes express provision to revive the prerogative powers relating to the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament that existed before the 2011 Act. This means that, once more, Parliament will be dissolved by the sovereign at the request of the Prime Minister. Within the life of a Parliament, Prime Ministers will once more be able to call a general election. That is a tried and tested approach that throughout our history has served successive Governments of different configurations.

By returning us to the status quo ante, the Bill will enable the link between confidence and Dissolution to be restored so that critical votes in the other place can once more be designated as matters of confidence, which, if lost, would trigger an early election—circumstances which many of us well remember from 1979. The other place will therefore continue to play its expected and key role in holding Governments to account and demonstrating whether they have the confidence of the elected House.

This is the status quo ante that we are all familiar with and understand. Under that system, our nation weathered many a constitutional crisis and accomplished enormous social change and social improvement without conflict, revolution or civil strife. That is the position the general public understand and under which our liberties have long been guaranteed.

Clause 3 restates the long-standing position that the prerogative powers to dissolve and call Parliament are non-justiciable. I understand that some noble Lords question why this clause is necessary at all and say that, after all, these prerogative powers are recognised as outside the purview of the courts. Let me explain: Clause 3 is drafted with careful regard to developments in case law. As noble Lords will be aware, since the GCHQ case, some prerogative powers that were previously considered to be non-justiciable have been reviewed by the courts.

The recent independent review of administrative law, which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks, noted that

“the direction of travel in favour of regarding more and more prerogative powers as reviewable in principle is undeniable and has existed for many years”.

This culminated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller/Cherry 2 in relation to Prorogation. So, with respect to those noble Lords who say that there is no risk of the courts reviewing a decision to dissolve Parliament, I cannot simply say that the case law would suggest that this risk can be discounted, and recent events, in particular, have underlined this.

Clause 3 has been drafted with great care, taking on board the position of the courts that the most clear and explicit words are needed. It provides that any decisions relating to the revived powers to dissolve one Parliament and call another are non-justiciable, as well as the exercise of the powers themselves. This is to ensure that any preliminary steps leading to the exercise of these powers, including any request to the sovereign to dissolve Parliament and any related advice, cannot be reviewed by a court or tribunal.

Clause 3 further provides that a court or tribunal cannot consider the exercise of those revived prerogative powers or any related decisions, even if the court considers they are invalid or, in the language used by the Bill, “purported”. Nor may a court consider the limits or extent of those powers. Again, taking into account the case law, this is to make as clear as possible the position that all elements of the process relating to the Dissolution and calling of Parliament are covered by Clause 3 and are not a matter for the courts.

Let me be clear: there would be no change to the involvement of the courts, as the Dissolution and calling of Parliament is not an issue that has, so far, ever been considered reviewable. This clause simply confirms that position, preserves it for the future and protects the judiciary from being drawn into political matters.

Ultimately, judgment on the Government’s actions in calling an election is a matter for the electorate at the polling booth. I remember well the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this subject at Second Reading of the original Bill, that it is not axiomatic that the timing of an election serves the incumbent Prime Minister. As the Joint Committee affirmed,

“it is appropriate for Parliament to make clear where it thinks the constitutional boundaries lie”.

This clause was unamended in the other place, and while I recognise that your Lordships will have questions, we do, I think, mostly agree that the prerogative power for Dissolution is, and should, remain non-justiciable.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Before the Minister leaves Clause 3 —I am not a lawyer—will he explain the use of the word “purported” in two of the items? He has spent a lot of time on Clause 3, so I presume he is briefed on this to explain why “purported exercise” is also covered.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I always seek to be brief, but one always aspires to be better briefed in your Lordships’ House. I anticipate that this will be the subject of some discussion in Committee, and I wanted to make some progress in this speech, but to answer the noble Lord, which is my duty, purported exercises of power or decisions refer to things that would be considered by a court to be invalid or a nullity and therefore not a real exercise of power or decision because they have been done on the basis of an error of law. The courts have noted that this could arise where, for example, a decision is made outside the limits of relevant power or without taking into account a relevant consideration.

