Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord True Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr. It is very nice to have so many Welsh people speaking in this debate. I think it would be a brave Minister who rejected the advice contained in this amendment from a former and very eminent Lord Chief Justice—and one, I might add, whose term of office coincided, I think, with that of Chris Grayling as the Secretary of State for Justice, although why I should make that particular point I cannot think at the moment .

It is clear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, knows a thing or two about the relationship between a Secretary of State and our independent judiciary and legal system. He has no doubt seen at close quarters how decisions are made or influenced and is able to draw on this experience in his advice to the Committee and in the amendment that he has moved today.

The amendment covers two points. First, and crucially, it effectively takes the appointment of commission members out of the hands of an elected politician—indeed, a member of the Cabinet—and places oversight in the hands of the Speaker and the Lord Chief Justice. Secondly, it makes the appointments non-renewable to ensure that Boundary Commission members can carry out their function with absolutely no glance over their shoulder at the possible renewal of their mandate. As the noble and learned Lord says, this fits in well with the Constitution Committee’s view that if we are to move to automatic implementation of Boundary Commission recommendations, this will protect against undue political influence only if the commissioners themselves are genuinely impartial and completely independent of political influence, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, also said .

In particular, the Constitution Committee recommended that commissioners should be appointed for a single, non-renewable term; the Secretary of State should appoint only from names recommended by the selection panel; and the deputy chair of each commission should sit on the selection panel.

The issue of independence was similarly stressed in a useful briefing note by Dr Alan Renwick and Professor Robert Hazell of the UCL Constitution Unit in their submission to the Commons Bill Committee, where they stressed the need to:

“Protect the Boundary Commissions from Government Interference”—


where, as they say,

“automatic implementation is clearly appropriate only if the review process itself is genuinely independent of any improper interference. If that condition is not met—if, for example, government ministers can unduly influence the appointment of Boundary Commission members or the conduct of reviews—then the independence requirement is violated again.”

The view of those two eminent academics is also that this amendment meets their benchmark for independence.

I would have hoped that we would not need to write such obvious safeguards into the law, but the recent effective removal of those whose advice does not gel with the Government gives one cause for concern. As was discussed earlier in the Chamber today, Tuesday’s news, on the very day of Sir Mark Sedwill’s departure, of the resignation of the head of the Government’s legal department, Sir Jonathan Jones, over his concerns about a threatened breach of the Northern Ireland Protocol, makes him the sixth senior Whitehall civil servant to resign this year. It sounds as if, “If you don’t say the right thing, you don’t stay.”

In a similar manner, recent appointments suggest that a certain push from No. 10 has magically seen Conservatives appointed to a range of positions: the aforementioned Chris Grayling to the National Portrait Gallery; and our own noble Baroness, Lady Harding, appointed as the effective chair of the National Institute for Health Protection, without any advertisement or selection process, and despite being neither a doctor nor a public health professional.

Angela Bray, a former Conservative MP, was suddenly appointed to VisitBritain as a board member. Sir Patrick McLoughlin, a former Conservative Party chair, is now to chair the British Tourist Authority. Nick de Bois will chair VisitEngland and David Ross, a major donor to the Conservative Party and to Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign, is now chair of the Royal Opera House. Political friends have been recently appointed to so-called independent departmental non-executive directorships.

It may well be that all these Conservatives were simply the absolute best, most experienced, most dynamic applicants for these various posts, and that such skills can never be found among Labour or Lib Dem activists, but it does feel as if appointments to important positions may be being handed out on a less than non-political basis. It is therefore crucial, if the Boundary Commission is to have the final say—unchallengeable in Parliament—that we have absolute confidence in the integrity and independence of its members and recommendations and in the appointment of those members.

I say again that I regret that we feel the need to legislate for this. I would have thought that our way of doing government would normally not need this to be written into legislation, but I believe we have to do it. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister’s response to this particular suggestion, and I hope very much that the Government will adopt the amendment and put it forward themselves on Report.

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the detailed thought that he has put into drafting his amendment and to the fact that he has drawn the Committee’s attention to this very important topic. I am also grateful to him for the time that he gave to have a private conversation on this matter. I am certainly open to have further conversations with him in the days and weeks ahead. I am grateful to all those who have spoken on this topic today.

I must in preface take up what I thought was a very strikingly polemical political utterance from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in which she purported to impugn the overall integrity of the public appointments system—an implication which was also left in a much more acceptable but similar fashion by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. I will come back to that, because I believe that the integrity of the public appointments system is absolutely fundamental and I am concerned that these kinds of generalised political charges should surface in the manner that we heard from the noble Baroness. I will not trade time in your Lordships’ Committee or at a later stage on Report by listing the names of other people of other parties who have taken up political and public appointments.

For my own part, I do not believe that the desire to give public service as a Member of Parliament or as a humble leaflet deliverer for any political party which is represented in Parliament means that that person should be automatically excluded or regarded as suspect if they are appointed to a public body. I believe that the course of politics—the vocation of politics—and public service through politics are honourable vocations, and that ought to be borne in mind as we address this subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

The Minister and I obviously have our political differences, but he probably knows that I would very rarely make a claim that was not accurate. I was speaking quite quickly, so he probably did not quite catch what I said, because my quote from the report of the Constitution Committee, which I have in front of me, was absolutely accurate. What I said was—and this was my opinion—that the amendment fits well the Constitution Committee’s view, which I quoted, that

“automatic implementation … will only protect against undue political influence if they are themselves genuinely independent.”

I then quoted the committee’s recommendation that

“the Commissioners should be appointed for a single, non-renewable term … the appointing minister should be required to appoint only from the names recommended by the selection panel; and … the deputy chair of each commission should sit on the selection panel.”

I was not claiming that the Constitution Committee endorsed the whole of this; my quote was absolutely from the Constitution Committee, and it was on those lines. I realise that I may have been gabbling and the Minister may not have heard me accurately, because I am sure that he would not have made the error otherwise.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might be permitted to reply to that. I always try to be gracious and I enjoy the challenge that comes from the noble Baroness. The cut and thrust of politics makes it worth while being a Member of your Lordships’ House, and let us have more of it. I accept what the noble Baroness says: that she was simply referring to paragraph 6 of the report, which I also have before me. I accept that she was not saying that those were specific recommendations by the Constitution Committee. I hope that she and I, and the whole Committee, will agree that we should consider, as we are doing “what safeguards are required”—which was the recommendation—

“to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Boundary Commissions.”

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has put forward some proposals. I have argued that the system currently satisfies that objective. But, as I have said, I am open to having further discussions on this matter.

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

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment. Perhaps I might briefly reply to the points made by the Minister. First, as to the position in respect of the appointment of a judicial member, this is now plainly anomalous. I simply cannot understand why the Government seek to have this particular aspect of a judge’s deployment within the control and decision of a political Minister. Ministers are not allowed to appoint judges to particular cases. If as a result of a Boundary Commission it was felt that the commission had unduly favoured one party, it would be very damaging to the independence, and the perception of independence, of the judiciary if someone was able to say, “Well, that judge who is the deputy chairman was appointed by a politician.”

Further, there seems to be absolutely no reason why the position of those in England and Wales should not brought in line with those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the logic of the position: namely, that at the time this was done, the Lord Chancellor was a judge. The Lord Chancellor is no such thing these days; he is a political Minister.

Secondly, on the issue of public appointments, I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the unique nature of the decision-making of the commission. It is not a body whose decision can in effect be challenged; it is an independent decision. Therefore, a special process much more akin to that of the judiciary is required. Appointability should not be the criterion.

On renewable terms, it is clear that the Cabinet Office accepts, as Parliament has accepted, that there are certain positions where it is essential that the term of appointment be non-renewable, to remove pressure. The Minister said—I think I heard him correctly, but one is always cautious when hearing matters over a remote link—that someone is reappointed subject to a satisfactory appraisal, but that really has no place in the process of appointing someone who is meant to be independent and who may be expected to make decisions of which Ministers do not approve.