The reference has been included to make it clear that all elements of the Dissolution and calling of Parliament process fall to the political and not the judicial sphere. The drafting takes account of previous judicial decisions, which I have no doubt we will discuss at some length in Committee. In particular in the case of Privacy International, the Supreme Court said that those drafting legislation should make clear whether such purported decisions are intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, and I look forward to discussing this matter at some length—I hope not at some length—and I have no doubt that we will have a lively discussion in Committee, so I would like to make some progress, if I may.

Clause 4 provides a maximum parliamentary term of five years, calculated from the date of the first meeting of Parliament. This will ensure that elections are held at regular intervals by providing a longstop of five years, a maximum term which is of course still guaranteed by your Lordships through an explicit exception in the Parliament Acts. By reviving the prerogative powers, the Government could call an election either to resolve political deadlock, to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate or after a defeat on a major policy issue.

As I have set out, a Prime Minister will take a number of factors into account when choosing to call a general election. But of course, this would include— I can offer reassurance here—scheduled elections to the devolved legislatures. We recognise the practical administrative challenges of holding elections which are conducted under different arrangements simultaneously or in close proximity. A Prime Minister choosing to call an election would undoubtedly wish to take these matters into account.

Clause 5 introduces the Schedule, which sets out minor and consequential amendments. Clause 6 confirms that the territorial extent of the Bill is the UK, except for a very small number of amendments in the Schedule where the extent is more limited. The Schedule contains a number of minor and consequential changes, including to the parliamentary elections rules in the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985, concerned also with the demise of the Crown and the Recall of MPs Act 2015. I would be happy to explain any of these in detail if your Lordships wished between now and Committee.

The Bill has undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government are indebted to the work of the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We have carefully considered the committee’s findings and amended the Bill in two respects, the first being the Title of the Bill. This small but significant change ensures the purpose and effect of the Bill is clear, reflecting its precise remit and its constitutional significance. Secondly, having reflected on the Joint Committee’s report, the Government agree that the trigger for the election process should be the Dissolution of Parliament. This amendment will give legal certainty that the election period will automatically follow on from Dissolution, providing a clear timetable leading to a defined polling date.

Let me conclude with the conventions which provide the flesh on the bones of the Bill. In restoring the status quo ante, conventions will once more govern the operation of the revived prerogative powers. Conventions can operate effectively only where there is shared understanding of them. That is why the Government published in draft their understanding of those conventions alongside the Bill for scrutiny—not only by the Joint Committee but by Parliament as a whole. We set out in that document:

“The circumstances in which a Prime Minister might seek a dissolution are underpinned by two core constitutional principles.”


First:

“The Prime Minister holds that position by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons and will normally be the accepted leader of the political party that commands the majority of the House of Commons.”


Secondly:

“The Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process to ensure that remains the case. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls particularly on the incumbent Prime Minister.”


We recognise that the conventions on Dissolution are part of an interlocking picture. Therefore, in our response to the Joint Committee, we have provided fuller explanations of the conventions on confidence Motions, Dissolution and Government formation. It is intended to provide the basis for discussion and debate among parliamentarians, building our shared understanding in and across both Houses and all those represented in them.

The value of conventions is not that they should cover every single hypothetical scenario but that they provide guiding principles and are an effective deterrent —in particular, the imperative not to involve the sovereign in politics. We welcome further discussion in your Lordships’ House on the conventions. That is the best way to develop our shared understanding.

This Bill will deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the processes for the dissolution and calling of Parliament. It will restore tried-and-tested constitutional arrangements which have been understood by the electorate for generations and are underpinned by the core constitutional principle that the Government of the day draw their authority by commanding the confidence of the elected House.

I hope these constitutional arrangements that have served us well in the past will continue to serve future Parliaments and Governments of all parties, whatever they may be. The ability of a Prime Minister to call a general election for reasons of political or public necessity, to turn to the people to give their judgment, is an essential feature of our democracy. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act disrupted that relationship. This Bill, we submit, will restore the proper balance to our constitutional arrangements.

I look forward to a constructive debate on not only the Bill but the conventions. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, indeed we should never take democracy for granted—although I have noticed over the years, with advancing age, that whenever the party on those Benches is resoundingly defeated at any election, whether by the Labour Party or the party on these Benches, it cries “Populism!”, “Foul!”, “Unfair!”. We have just heard an extraordinary suggestion that an ideal constitution would involve months and months of negotiation, presumably involving the Liberal Democrats, probably on a statutory basis. I have to say that I do not think that that is a way forward that would commend itself to many in this House.

It has been an outstanding debate, and, of course, I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on his outstanding maiden speech. All of the House found it entrancing: it was deeply rooted in history, traditions and a sense of place, cherishing the best of our past and showing a love and knowledge of the environment. It was also so forward-looking in embracing new technologies and ideas for the future. My noble friend said he liked a challenge. Well, I think we will all relish the challenge that he set out, based on the charm and wisdom that he displayed. By the way, at the age of four I wanted to see a spoonbill and I still never have seen one. That is not a request for an invitation, but I congratulate him on bringing those birds back to these shores.

Also in preamble, I was asked by somebody, possibly the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to apologise for the 2011 Act. Actually, like my noble friend Lady Noakes with whose speech I much agreed, I was no enthusiast for the 2011 Act. Indeed, I remember coming out of a victorious local election campaign in Richmond in 2010—I will not say who the defeated party were—to be telephoned by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who said that he had been summoned to a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet to approve negotiations for coalition, which included some of the ideas that we have heard today. I was not entirely enamoured of that. In fact, if you look in the Division lists on the ping-pong on that Bill, you will not find my name. I was a very new Member of the House, but that was my first mini revolt; I rather fear that one or two others followed. I do not commend that behaviour to my noble friend Lord Leicester, but I will not apologise for the 2011 Act, because, I repeat, it was a political experiment. Some, like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, have said that it was a political expediency. That is correct; hopefully your Lordships will accept that it should be gone and gone swiftly.

We have had a very informed debate on an important constitutional Bill. As I had expected, we have had a large number of insightful speeches based on your Lordships’ varied expertise and experience. I will try to answer as many points as I can. I was sorry that one or two of the speeches suggested that there was an authoritarian approach behind this Bill—I think I even heard the word “fascist” at one point, which is not a helpful word to play at political opponents. That was certainly not the Government’s intention or an approach that I would ever commend from this Dispatch Box. On the other hand, I have been very grateful for the support of many of my noble friends; for example, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Lady Pidding and others.

I was slightly discouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, casting a fly over the House on the matter of Prorogation. In my humble submission—I used to look at Bills to see how I could amend them to cause trouble for the party opposite over many years—it does not look to me from the Long Title that Prorogation should come into this Bill. I emphasise that the Bill is not, and was never intended to be, about Prorogation. The Government made it clear at the time that they were disappointed with the judgment on Prorogation but, in the event, the Supreme Court noted that its decision rested on the case’s exceptional facts. What we have in this Bill is not in relation to that Prorogation issue, and the Government will not support attempts to bring that procedure into scope. We should concentrate on the matters before us.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Hayward about the 25-day election period. It has not been the main subject of debate, but I know that it is a matter of concern to many. I can say that the Government wish to retain the 25-day working period. This was acknowledged; we have made that clear. We believe that any reduction would have adverse effects on all those involved in elections: political parties, electoral administrators and, most importantly, the electors. As both noble Lords said, modern elections are complex operations, including postal and overseas voting. The Government’s position is that we should retain the current system. I hope that we will not detain ourselves too long on that question in this Bill as, obviously, we will have a larger Bill on elections coming forward.

Many referred to the constitutional conventions and principles that lie alongside the Bill. My noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Bridges of Headley were wise to advise against too much codification; in that, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about the Cabinet Manual, which I will take away. I can offer her no specific response in advance beyond what I have said to your Lordships before.

Conventions are important. If the Bill revives the prerogative powers to dissolve one Parliament and call another, as we believe, then prerogative powers will once more be governed by convention. As I said in my opening speech, it is critical that there is a common understanding of how they will operate. I have no doubt that we will have valuable discussions on those matters.