I therefore would very much like to take up the opportunity of discussing this further with the Minister and others because I believe that we should be able to put this matter into a situation where everyone can have confidence, and the perception of confidence, so that the judgment of the commission is never capable of being called into question on the basis that politicians have been involved in its appointment. On those terms I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

If our numbers continue to increase as we do our work, the resources to allow that will be stretched too far to be adequate. There is a clear sense that the House of Commons has a greater justification for larger numbers than we do. Whether we support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is almost irrelevant. I suspect that he does not, but has put it forward so that we can have a debate. I would not support an increase to 800, but there is a strong case for this House to be smaller in number than the other place. That would allow us to be more effective in the work that we do.

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Hayward, and all others who spoke. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Norton for his typical ingenuity in transforming a Bill on parliamentary constituencies, referring to the House of Commons, into a House of Lords Bill 2020. I will address the points that he put, even though the purpose of Clause 5 is narrowly defined and keeps the House of Commons at 650. The Bill really is not a legislative vehicle for considering the size and membership of this place. But here we are in Committee in the wonderful, free House of Lords, whose revising greatness, historically, rests a great deal on the freedom of noble Lords to put forward amendments for discussion—a freedom that I personally greatly value.

I will come to the point about the size of the House of Commons, which can be dealt with fairly quickly. My noble friend was really asking about the size of this House and said, “What is the difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons?”. We heard a number of the differences explained in the excellent speech by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. The roles of the two Houses are fundamentally different. Beyond that, this is—or has been, historically—a part-time House of expertise, with a broader pool of expertise. I cavil at using the term “part-time” because it implies that I think Members of your Lordships’ House, as in the nonsense said about them, turn up and do not do the work. This is an extremely hard-working House. Perhaps I should have said that it is not a full-time, professional political House in the sense that the House of Commons is.

A House that is a revising House benefits from a wide pool of expertise and, rightly or wrongly, historically, the House of Lords has worked in that way. When I first had the honour of serving your Lordships’ House as private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition in 1997, yes, there were Members who came very rarely in those days. Some spoke perhaps two or three times a year. But some of those individuals—and we all know some who are with us today—came with extraordinary expertise, from which the House benefited and which it listened to. I am not necessarily happy with the argument that the House of Lords must become more and more like the House of Commons—full of professional people who are here all the time. It has a different role. Historically, that has been the reason for a larger number in the House of Lords. The prescriptive history of the House and the process of creations was obviously also the historic reason.

There have been some criticisms of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for creating new Peers. I am not going to irritate the Committee because I am in an emollient mood, particularly as I am about to try to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. However, it is the case that Mr Tony Blair created 354 Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reasonably said that Mr David Cameron created a very large number of Peers, including the Member of the House speaking at the moment. So clearly he was not absolutely accurate in his sense of everybody whom he should appoint, since he dumped me on your Lordships. But the point is that those very large numbers of creations had led to a great bump in the size of the House. To become displeased when a new Prime Minister wishes to make appointments is just a smidgen unreasonable.

The Government have acknowledged that the size of the House of Lords needs addressing but, given retirements and other departures, some new Members are required to keep the expertise and outlook of this place fresh and relevant. A number of ideas have been put forward. The Burns committee has put forward proposals and other statutory ideas have been put forward. The position of the Government is that any reform needs careful consideration and should not be brought forward piecemeal.

The previous attempt to reform your Lordships’ House, which did not find favour either in this House or in the other place, would have introduced an elected Chamber. Some of us are not exactly opposed to that; I have not always made myself popular on this subject with some of my colleagues. That would have achieved two things: a limit to the size of the House, and a House whose membership would have been refreshed by Dissolution. This would have addressed some of the problems that have been described. But that is water under the bridge; it is done and just a historical reflection. It is not to be taken as any kind of intimation of the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

What I would reject—and this certainly would be the position of Her Majesty’s Government—is the idea put forward by my noble friend that the number in an appointed House should be fixed in statute and could not be increased. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition rightly said that in some circumstances, that could not happen. If an unelected Chamber is in conflict with an elected Chamber, while the House of Lords is now unique, history and the past experience of other countries suggests that a Government must have the ability to make new creations. It was useful to the Liberals to threaten that in 1910 and useful to the Labour Party to threaten it in the 1940s and 1990s. The threat was not really necessary in the 1990s, but it was there.

The arguments for having a fixed number for an appointed House were had at some length on the peerage Bill in the early 18th century. The House of Commons took the view then, rightly, that it could not accept that the numbers of the House of Lords should be limited. So the idea of a cap—not allowing a Prime Minister of whatever party to make appointments beyond a certain number—is not something that could fly.

Although the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, supported the amendment, she referred to—this illustrates my point—the challenge, to use the word used by the Leader of the Opposition, that the House of Lords presented to the other place last year over Brexit. If there were a cap on this House and the House of Commons, with the support of the British people, resolved to go in one direction and the House of Lords, in its wisdom—as it saw it—took a line in the other direction, that would be a recipe for constitutional mayhem of a high order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. First, I make a plea to the Minister never to refer to this House as a part-time House. He half-corrected himself but this House often sits longer and later than the House of Commons. We are a full-time House. The only difference is that not all Members are full-time Members of your Lordships’ House; they have other interests and activities. We are a full-time House but not all our Members are full-time.

I want to make a couple of points. The Minister said that reform cannot be piecemeal because it must be considered. Reform can be both considered and piecemeal. Most reforms in British constitutional history have been quite gradual. That does not mean that they have not been considered; they have just taken a step-by-step approach, not the big bang approach. The Minister harked back to ducks and tabby cats; I would liken the House of Lords more to a tabby cat than to a duck.

The night in question, when the Minister and I had many discussions late into the night, went later than either of us wanted to be here in Parliament, but potentially the point the Minister is missing is that, after the conflicts that he referred to, both the 1911 and the 1949 Parliament Acts constrained how the House of Lords works. It is quite clear that we have an advisory role and that the House of Commons has primacy. We do not block legislation, we have no intention of blocking legislation and we have no remit or legitimacy to block legislation, but we have an opportunity and an obligation to advise the House of Commons on the basis of the information that we have.

On the Minister’s point about a Prime Minister needing to be able to appoint lots of Peers to get their legislation through, I am not aware of anything that Boris Johnson would have more difficulty with in the House of Commons than in the House of Lords. Even on the rule of law, I suspect that his colleagues in the House of Commons are not terribly happy with him, but that is not why he has appointed these 36 new Peers. It is nothing at all to do with legislation; it is a Prime Ministerial whim and a numbers game.

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on the size of the House of Commons being 650 Members. There is something that we can agree entirely on.

[Lord True (Con)]

First, as I hope I indicated in my remarks, I accept the strictures of the noble Baroness on the phrase “part-time House”. It is a House whose expertise derives in part from the presence of people who are here part-time and bring us their expertise, which is a slightly long-winded way of saying the same thing. I think I said specifically that I would not want anyone to run away with that remark and say that that is what I think of your Lordships’ House. I revere it.

With that correction, I will not detain noble Lords further but I will bank the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that this House’s role is not to block legislation. We shall test those words in the coming weeks and months.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just made two of the points that I was going to make but that will not stop me making them anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, supported my case by speaking against the amendment; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, supported my case by speaking for it. I am not whether that means that I am more skilled or abysmal at drafting amendments than I thought.

That leads me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She argued the case for a formula linking the size of the House of Lords to the membership of the House of Commons. I agree; indeed, I tried to devise an amendment on that very point but getting it within the scope of the Bill was problematic, which is why I moved the amendment I did. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will appreciate that sometimes one must go through some contortions to produce an amendment that will trigger a debate. I speak as someone who, a few years back, moved an amendment to the Psychoactive Substances Bill that would have had the effect of banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol. I realise that it was not going to go anywhere—it was not designed to—but it drew attention to a problem in that Bill.

I have four points to make, two of which the noble Baroness just made in response to my noble friend Lord True. One of her points was that the two Houses have different functions. Of course they do; that was precisely my point. Deriving from that is the case for the House of Lords to be smaller than the House of Commons, given the functions that it fulfils. We are a reflective House. We do not have an outward-facing role in the same way that the Commons does, with Members having to deal with constituencies in relation to their role and in relation to the Executive. The functions are very different. We fulfil different roles, and we add value to the political process by fulfilling that reflective role. Deriving from that, we do not need to be quite so big or, indeed, as big as the House of Commons.