I was asked to address a question about whether the prerogative can be revived—a point raised, from different perspectives, by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked for an example. I do not particularly want to go back to the 17th century. The centuries that I was referring to were rather more recent, but I would think that 1660 was a fairly significant example of the royal prerogative being revived.

The Government are confident that the prerogative powers can be revived but, as was said by a number of noble Lords, to make express provision to do so is the intent and effect of Clause 2. The Government believe there is a sound legal basis for this position. The courts have said that a revival of prerogative powers is possible. For example, the Supreme Court said in the first Miller case:

“If prerogative powers are curtailed by legislation, they may sometimes be reinstated by the repeal of that legislation, depending on the construction of the statutes in question.”


That was put more strongly in the case of Burmah Oil when Lord Pearce in 1965 observed that, if a statute that restricts the prerogative is repealed, then

“the prerogative power would apparently re-emerge as it existed before the statute”.

This would be subject to words in the repealing statute, as was referred to in the GCHQ case.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, reminded us, the Joint Committee reserved its position on this question but concluded that the Bill is sufficiently clear to give effect to the Government’s intention of returning to the prior constitutional position. As the former First Parliamentary Counsel Sir Stephen Laws said in evidence to the Joint Committee, this academic debate is a “red herring”. He said that it

“is perfectly plain that the intention of the Act is to restore the situation to what it was before the 2011 Act, and therefore the law will then be indistinguishable from what it was before”.

Of course, many noble Lords on all sides, as I readily anticipated, raised important points about Clause 3. I will address them briefly, although my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was quite right to say that these matters will need to be probed and discussed in depth in Committee. I think there is general consensus in the House on that, to which I accede, and I look forward to those discussions.

We believe that the clause is necessary and proportionate, for the avoidance of doubt, and will preserve what I still contend, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is the long-standing position that the prerogative powers to dissolve one Parliament and call another are non-justiciable. Prerogative powers to dissolve are inherently political in nature and, as such, we maintain, are not suitable for review by the courts. Certainly, that was the view as expressed by Lord Roskill in the GCHQ case in 1985, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, reminded us. The courts are not the place to determine whether Parliament should be dissolved on one date or other.

This clause seeks to underline that position. The Independent Review of Administrative Law in March noted that Clause 3 can be regarded as a “codifying clause”, which

“simply restates the position that everyone understood obtained before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed”.

Several noble Lords questioned why the clause is necessary at all, if the recognised position is that prerogative powers are non-justiciable. I hope that what happened to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham does not happen to me in my ministerial career: finding that everything I do is reversed, although that has happened to me in other contexts. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that, in our judgment, the clause is necessary to take account of the direction of travel in case law, and has been drafted carefully in recognition of, and to address, that fact.

Over the years since the GCHQ case, some other prerogative powers previously considered non-justiciable have been held by the courts to be justiciable. So, the purpose of this clause in this case is to be as clear as possible about the no-go sign around the Dissolution and calling of Parliament. It is carefully drafted, respecting the message from the courts in Cart that only

“the most clear and explicit words”

can exclude their jurisdiction. Therefore, while the Government agree that the revived powers of Dissolution are non-justiciable, we are making provision to confirm and preserve this position for the future.

Noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the review of the scope of prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. The Government have drafted Clause 3 with regard to case law, including Miller II. It is a proportionate response that seeks to put beyond doubt that Dissolution is not a matter for the courts. The independent review on administrative law noted this judgment, and the distinction it draws creates the potential for the courts to circumvent no-go signs currently mounted around the exercise of prerogative powers. The Clause seeks to make it clear that, in the context of the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, the no-go signs should not be subverted in this way. The democratically elected House of Commons is constituted as a clear expression of the will and judgment of the public, and the ability of the electorate to judge the record of the Government and their decision to call an election as well. That is the continued safeguard which protects Parliament.

Some noble Lords spoke of a concept of an improper Dissolution or an abuse of Dissolution. That concern is misplaced. There are a number of sufficient and appropriate restraints in our constitutional arrangements. First is the convention that the sovereign should be kept out of politics; this in itself is a powerful deterrent to making any improper request. Nevertheless, the sovereign may in exceptional circumstances refuse a request to dissolve Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, had some important and interesting reflections on this point. I too would like to know the answer to his question about 1974.

That is not all. In response to the report by the FTPA Joint Committee, we have amended the Bill so that the statutory election period will be triggered automatically by the Dissolution of Parliament. This will ensure that the theoretical possibility of a Dissolution without an ensuing election period is eliminated. The Government of the day must be able to command the confidence of the elected House. Unduly and unnecessarily delaying the calling of a new Parliament would negatively impact on the authority of the Government. Control by the Commons of tax and expenditure is a further compelling necessity for any new Government to call a new Parliament as soon as possible. One final test is the common sense of the electorate. Any attempt by a Government to manipulate the system would be clear to the electorate, and that Government would be punished in an election.

Many noble Lords—the noble Baroness opposite, the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Grocott, and Lord Thomas of Gresford, my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and many others—suggested that there should be a role for the House of Commons in approving a Dissolution. I anticipate that we will discuss this issue at some length in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, with his great experience, offered important cautionary notes here. I found the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, as clear as it was compelling, and I agreed with his analysis. The Government disagree with that approach: reviving the flexibility of the previous system undermines the entire purpose of the Bill. The creation of prescriptive statutory arrangements represented a significant departure from our previous constitutional arrangements, eroding the flexibility that is an essential part of our democracy.

The evidence is before us. My noble friend Lady Stowell set this out very clearly: we have to see the broad picture. The experience of the 2011 Act demonstrates that statutory systems can perpetuate political instability. The reality was skated over by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his speech. He said that under the model he proposes, the Prime Minister in 2019 could have had an election three times and had a majority. He forgets the reality of those times. I hope he is never the man with the three cards on Westminster Bridge. The reality is that the Labour Party did not want an election at the time. They could avoid it by simply sitting on their hands, which would not have been possible. The Labour Party could still have avoided an election, even under his proposal.

When the 2011 Act is repealed, it will be vital that the link between confidence and Dissolution is restored in order that critical votes can again be designated as matters of confidence which, if lost, would trigger an early election. Therefore, the House of Commons will continue to play a key role. The claim by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this debate was a battle to prevent the rigging of the membership of the Commons was a very odd characterisation of the Bill’s central intent, which is to prevent interference with the remittance of great political questions to the people—to allow them to choose their elected representatives. I remind noble Lords that the Joint Committee gave this matter detailed consideration and a majority—I respect the alternative opinions—concluded that the House of Commons should not retain a say over Dissolution. Finally, as my noble friend Lady Pidding reminded us, the other place considered and dismissed amendments to enable it to retain a statutory role. I very much hope that your Lordships will not “go there”, as they say, but I suspect I may be disappointed.

Noble Lords have suggested that the Bill limits the accountability of the Prime Minister. I must agree to disagree with that too. There have been and will remain two vital checks, which again have been widely forgotten by many who have spoken in this debate: the House of Commons and the electorate. It was not the case that under the prerogative system, the Commons was unable to hold the Executive to account. The Bill restores the position whereby a Government hold office by the virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. In that respect, the House of Commons will continue to play a key role. Yes, a Prime Minister will once again be able to call an election at a time of his or her choosing, but elections are an expression of democracy. I believe in democracy. As the Joint Committee put it,

“ultimately elections ensure the electorate—the ultimate authority in a democratic system—has the opportunity to exercise its judgment.”

Again, any attempt by a Government to manipulate the system, as we have seen in recent history, would be likely to be punished.

I thank all those who have spoken for their valuable contributions. I will read Hansard extremely carefully and reflect on the many important and challenging things that have been said. I am pleased we have had such a stimulating debate, which has attracted so many of your Lordships. I look forward to being at the service of your Lordships in the period between now and Committee, and indeed, through the whole passage of the Bill. When we are here, my door will always be open. I met a large number of Members prior to today’s debate, and I look forward to further opportunities to engage and, I hope, persuade. I am sure we will continue to have lively and robust discussions as we take this important Bill through its remaining stages. I believe there is broad consensus for repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and I commend this Bill and the way it is accomplished to the House. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House of Lords: Appointments Process

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for securing this short debate. It has been a very interesting debate, as it always is when your Lordships apply their wisdom to anything. As far as the form of the Question is concerned, there are other modes of putting Motions before the House, but that is outwith the Government’s responsibility. I will address the Question that has been put before the House.