Secondly, as was just touched on and as the noble Baroness stressed, this is not a part-time House. It is very much a full-time House, with some Members who work part-time, if you like, because they do their day jobs then come in to provide their expertise. It did a very good job in 1999 when we had more or less the same number of Members as the House of Commons, so unless my noble friend the Minister is going to argue that it was doing a worse job than now, again, there is no case for the arguments that he has advanced in terms of size.

My next point—again one that the noble Baroness touched upon—relates to my noble friend saying that reform should not be piecemeal. Well, the reform that has been achieved has been piecemeal; it has been the grand schemes brought forward by government that have got nowhere. Those piecemeal changes have I think been well considered—I speak as someone who drafted one of the Bills—and have achieved a great deal. Had we not achieved the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, just think what the size of the House would now be. We would be moving in the direction of the size of the House when we had the hereditary Peers and all the problems that derived from that.

Finally, while I am not saying that we should have a statutory number, there is a case for considering it. My noble friend did not really make an argument against that and I draw attention to the fact that it is not at all unusual for nations to have a set number of Members of their second Chambers. There is not really a clear argument against that. I am not necessarily beating the drum for it; I just say that there is no strong argument against it.

So I am not persuaded by any of the points that my noble friend made—he will not be surprised to hear that. I wanted to tease out the stance of the Government and allow us to continue to make the case—as the House has agreed, without a vote—that we are too large and that steps should be taken to reduce the size of the House. We can move towards that; the Burns recommendations create the means for achieving that. We can have a smaller House that fulfils its key functions and adds value. This House fulfils a very important role that is demonstrably different from that of the Commons. That is why it adds value, and that is why we should serve to uphold it. That would, I think, be facilitated by having a smaller, not a larger, House. We should follow Burns and try to reverse the direction of travel when it comes to the size of the House.

So I am, as I have said, grateful to all those who have spoken. I have made all the points that I think are important in this context, and I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from other Members. I am sure that this is something we will continue to pursue but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Office for Veterans’ Affairs

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent steps the Office for Veterans’ Affairs has taken to support veterans.

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

My Lords, since establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the Government have brought the Strategy for our Veterans to life. We have improved access to social housing, we are hiring Armed Forces champions in jobcentres, and we are announcing a high-intensity mental health service. The Government have also announced a veterans’ railcard, guaranteed interviews in the Civil Service, and a national insurance holiday for veterans’ employers. We awarded £6 million of Covid-19 funding to service charities.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

Next month will mark the first anniversary of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. I commend all those involved, especially Johnny Mercer, for putting the welfare of our veterans front and centre. In these difficult times, can the Minister tell us what the office is doing to maintain and strengthen the mental health of our veterans? Will he agree to meet with me and Katie Reade of the campaign End Frozen Pensions to see what can be done for the 60,000 or so veterans living abroad who have been denied annual increases to their UK state pensions?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words about the work of officials; he is a great campaigner on these matters. He is absolutely right to signal the importance of work on mental health. The existing services we have established— the Transition Intervention and Liaison Service and the Complex Treatment Service—benefit from over £10 million of investment per year and have collectively received over 10,000 referrals. However, we want to do more, and the forthcoming veterans mental health high intensity service will see even more investment, providing crisis care, therapeutic in-patient support and help with co-ordinating care. We are currently recruiting for this service. I will certainly talk to Mr Mercer about a meeting with my noble friend and we will see what we can arrange.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, when does the Minister envisage a full service returning to the Veterans UK helpline, which is offering only limited information to veterans over the phone at the moment? I tested it myself yesterday. Also, when do the Government plan to revisit their totally unsatisfactory policy on war widows’ pensions as a result of the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to the chair of the War Widows’ Association on June 29? As a vice-president of the WWA, I know that war widows cannot wait much longer.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked two extremely important questions. Government services for veterans have continued throughout Covid, but she is right that there have been changes to ensure safety and social distancing. For a period during the peak of the pandemic, the helpline was closed as it could not operate effectively, but support continued to be offered through email, digital means and a call-back service. I am advised that matters are now returning to normal. I will certainly pursue that in light of what the noble Baroness has said. On war widows, for whom she is a consistent advocate and I praise her for that, we are now exploring the full financial and legal implications of the options in making the move she is seeking so that the Defence Secretary can decide how to proceed. I assure her that work is continuing at pace in the Ministry of Defence and across government.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Will my noble friend join me in congratulating Mr Danny Kinahan on his recent appointment as veterans’ commissioner in Northern Ireland and wish him well? The Minister will be aware that the military covenant has been the bedrock of support for veterans for many years. That requires work with the devolved Administrations. They are required by the Act to report annually to the Secretary of State for Defence, who then puts their communication in a report that is laid before Parliament. Is the Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Executive has never complied with that requirement? What steps can the Government take to ensure and guarantee that services for veterans in Northern Ireland are properly delivered?

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and add my personal congratulations to those he offered. The covenant is of enormous importance. I am not aware of the position as concerns the Northern Ireland Executive, but we will certainly look into the matter.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend join me in expressing our enduring debt of gratitude to those veterans who upheld democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland and without whose contribution there would never have been a peace process? Does he agree that these veterans would be greatly supported by legislation to limit the scope of the Human Rights Act so that it cannot be applied retrospectively in cases that happened many years before the Act came into force and which have already been extensively investigated?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I wholly endorse my noble friend’s opening sentiments. I understand and share the frustrations he espouses. We will implement the Stormont House agreement in such a way as to provide certainty for veterans and justice for victims, to focus on reconciliation and to end the cycle of reinvestigations into the Troubles in Northern Ireland that has failed victims and veterans alike. This is an ongoing matter.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, when the Government launched the Office of Veterans Affairs, they said that the United Kingdom would lead the world in the care of Armed Forces veterans. That is obviously welcome, but could the Minister enlighten the House as to whether that is intended to include all veterans of the British services, including those Commonwealth citizens who have served us, particularly the Fijians, who occasionally have difficulties with their residency and immigration status?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the position of Commonwealth veterans is of great importance. The Government highly value the service of all our veterans, including Commonwealth nationals and non-UK personnel. For example, Ministers are continuing to discuss visa fees with the Home Office, and I am confident we will find a positive outcome.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, which in 2019 distributed £28 million in support of 70,000 members of the RAF family. To what extent will future funding become available to enable the Armed Forces charity sector to continue to deliver the emotional, practical and financial support that our Armed Forces veterans have come to rely on, especially as charitable income has been affected so significantly by the impact of Covid-19?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the work done by charities such as that my noble friend is associated with is vital. As a supporter of some of those charities, I know what good work they do. In June we announced that 100 UK Armed Forces charities would benefit from nearly £6 million of extra funding to support serving personnel veterans and their families during the Covid pandemic. I hope that is a sign of the importance the Government attach to this work.

[Lord Eames (CB) [V]]

My Lords, while I welcome the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, can I press him on the particular situation of former veterans and members of the Royal Irish Regiment and the former Ulster Defence Regiment, who have recently given voice to complaints that they have been ignored in many aspects of support, particularly medical support? This is of particular concern to those of us in Northern Ireland at this time.

[Lord True (Con)]

I understand the noble and right reverend Lord’s point. I repeat what I said to my noble friend Lord Caine: we attach importance to this and will continue to pursue it.

[Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]]

Some years ago I spent a day as a fly on the wall with a combat stress support worker helping veterans with PTSD. Sadly, another veteran has recently taken his own life in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister update us on progress in improving data collection to help prevent veteran suicides, as set out in the veterans strategy?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I regret to say that I found it extremely difficult to hear the question. I believe it was in reference to suicide. Of course, any suicide is a tragedy and we are committed to addressing it. There is not an epidemic currently, as is often said, but there is an ongoing important problem, which our mental health initiatives are in part intended to address.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

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

EU Trade Agreement

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a future trade agreement between the United Kingdom and European Union will be secured by 15 October; and what plans they have to ensure that the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol contained in the withdrawal agreement are upheld in the event that no such trade agreement is reached.