In opening, I confess to being a Tory. I was glad to learn that I cannot be a complete bastard all the time. I am not sure whether that meant that I am a complete bastard some of the time or a partial bastard all the time, but I will be a little bit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, might not like by reminding her that, although I disagreed with her vehemently, I appreciated her humour. However, she said that we are a House of opposition. That is not what this House is; it is a House of revision and challenge, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite rightly said—but this is not a House of systemic opposition.

The reasons for that were alluded to by several noble Lords who spoke, ignoring the wording of the Motion, on reviewing the process for appointing Members. The noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Brooke, Lord Wallace and Lord Collins, my noble friend Lord Hannan and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, alluded to the point that there are people out there who do not think that every fault in this House lies in appointment. Some people outside believe that this House might be constituted in a different way, as has been the aspiration of the Liberal Democrat Party for a long time—since 1911, in fact. An attempt was made to secure that in 2012; we know the history there.

The fundamental thing I want to say is that so many who have spoken have expressed their concern and love for this House. I believe that we as a House should be more confident, collectively. Let us not be a browbeaten by an article here or something that is said there. Those of us who are here and do the workaday work of this House know the value of that work and the immense contribution made by Members of your Lordships’ House. I believe that we should have more confidence in ourselves, rather than always listening to the criticisms that come. Actually, some of those criticisms are not as well-founded, as some noble Lords have said today.

This House has a key role in scrutinising the Executive and acting as a revising Chamber. I think that it does that well. When colleagues ask what it is like to speak in Parliament, apart from saying that having the honour of addressing this Parliament is one of the greatest privileges anybody could ever conceive, I say that no one who comes to this Parliament—and this House specifically—should ever come here and stand at this Dispatch Box without a sense of trepidation because of the challenge, intelligence and wisdom that they must face. Let us be confident in what we do.

With the system that is the settled system in this House, new Members are essential to keep the expertise and outlook of the House of Lords fresh. That has been the case for a long time. Constitutionally and legally, it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new peerages. This remains the case. Again, I heard the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the nature of appointments; I have heard it on other occasions. However, I am afraid that I can say nothing or offer any consolation on that point at this moment.

It would be helpful to remind ourselves of the current arrangements for appointing Peers. The Prime Minister has the sole power of recommending nominations to Her Majesty the Queen for those to be appointed life peerages. The House of Lords Appointments Commission offers the Prime Minister probity advice and can and does make recommendations to the Prime Minister concerning Cross-Bench appointments. The commission has two core functions, which I believe it performs well. The first is to make those recommendations for the appointment of non-party political Members. Since its creation, the commission has recommended a total of 72 individuals for appointments to this House, and I believe that the House has been greatly improved by their presence. I agree with those who referred today to the importance of the Cross-Bench presence here. Secondly, of course, the commission vets nominations to this House on propriety and advises the Prime Minister. This includes nominations put forward by the Prime Minister and the political parties.

“Propriety” in this context is defined as meaning, first, that the individual should be in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular, and, secondly, that the past conduct of the nominee would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. A check on a nominee’s propriety will include checking with relevant government departments and agencies and other organisations, including the Electoral Commission. The Appointments Commission also conducts media searches. Once all the evidence has been considered, the commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it has no concerns about the appointment or will draw concerns to the Prime Minister’s attention. But it does not have the power to veto the appointment of Members to the House of Lords for the constitutional reason—which we have often discussed —that it is ultimately the responsibility of the sovereign’s principal adviser to make recommendations and be accountable for them.

I recognise that noble Lords have been interested in these arrangements in the context of recent appointments to the House. Again, here I think one should not be stampeded by comment in the media, nor do I think that we win collectively by throwing stones at each other. We all have houses which have windows in them.

Various proposals have been suggested to reform the present system, including placing the commission on a statutory footing. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has presented a Private Member’s Bill, which I believe will give us the opportunity to discuss that issue, if and when it comes forward. I note the contributions of those noble Lords—including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—who clearly and consistently make the case for the commission to be on a statutory basis. The commission is there to nominate and recommend non-party political appointments and advise on propriety. We believe that it carries out this role effectively as it is currently constituted. The fact that Members of this House are appointed from a wide range of backgrounds is testament to this, and it will continue to advise on appointments in the same way as it does now.

While the commission’s role is advisory, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on its careful and considered advice. However, as in many areas, elected Ministers may from time to time take a different view to official advice on balancing the competing issues. More widely, as the Government set out in our manifesto, we are committed to looking at the role of the Lords, but I regret to upset some by repeating our position that any reform needs careful consideration and should not be brought forward piecemeal.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others were critical of the role of people in this House who have given money to political parties. Let us not beat about the bush: it is not only the Conservative Party that raises money from private individuals. Peerages reflect long-standing contributions to civic life and a willingness further to contribute to public life as a legislator in the second Chamber. I agree with those who say that participation is desirable but not that those who are not here every day do not make a contribution. Great contributions are often made by those who come occasionally.

I disagree with my noble friend Lord Fowler’s implication. The criticism that individuals are ennobled just because they have also chosen to support or donate to a political party is not right. I will read carefully in Hansard what he said, but I hope he was not saying that no one who supports a political party financially should sit in your Lordships’ House. Donations should be transparent, but that is not an excuse to knock people for broader philanthropy, enterprise and public service, as my noble friend Lord Farmer pointed out.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

The Minister mentioned me. I said it should not be the formative reason why someone is appointed to this House. Making a political donation should not be an automatic passport into the House of Lords. That is the—I think for most people unexceptionable —proposal that I made.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am surprised by my noble friend’s phrase, “an automatic passport”. If one looks at the record of people who have come in under the rubric he cited, including a noble Lord who is often mentioned here, one will find that they have made extraordinary and large-scale philanthropic contributions to society. One needs to see an individual in the whole and a House in the round.

Volunteering and supporting a political party are part of our civic democracy. Political parties are part of public service. In Britain, taxpayers do not have to bankroll political parties’ campaigning. Political parties have to raise money themselves and follow transparency and compliance rules that are laid out in law. Those who oppose fundraising need to explain how much they want taxpayers to pay for state funding instead.

I must conclude. In time, we will have an opportunity to discuss the favourite topic of my noble friend, as I like to call him, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. On 3 December there is a debate on the issue that he and others have put before the House in relation to hereditary Peers.

In conclusion, I repeat that the constitutional position in this country is that the Prime Minister is responsible for advising Her Majesty on appointments to the House. The Government do not see the case for changing this. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament and the people for nominations he makes to the House and how he conducts that work. The Government do not plan to establish a committee—

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

We have maybe a couple of minutes in hand before the hour is up, and the Minister is apparently about to sit down. Will he please explain his reference to piecemeal reform as being not desirable? This House has been reformed—or adjusted, anyway—many times in its history, sometimes substantially but always in a piecemeal way. That is how it has progressed. Can he explain to the House what it is about this moment in the history of the House of Lords, and our politics more generally, that makes it not desirable for piecemeal reform to be engaged in?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the House of Lords has sometimes had relatively small changes and sometimes relatively substantial changes. In the 16th century, King Henry VIII slung out most of the great abbots who used to sit on those Benches over there. I guess the Bishops may go soon, if the noble Baroness opposite has her way and the Green Party comes into office, as it has in Scotland; I do not hope too much for that. In 1999 there was a massive change. Since then we have had a few changes, but I go back to my original position: the House is presently operating well and effectively. I believe we should stop criticising and lacerating ourselves and concentrate on the good work we do.

There will come a time when the great question will be asked: how, in the long term, should this House be constituted? That was implicit in the remarks made from the Front Benches opposite, but for now, the Government do not support or propose further piecemeal change, so we do not plan to establish a committee to explore further the process for appointing Peers. I must disappoint my noble friend, but I am grateful to him and all who spoke in a most interesting debate on the Question today.