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

My Lords, the eighth round of negotiations will begin in London today. An agreement is still possible, and we will continue to work hard in September to achieve it. We will also continue to work with the EU in the joint committee to resolve outstanding issues with the NI protocol. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the peace process or the UK’s internal market to be inadvertently compromised by unintended consequences of the protocol.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, let us be clear here. The Government promised that they would deliver a first-rate deal with the EU when the transition period ended on 31 December. Yet on the very day the chief negotiator has taken his seat in the House of Lords, he rates the chances of a deal at 30% to 40%. What has gone wrong? We look forward to hearing from him when he speaks in this House.

Less than a year ago, the Prime Minister heralded the Northern Ireland protocol as a major political victory, which the noble Lord referred to. Now, as the Northern Ireland Executive are preparing for implementation, it has unforeseen consequences. Really? Was nobody paying attention at the time? Was nobody watching?

I have three questions for the noble Lord. Can he confirm that any clauses about Northern Ireland in the upcoming legislation will be fully consistent with the withdrawal agreement and the Good Friday agreement? Also, given the shock departure today of the head of the UK’s legal department, will the Government publish a precis of the legal advice and the opinion of the Attorney-General? Finally, seeking unilaterally to override a negotiated and signed treaty has serious implications for trust in us as a nation. Can the Minister tell the House—I am happy for him to write to me if he cannot—of any previous occasion when the UK Government have overridden a binding treaty that they have ratified?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Frost, as I can now call him, on his introduction and his outstanding service in the negotiations.

The noble Baroness asks why we have not yet reached a conclusion. In our judgment, the European Union has not been as constructive as it might have in the way the negotiations are conducted. I say to the noble Baroness and the House that I hope the legislation will be published imminently, and full time will be allowed in the House to debate the specific and important issues the noble Baroness has raised.

I will have to take advice on her point about legal opinions, and I will respond to her on that. As far as Mr Jones is concerned, the Government obviously respect his views and thank him for his service. But we are clear that we are acting fully in accordance with UK law and the UK’s constitutional norms. Without prolonging the answer, there are precedents, with which I will gladly provide the noble Baroness.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Jonathan Jones, who was the head of the Government Legal Service, resigned this morning because he thought that the Government’s plans to override the Brexit withdrawal agreement were in breach of the Ministerial Code, which obliges Ministers to obey the law, including international law. How can the EU, or any country with which the UK is currently negotiating, have any trust in this Government to follow through on any agreement reached, when they are, in this case, clearly planning to tear up an agreement made only a few months ago?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is no such intention on the part of the Government. We will continue to work with the European Union in the joint committee to resolve outstanding issues on the protocol. Those of your Lordships who have followed it closely will know we are already committing and spending to undertake some of the requirements of the NI protocol. To de-dramatise this for a moment, let us see if we can get an agreement in the joint committee. I then hope that the safety net that we will be discussing on the Bill will not be necessary.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Does my noble friend recall that, shortly after the British people were so unwise as to vote to leave the European Union, Monsieur Barnier said—I think I have the right terms—that the British people needed educating, which most people translated as, “We need to teach them a lesson”. Does he share my concern that the same arguments of the last four years are now put forward by the same people, who are not reconciled to the fact that we have left the European Union and would believe—and indeed support—anything said by EU negotiators and Michel Barnier, rather than support those, such as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, working hard in our national interest in these very fraught negotiations?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes pertinent points. My view is that both sides should seek to make progress. A lot of work has been done, and there have been obstacles, but we consider some of those artificial, so let us hope that they can be swept out of the way. The Prime Minister made clear again that he would like to agree a deal, but the matter cannot drag on indefinitely.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, what additional steps are the Prime Minister or other Ministers taking or contemplating to persuade individual EU Heads of Government to allow Monsieur Barnier to modify his reportedly fixed positions on a so-called level playing field and fish quotas?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, our duty is to negotiate with the European Union, and that is the proper course that we are taking. I make it a practice at this Dispatch Box to not comment on the internal affairs of the European Union, but the points the noble and gallant Lord raised are pertinent.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, given the concerns in the House about any attempt to derogate from an international treaty and the implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland, will the Minister confirm that the Government are aware that any attempt unilaterally to modify the terms of the withdrawal agreement will adversely affect the confidence of EU citizens resident here, and of British citizens resident in EU countries, in the United Kingdom’s commitments under the agreement, if treaty commitments may be set aside? What can the Minister say to reassure both categories under these circumstances, other than to undertake to honour the treaty in full?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as a resident of another EU country. I do not feel that there is a wider spreading out from this. The British Government are determined to honour their obligations. We are proposing, as noble Lords will see—we will have a long opportunity to discuss this—to take a power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect in a very specific and limited way. As for the peace agreement, I say to the right reverend Prelate that the peace agreement has an east-west aspect, as well as a north-south aspect.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the reason for Sir Jonathan Jones’s resignation was his great concern about the proposed Bill, as reported in newspapers today? I know Sir Jonathan very well, because for many years he was the head person in my department when I was Attorney-General. I know him to be a hugely talented lawyer, very experienced in Whitehall and very loyal to the Government. He would not, therefore, take issue with what the Government have said unless he really was of the view that it was inappropriate. Can the Minister confirm that the Ministerial Code still applies to all Ministers—and that includes obeying and respecting the law? Does he agree that, if this is a negotiating ploy on the part of the Government, it is at best very dangerous or at worst could be disastrous if it also has the consequence—as has been stated by one democratic representative today—of scuppering the US deal?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have not looked in detail at Sir Jonathan Jones’s resignation statement, nor have I read the newspapers today. I share and express the respect that all members of the Government have for him. In our judgment, the Ministerial Code has not been breached. We are clear that we are acting fully in accordance with UK law and the UK’s constitutional norms.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I also want to pick up the question of a US trade deal. The Government have trumpeted the prospect of such a deal, but Congress at least will not approve it if the Good Friday agreement is imperilled by this Government’s non-respect of the Irish protocol to the withdrawal agreement. How do the Government expect to get a US trade deal if they imperil the Good Friday agreement?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I completely reject the idea that the Government are imperilling the Good Friday agreement. I repeat what I said a minute or two ago: the peace process has an east-west as well as a north-south aspect, which the Government fully respect. The purpose of our approach is to protect peace in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better if the noble Lords who are getting so excited about this just waited until the internal market Bill is published later this week?

[Lord True (Con)]

As usual, my noble friend makes a very important point. As I have already said, we will have a great opportunity to discuss the proposals.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, parliamentary scrutiny is very important here. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have raised concerns—especially regarding secondary legislation—that the Executive are taking more and more power for themselves. Is this another example of that, and will there be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the first two sets of proposals will be in primary legislation. That will give Parliament full opportunity to debate them.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register, as chair of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce.

I have chaired a number of webinars with colleagues and friends in the Arab Middle East about what is going to happen by 15 October, and there is a great deal of concern. With the greatest respect to the Minister, he appears to have come to answer this Question with very little information about why Sir Jonathan Jones has resigned. He says he has not read the letter of resignation. That is going to increase the anxiety. There is a real sense of urgency among our trading colleagues across the Arab Middle East regarding what will happen. Do we now tell them that they must expect to trade under the WTO rules?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday. We continue to seek a deal but, ideally, it will have to be in place with the European Council on 15 October.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, was it ever envisaged that all goods passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland should be subject to tariffs? Would that not undermine political agreement in Northern Ireland?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it was certainly never envisaged. That might be an effect of the default position. This is something which your Lordships will have the opportunity to examine. It cannot be the case that every good passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is at risk of being carried on into the European Union.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]]

My Lords, actually, some of us did point out at the time that the default position under Article 5 of the protocol was that all goods moving into Northern Ireland would be deemed at risk of going south. We also pointed out that Article 13 meant EU export documentation for goods going the other way—from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—and that Article 10, on state aids, was capable of a very wide interpretation, with the ECJ having the last word. What was not foreseen, at least by me, was that any UK Government would seek to settle such issues unilaterally, with the domestic law purporting to override an international commitment. Pacta sunt servanda. Tearing up treaties is what rogue states do. I cannot recall us ever doing so. The Minister claims that there are precedents. Can he please name just one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Finance Act 2013 contained provisions expressly disapplying international tax treaties in relation to the extent that these conflicted with the general anti-abuse rule. I have other examples. I would say to the noble Lord, whose distinguished services to our country I respect, that there were ambiguities in the protocol. For example, the arrangements of the EU refer very clearly to unfettered access. That is why we have a Joint Committee: to work out these ambiguities. Let us hope that it is still possible for it to complete its work.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

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

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord True Excerpts

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

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, might also refer to what happened when he left in 1992, when the then Conservative Government more or less doubled expenditure on the Boundary Commissions in order to expedite the process and to try to bring forward a review earlier than might otherwise have been the case in an attempt to save their skins. People might say that it did them a fat lot of good in 1997 but it was an attempt by a then Conservative Government to alter the process.

I am inclined to disagree with these amendments in principle, but I may be willing to support them if the same kinds of flaws remain in the Bill as were contained in the previous legislation from 2011. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that it was with the aim of preventing gerrymandering and because of these flaws that I was one of the movers of the crucial amendment in the House of Lords that halted the boundary review in 2013. A cross-party group in the House won approval for our amendment and this then achieved a clear majority in the Commons, which had the effect of blocking the implementation of that review. I have no regrets at all about that.

The Bill before us now is better in many respects than the one introduced at the beginning of the coalition. The plan for 600 MPs was a bad one when the so-called payroll vote remained so large. Reducing the number of MPs, while maintaining the same number of Ministers, Whips and PPSs, would have given greater power to the Executive and weakened the legislature when we should be moving in the opposite direction. That problem is addressed by retaining the number of MPs at 650. This change will also reduce—at least marginally —the disruption involved with boundary reorganisation and which is proposed to be every eight years, as opposed to every five, although perhaps 10 would be better.

However, two significant problems remain with the Bill and they are relevant to these amendments. If not addressed, I think that Parliament should still be given the final say over implementation. The first problem relates to electoral registration. The Electoral Commission has reported that 9 million people may be missing from, or inaccurately included on, the electoral registers. This is a very high proportion given that the registers contain around 47 million names. The potential figure of perhaps 6 million people completely missing from the registers is far higher than was suggested to Parliament when it approved the 2011 legislation, and the missing millions obviously greatly distort the work of drawing up boundaries properly. I await with interest the Government’s response to the discussion on Amendments 11 and 24 relating to automatic voter registration.

The second major flaw with the process proposed is that it is unnecessarily disruptive. Whether inadvertently or otherwise, it will allow for small population changes in one constituency to trigger massive changes in many others throughout the remainder of the relevant English region, or in Scotland, or Wales, not just in neighbouring constituencies. This problem can be addressed, as the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee concluded in its excellent report in March 2015, by allowing perhaps 7.5% or 8% flexibility. A little more flexibility in the 5% margin allowed for variation to the quota for each constituency would enable more natural constituencies with sensible boundaries to be created, with fewer constituencies proposed that cross county boundaries, for example. Perhaps more importantly, more flexibility would help ensure that the entire map of constituencies is not ripped up whenever a review takes place. The Government should note that the Liberal Democrats are not under the same constraints as in 2011 to support aspects of the Bill such as the principle of 5%—which was very nearly changed to 10% to secure the passage of the Bill, but the compromise was not made.

A good process, with fair rules, using independent commissioners, should not be halted, varied, or expedited according to the whim of the party which can control a parliamentary majority. However, when so many people are not included properly in the electoral registers and there is the likelihood that the process will be unnecessarily disruptive in a way that would particularly disappoint many good constituency MPs, the case remains for Parliament having the final say.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on automaticity. It has been a very interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott, for tabling the amendments that have helped us have this debate.

I need not remind the Committee of the shape and purpose of the amendments—it is well aware of those. It has been explicitly stated that the amendments seek to retain the present position where Parliament can intervene and frustrate the intention of the Government and, indeed, the intention of the House of Commons, as resolved on examination of this legislation, to go for automaticity.

I note that most noble Lords who spoke against the proposals were from the Opposition. I was not persuaded by many of the reasons that they put forward. I note and welcome the support of the Liberal Democrats who spoke in favour of automaticity, although I note—as I was asked to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—that this is conditional. They support this principle now, but they might change their minds by Report. I will be interested to understand how they turn on its head the fundamental principle that there should not be political interference with the electoral process. I hope—I am sure—that they will continue to support the principle of automaticity.

Noble Lords have raised other important issues in this debate, some of which we will discuss later today and some on subsequent occasions. I assure the Committee that I will be listening carefully to all the points that come forward.

I support the principle of automaticity. I hope it is recognised that I am a staunch supporter of Parliament and its role—and your Lordships’ role—in scrutinising and agreeing the laws by which we live. I suppose my gut instinct is that Parliament gives up so much. Some have said, “Is it not a good thing that Parliament should be involved?”, that we parliamentarians always have a right to reject. While it perhaps goes against my instinctive grain to let go of that opportunity, in this instance I believe that we should not follow those instincts and that there is more to be gained for the citizen by us letting go, as was movingly expounded by my noble friend Lady Seccombe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as I made clear in the debate on the first group of amendments, we do not support the automaticity of Boundary Commission recommendations becoming law with no parliamentary intervention. In an ideal world, Clause 2 would not be in the Bill. Nevertheless, we share in the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other speakers, and the worry that some decision is still left with the Executive while none is with Parliament. If this clause is to be in the Bill, clearly, these amendments are very welcome.

This is important not simply for parliamentarians but for Boundary Commissioners. In knowing that they rather than Parliament are making law, it will be important for them to be confident as they assume this new responsibility that the Government will not play games with any delay—should, for example, an early election be on the cards, given that we hear that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is to be removed, thus leaving the calling of an election back in the hands of the Prime Minister. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord McNicol is, like me, not a former MP, but along with others, we have been involved from a party position. As he said, if we can remove Parliament’s ability to discuss, we should remove the Executive’s ability to delay.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that we need to curb the ultimate power of the Executive. Hear, hear to that. Six weeks sounds better to me. If it is going to be automatic, then automatic it should be. Furthermore, if the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, says that it is doable within a time limit, my judgment is that it is doable within a time limit. He knows whereof he speaks, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, my noble friend Lord McNicol, and other former Chief and Deputy Chief Whips.

I confess that my eyebrows rose just a little at the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as to the pristine, impeccable holiness of the Conservative Party. Maybe he needs reminding about Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster. I will go no further, but I think he overegged that particular pudding. If we are to have automaticity, clearly this delay must not be in the hands of the Government.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am troubled that my body language should be coming under examination, particularly since most of my family are saying that I am getting so grotesquely fat, it should never be examined in any circumstances. Perhaps that is an argument to reinforce the case that a number of noble Lords have put and with which I personally profoundly agree: there is great merit in our proceedings being in the Chamber, where body language can be examined, as it cannot with these glass screens.

For accuracy, I should say that there have been a number of strictures about this discussion taking place in Grand Committee. All your Lordships will understand the exigencies of the present situation. We are all chafing against the limitations placed on us, but the reference to Grand Committee was agreed in the usual channels and supported by the other political parties. The conduct of our business by the usual channels is traditional. It is not reasonable, in the circumstances, to impugn the Government, or indeed the House authorities, on that point. I add to what others have said about the great work that has been done in putting this Room together.

This is a very important debate, body language or no. The amendments have been very skilfully spoken to by all noble Lords, from my noble friend Lord Cormack onwards. Noble Lords have largely said the same thing so it would be invidious to pick out anybody, but obviously the now poacher, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, made a very powerful case to the Committee.

A six-month figure has been suggested, as has three months. I regret to say that both those deadlines could bring problems to the closing stages of a boundary review. I will return briefly to that point, but I start by explaining why the Bill is as it is. It is drafted to give some flexibility, but it demands that the Secretary of State submits the boundary order:

“As soon as reasonably practicable”.


This terminology is widespread in legislation and in this case it allows for some small degree of flexibility in the scheduling and completion of the work needed to prepare and submit the boundary order and the associated orders. However, it is only a small degree because, as has been pointed out, any Government who unreasonably delayed a piece of work as high-profile as this would likely come in for swift legal challenge, so there is not, in a sense, an untrammelled power, as my noble friend Lord Cormack contended. None the less, many parliamentarians would agree that leaving resource to the courts is not always the best or most agreeable way of conducting our proceedings. I will return to this point later.

Representation of the People (Electoral Registers Publication Date) Regulations 2020

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 June be approved.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, on 9 June I announced to the House that, in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government intended to bring forward legislation to delay the deadline for publication of this year’s revised parliamentary and English local government registers by two months, from 1 December 2020 to 1 February 2021. As we all know, the electoral registers are lists compiled by electoral registration officers—EROs, in the jargon—of people in their areas who are registered to vote. EROs are appointed by local authorities across Britain and each holds two registers: a local government register for local polls and a parliamentary register for national polls, primarily parliamentary general and by-elections. Both registers are also used as an information source for credit reference agencies and in jury summons.

The annual canvass is an information-gathering exercise which ordinarily runs for five months, from 1 July to 1 December, and which EROs are obliged to conduct each year to ensure that their electoral registers are as complete and accurate as possible. The information gathered during the canvass is used to identify both electors who should be deleted from the registers, for reasons such as death, ineligibility or moving address, and eligible electors who are not on the register and therefore to whom invitations to register, or ITRs, should be sent. The ITRs are a separate form from the canvass and may be completed throughout the year, either digitally or in hard copy. The revised register is then published by EROs on or before 1 December, except when an election is held in an ERO’s area during the canvass period, in which case it is automatically delayed until the following 1 February.

This legislation would allow EROs an additional two months in which to conduct their vital work, if they require it, due to the challenges caused by Covid-19. For instance, in addition to the challenges all have faced, the members of electoral services teams in many local authorities have had to contend with reallocation to focus on providing other essential services in local communities. At present, however, EROs in England, Scotland and Wales remain legally obliged to publish the revised electoral register by 1 December 2020, or they will be potentially liable for prosecution for failure to conduct their statutory duties under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

As noble Lords will remember, we brought forward secondary legislation last autumn to make much-needed reforms to the annual canvass process, which were widely welcomed. The most significant change is a new data-matching step at the outset, informing the ERO which households are likely to remain unchanged. This allows the canvass to move away from the cumbersome, one-size-fits-all, paper-based system to a modern and adaptable model in which EROs are now able to use e-communication and phone calls to communicate with electors, as well as being able to continue to use hard copy where appropriate.

Thanks to those reforms, we have reduced the number of people who will need to respond to EROs at all; introduced digital contact methods in place of paper forms, reducing the amount of paper to be manually processed; and introduced the option to use phone contacts where possible, in place of door-knocking. This year’s annual canvass will allow EROs to conduct safer and more responsive canvasses than ever before. None the less, the canvass will still involve large amounts of paper responses and, where phone calls are impossible, door-knocking where a household has not responded to previous attempts to contact them. The in-person contacts and paper elements of the canvass still play a vital role in ensuring the completeness and accuracy of our electoral registers, as they allow those for whom local authorities do not hold phone or digital contact details to be canvassed.

In spite of the impact of Covid-19, the 2020 annual canvass under the reformed system is successfully and safely under way in local authorities across the country; I thank all those involved. The rollout of the national data-matching service successfully matched the records in all local authorities and valuation joint boards across Great Britain, amounting to over 48 million electors, an impressive feat considering the current disruption. This work has been undertaken with full compliance with all data protection regulations and while safeguarding the data of all citizens.

Before bringing forward this legislation, the Government engaged with the electoral services community to consider a range of options to support EROs. One of the alternative options raised was cancelling this year’s canvass and removing the in-person contact requirement—the door knocking. However, the canvass plays a vital role in ensuring the completeness and accuracy of registers on which elections are based. This includes those elections currently due to take place in May 2021, because of the deferment of elections. By cancelling the canvass, we would risk disfranchising voters who had recently reached voting age, moved house, or for some other reason should be added to the register. This would, of course, be unacceptable.

The other option, removing the in-person canvass requirement, has been proved unnecessary due to progress in the response to Covid-19 and the success so far in controlling its spread. Much of society has reopened and we have adapted to the new necessities of Covid-secure working, as we see around us every day. The extension of the publication date, in concert with clear and carefully considered public health guidance for canvassers, will allow EROs to undertake the canvass in full compliance with all Covid-secure requirements.

The Electoral Commission has, in close co-operation with the public health agencies in each of the three nations, already issued guidance to EROs on carrying out a Covid-secure canvass, and my officials are monitoring the situation to provide further non-legislative support as needed. These measures will, together, allow EROs the flexibility to respond to local needs while complying with the prevailing public health guidance. Not only would removing the personal canvass therefore be unnecessary to protect public health, and might risk undermining the quality of the register, it would be legally extremely difficult due to the statutory requirement to consult with the Electoral Commission for three months on any changes to the conduct of the canvass. Having considered the various options, we are bringing forward this legislation to allow EROs additional time to complete the canvass. However, they would still be able to publish before 1 February 2021 if they chose to, in line with current legislation.

The Government have consulted widely across the sector, including with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Scottish Assessors Association, the LGA—I declare an interest as vice-president of that association—and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, all of which have expressed their support for this measure. I thank my counterparts in Scotland and Wales, and their Governments, for their proactive and positive engagement on this issue. They have brought forward complementary legislation in their respective legislatures.

This legislation will provide the flexibility that EROs need to run a Covid-secure canvass, while safeguarding the completeness and accuracy of electoral registers. I hope and believe that these regulations are uncontentious and technical. They have the support of all major electoral stakeholders, of the Welsh and Scottish Governments and, I venture to hope, of your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken with grace, in every sense of the word, for the kind reception to the regulations and the thoughtful contributions that have been made. Certainly, I will take up the point asked about by the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Kennedy. If I fail to answer any points in the time available, I will make sure that the House is informed.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was the first to express his very understandable concern—which I and the Government share—about those who are hard to reach, including people in student accommodation and care homes. It is extremely important and the Government are concerned to make sure that the maximum number of people who should have the right to vote do have the right to vote.

I do not accept the implication of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that there is a suspicion that the Government or the Conservatives wish to stop people registering in any way. That is entirely unfounded and I thought it a little aside from the general tone of the debate. Indeed, I explained to the House that the Government had declined to abandon the personal canvass—the door knocking—which was put forward as one of the things that we might do, because that is a way in which one can visit and get to people.

On automatic registration, which crept out in the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Wallace, Lord Rennard, and others, I know that an amendment has been tabled for the discussions we will shortly have on the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill, when there will be more time to explore this topic than there is now. Some argue that automatic registration negates the need for a canvass at all. However, automatic registration, in the eyes of some, goes against the fundamental principle of individual electoral registration —of individuals taking ownership of registering to vote. Significant practical issues would need to be overcome. For example, there was reference to data matching. No single dataset has been identified that would allow an ERO to establish all aspects of eligibility to register to vote, in particular nationality. The Government are therefore opposed to the creation of a new database containing personal identifiers that has national coverage. Such a database would clearly pose a significant risk to data security, to pick up on my noble friend Lord Patten’s point.

My noble friend Lord Hayward raised Northern Ireland. He is right to say that the canvass in Northern Ireland is not an annual event like in Great Britain. Because of a different approach to voter identification it is undertaken only once every 10 years. That means that when the canvass takes place it is much more resource intensive than the annual canvass in the rest of the UK. Because of the very unique set of circumstances facing electoral staff in Northern Ireland, the Coronavirus Act delayed the canvass in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was kind to refer to my service in local government. I said in my opening remarks that one should at every opportunity express the profoundest thanks to the EROs and others engaged in this operation. They are the oil that makes democracy work.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked some questions about making people co-operate and the co-operation requirement. I agree that that is an important point. It is currently a legal requirement to include reference to a civil penalty on the ITR form and on the canvass form, but I think that the noble Lord was saying that that could be made more prominent. I will certainly take away that point. I accept that it should be on the form. I understand that it is in the form because co-operation is important.

We welcome the Select Committee report referred to by the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Hayward. We will respond in due course.

I touched on canvass reform, which improves the way that EROs can canvass properties such as student accommodation and care homes. That has been welcomed by all across the electoral community. Officials are working to help facilitate relationships between EROs and care homes and student accommodation, which might include items such as better guidance. It is certainly extremely important that people in care homes should have the right to vote. I used to enjoy canvassing the care home at the bottom of my road because I rarely went away without a piece of cake. I thought that this was the reverse of treating, until I was told that the other slice was being saved for the Lib Dem candidate. I noticed that it was slightly bigger than the one given to me. Everybody of every age must have access to the vote.

My noble friend Lord Patten referred to algorithms. I will not follow on that. I come from the age when we learned logarithms at school. It is a dangerous area to go into, but I assure him that security is very important. We do not wish for more electoral delay. Indeed, the boundary review will be made against the pre-Covid March 2020 register to avoid further delay.

I hate disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He is such an agreeable Member of your Lordships’ House and he constantly tells me that I disappoint him. I fear I might disappoint him again. He referred to the Electoral Commission. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is holding a review into the Electoral Commission. It is quite reasonable that political parties give their views on the topic. I do not think that it is an outrage. I am sure that Liberal Democrat Members will equally make comments and contributions to that review.

My noble friend Lord Hayward asked about flexibility. The purpose of this is very much flexibility. The Government do not expect everybody to now wait until 1 February 2021 if this can be done in the normal timescale, as it should. Some of that flexibility is to take account of the local lockdowns that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, referred to in his very interesting and informed remarks.

I hope that I have referred to most of the points that have been raised. If I have failed to do so I apologise to your Lordships here in person and I will repeat those apologies in the letter I will send to pick up any points that I failed to pick up in the debate.

I reiterate my thanks to all those involved in the election process. I certainly commit the Government to the position that we want the maximum number of people to exercise their vote in this country and to have the access to do it. My goodness, the sacrifices and battles that people made across the generations to secure the right to vote for every citizen mean that it is vital that it should be enjoyed. I hope that this modest measure to improve the canvass will assist in that objective. I look forward to further and perhaps longer discussions—I hope not too long—shortly on the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill. Indeed, as I have said to the House before, the Government are considering many aspects of the electoral system. Over this Session we will have many opportunities to engage on these important issues. I leave informed and improved by the many contributions today. I have not agreed with all of them, but I have agreed with very many of them. I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who took part.

Motion agreed.

EU: Non-financial Services

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on a trade deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union in respect of non-financial services.

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

My Lords, we have discussed non-financial services in all seven negotiating rounds to date and have identified large areas of common ground. However, in some areas the EU has been unable to match our ambition. In the interests of compromise, we have agreed to use the EU’s services proposal as the starting point for a text-based negotiation, although the Commission’s insistence on parallel progress in other areas is currently impeding our efforts to agree a consolidated text.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, a no deal for services would be disastrous for a sector already under immense strain from Covid. Does the Minister agree that, out of the range of concerns voiced by industries, including IT and creative services, it is essential that a suitable mobility framework is in place by the end of the year? For the music industry, will the Government negotiate a two-year, multi-entry visa, or ensure that the commitments in mode 4 are extended to include touring under the free-trade agreement? An appropriate solution for all services would be beneficial to both the EU and the UK.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Earl on the importance of the creative industries, particularly music, for which he is such a doughty champion. Some of the points he raises today have been raised with my colleagues in DCMS, and there are difficulties. Monsieur Barnier has labelled some of our proposals, which I referred to in my Answer, as “freedom of movement for service suppliers”—which I hope shows that we are trying our level best to do the best. We are seeking to lock in, on a reciprocal basis, only arrangements that the UK already has with third countries.

[Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]]

Has my noble friend noticed that over the summer months our trade negotiators have been making excellent progress in trade talks with Japan, the United States and others, yet the EU seems to be the odd one out? Is the confusion in the EU due to the fact that its Trade Commissioner had to resign and it did not get round to appointing a replacement, even at such a crucial time—or might it be because the EU is still trying to cherry-pick the negotiating agenda, insisting that we give it what it wants on fishing rights in British waters and on jurisdiction before it deals with other matters? Why is the EU alone in surrounding itself with despondency and difficulty?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quite as adept as my noble friend, but I try never to bring too much despondency to the House. The Government’s position is that we still very much hope that we will get a fruitful and excellent agreement, but my noble friend is right to say that major difficulties remain and that the EU’s insistence on progress on state aid and fisheries is an obstacle to making progress overall.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, nearly three years ago I chaired an inquiry into non-financial services. As far as I can see, and from what the Minister says, virtually none of the concerns of those sectors has yet resulted in an actual agreement, even in draft. It would of course be helpful if the Minister could undertake to get his department to reply to each of the recommendations in that report but, for today, perhaps he could respond on just two sectors. On the creative industries—music, film, broadcasting and theatre in particular—what progress has been made for reciprocal provisions on intellectual property, free movement, particularly mode 4, and even such basic things as transportation of musical instruments and theatrical scenery, for example? On transport, specifically aviation—I declare my vice-presidency of BALPA in the first sector—and road haulage, aside from any short-term contingency provisions—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

Before the Minister replies, I remind Members that we have now gone for four and a half minutes and have had only two questions. If people could keep their questions short, it would be much appreciated by the House.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot answer all the questions that the noble Lord has asked, for the reasons discussed, but I will seek out the answer to his question on his report. So far as reciprocal arrangements are concerned, I repeat what I said earlier: namely, that the Government are seeking to make progress but there are technical delays in the negotiations as a result of the EU’s position.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, historically the UK led in the push for freedom to provide services across the EU, but now the Government’s determination to leave the single market and to privilege regulatory autonomy over market access and, even worse, their cavalier attitude to no deal risk sacrificing our trade in services, which represents over 80% of our economy and 30 million jobs, and nearly half our exports with a trade surplus with the EU. Any action can only mitigate the damage. Lawyers, musicians and other creative artists, IT consultants and truck drivers all depend on the ability to move freely to work. Many services are also bundled into the production of goods. These sectors are already reeling from the Covid shutdown. What real hope can the Government, who are rejoicing in ending free movement, genuinely offer these professionals regarding their ability to continue to earn a living from the mobility of working in the EU?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the single market. The Government have tabled proposals in a number of the areas that the noble Baroness referred to, and I have commented on the reasons for some of the current difficulties in making progress.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Whitty, what assessment have the Government made of the concerns raised by the chair of the DCMS Select Committee about the impact on any adequacy agreement on personal data if the mooted free trade agreement with the US includes Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in the interests of time, I will write, if I may, to the noble Lord with a detailed response on that point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that the withdrawal agreement does not protect the rights of representation of UK trademark and design professionals in the European Union Intellectual Property Office, while it does protect the rights of EEA professionals to work in the UK for an extended period, when there will be a great deal of new work at the UK IPO. What plans do HMG have to make these arrangements reciprocal?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to protecting IP to a very high level and are proposing a chapter in the free trade agreement based on precedence to reflect this. Both the EU and the United Kingdom are IP-intensive economies and we need to make progress. My noble friend is right in relation to rights of representation that flow from the single market, and I assure her that these issues are currently very much in the mind of the Government.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, what revenue does the Treasury receive from non-financial services and, in the event of no deal, how does it propose to replace that revenue?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have in my brief the precise figure that the noble Baroness has asked for, so, as I promised earlier in relation to another question, I will write to her with that. The Government’s overall objective is to sustain, develop and increase the viability of our magnificent non-financial services and creative services.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, information on the Department for International Trade website that I accessed this morning shows that we have made agreements with countries representing only 8% of UK trade in goods and services. If we ended the year on that basis, it would be catastrophic for the British economy, as I am sure the Minister would agree. What is the Government’s target for the amount of trade that we will be doing with the world under free trade agreements—if indeed the Government have a target at all?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s target is to seek friendly agreements with the widest possible range of nations, including the European Union, and I am confident that the figure that the noble Lord cites will be greatly exceeded by the end of the year.

[Lord Bowness (Con) [V]]

There are 120 days until 31 December. We know what has not been agreed, because that is in the newspapers, and we know what the Government have chosen not to pursue in the agreement—namely, security and defence—but we do not know what has been raised and what has been agreed, subject of course to “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Will my noble friend undertake to provide a Statement to Parliament setting out exactly what has been agreed, which aspirations we have put forward and which have been completely rejected? This is not interfering with the negotiations; it is informing Parliament and the public.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are not giving a running commentary on the negotiations. We remain in close contact with our EU counterparts. There were discussions yesterday and we look forward to the next round of talks in London next week. I can promise my noble friend that we will publish the agenda for that next round towards the end of the week as usual.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the two Members who have been excluded.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 13, the Schedule, Clause 14, Title.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord True Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, despite several years spent scrutinising legislation in your Lordships’ House—and, indeed, many bad years before that drafting amendments—I must confess that this is the first Bill that I will seek to lead through the House myself. It is a great privilege to do so, and I look forward to working with all your Lordships on it in the coming months. Looking at the speakers’ list, I see that I seem to be surrounded by people responsible for organising most of the successful and unsuccessful elections for the past 50 years, so I can be sure that your Lordships’ wisdom will have great weight.

The purpose of this legislation is straightforward and, in many ways, modest. Its central aim is to enable us to achieve the Government’s manifesto commitment of delivering updated and equal parliamentary constituencies, and to do so on the basis of there being 650 seats in the House of Commons. The Bill is about the composition of the elected Chamber, and it has been backed by the elected Chamber.

Noble Lords will surely agree that the updating of our constituency boundaries is long overdue. The last parliamentary boundary reviews to be implemented in the United Kingdom were based on data—that is, the numbers of electors—from the early 2000s. That may seem like yesterday to many of us here, but the sobering fact is that our youngest voters were not even born then. Our current constituencies reflect how the UK was almost two decades ago. In those two decades, our country has changed enormously, having undergone significant demographic and migratory change. We need updated boundaries to reflect that. We also need to get back on track with boundary reviews that happen and come into effect regularly, routinely and reliably. This Bill delivers that and, in so doing, makes a number of common-sense and technical changes to update the boundary review process and the rules under which the four Boundary Commissions operate.

We have engaged with stakeholders, including the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators, as the Bill has evolved, and the provisions reflect their input. I appreciate the conversations that I have already been able to have with a number of noble Lords.

It is important to say from the outset that this is amending legislation and there are many elements of the existing legislative framework for boundary reviews that it does not seek to alter. Those elements none the less remain of interest both here and in the other place, and I will today touch on the most significant of them, such as the rules relating to constituency size. However, let me start with the things the Bill does do—the common-sense, technical changes.

First, as I mentioned, the Bill provides that future boundary reviews will be conducted on the basis of there being 650 parliamentary constituencies. To make this measure effective, the Bill brings the 2018 boundary review, which would have been the first to be based on 600 constituencies, to a close, without being implemented. Noble Lords will remember that the decision to make that reduction to 600 was taken by the coalition Government a decade ago. Since the change was brought into law in 2011, the UK’s electorate has grown and there have been significant changes in demography. Members of Parliament are representing more constituents than ever before, and they are taking on the role of scrutinising legislation and overseeing areas of policy, such as trade and immigration, that have previously been the preserve of the European Parliament. Under these circumstances, the Government think it right that the current 650 constituencies are retained. The House of Commons has assented to that.

Connected to this, the Bill also removes an obligation on the Government to make arrangements to review the effects of reducing the UK constituencies to 600. As that has not taken place, it cannot meaningfully be analysed.

Moving on to the frequency of parliamentary boundary reviews, the Bill provides for future reviews—after the next one, due to start next spring—to take place every eight years, as opposed to every five years, as currently. This new timetable will allow constituency boundaries to be updated regularly but with less disruption to local communities and their MPs as a result of constituencies changing at every general election. Let me add that a parliamentary boundary review generally takes two years and 10 months from start to finish: it is a significant exercise. The Government believe that every eight years is appropriate for something of this scale, as did the stakeholders consulted.

Still on the subject of timing, the Bill enables the next boundary review—on a one-off basis—to follow a slightly shorter timetable of two years and seven months. The formal start of the review will be in December of this year and the Boundary Commissions must submit their final reports by 1 July 2023 at the latest. Bearing in mind that it takes time for electoral administrators to implement new boundaries; for political parties to reflect them in their structures and for citizens to become familiar with them, this timing of July 2023 is important. It gives us the best chance of there being updated parliamentary constituencies in place ahead of the next general election, whenever that may be. The reduction in time is achieved by the Boundary Commissions expediting some of their processes and by shortening the public consultation process by six weeks, from 24 to 18.

The Bill also makes a small number of changes to the boundary review process—the nuts and bolts of what happens during a review. First, there is a change to the timing of public hearings. Every boundary review, as your Lordships know, includes extensive public consultation arranged over three separate periods. This engagement with the public and with political parties takes a variety of forms. For example, proposals can generally be viewed online, and comments submitted to the Boundary Commissions via their websites or by letter. In addition, there are public hearings, events at which individuals can make representations in person to members of their Boundary Commission. The commissions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must hold between two and five public hearings in their respective nations. The Boundary Commission for England must hold between two and five in each of the English regions.

Under current legislation, public hearings take place early in the process, during the first of three consultation periods. This means that the Boundary Commissions need to decide locations and book venues before they are able to get a sense of where feeling about their proposals is strongest. During our engagement with stakeholders, we heard that this timing could be better. The Bill therefore makes provision for public hearings to take place later, during the second consultation period, allowing the commissions to consider the responses received during the initial consultation and assess where public hearings are most needed. To make this change effective, the length of the consultation periods is adjusted, allowing more time in the second period for the public hearings to occur.

Secondly, the Bill makes some practical changes in relation to the data that the Boundary Commissions use when developing their proposals. Boundary Commissions look at a variety of data sources. First and foremost, they look at numbers of electors so that they can devise constituencies that fit within the size range set by legislation. The Boundary Commissions draw information on elector numbers from the electoral register, generally deriving that data from the version of the register that exists on the 1 December at the start of a review, known as “the review date”. This date is picked because it generally falls immediately after the completion of the annual canvass, the process by which electoral registration officers verify entries on the electoral register. I should add here that annual canvasses are not required in Northern Ireland in the same way, but a revised register is still published every year by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. The electorate data drawn from the registers in Scotland, Wales and England is then checked further by relevant government agencies: the National Records of Scotland and the Office for National Statistics. The collated information—a complete and current picture of the number of electors in all four nations—is then published centrally by ONS. From this point it is used by the Boundary Commissions.

I hope noble Lords will see that the rationale here is that boundary reviews are based on the most up-to-date, robust and transparent information on elector numbers. This approach has been in place since the Boundary Commissions were created in 1944 and we do not seek to alter it. That said, the Bill makes one change in relation to electoral data for the next boundary review only; I hope that your Lordships will understand that it does so in direct response to Covid-19. Rather than being based on the electoral register of 1 December 2020, the next review will use the version of the register from 2 March 2020, before the pandemic. The aim is to sidestep any potential impact that Covid-19 may have on the operation of this year’s canvass or the electoral register. I am pleased to say that this one-off change has been widely supported.

Still on the topic of data, as well as elector numbers, Boundary Commissions will of course look to devise boundaries that reflect the other factors that they may take into account, including geographical features, local ties, existing parliamentary constituencies and local government boundaries.

The Bill introduces a change to the way in which the commissions take account of local government boundaries. Currently, the commissions can work only with local boundaries that have been fully brought into effect at an election before the start of a review. This means that, in places, a Boundary Commission may be looking back one, two or even three years to how the boundaries were at the time of the last local election in that area.

The Bill changes that. In future, Boundary Commissions will be able to take account of prospective local government boundaries—that is, boundaries that have been made by an order but not yet used in an election—at the review date: the 1 December formal start of the review. This measure will help keep constituency boundaries better aligned with local government boundaries, where appropriate. For the next boundary review, it will mean that new local government boundaries in London, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Devon and Cornwall may all be taken into account where previously they might not have been.

We now come to the end of the process: the point where the Boundary Commissions have done their work and submitted their final reports. Here, the Bill introduces what in the marvellous world of policy is described as “automaticity”. Automaticity is simply the idea that the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions, developed through the meticulous and consultative process I have described, should be implemented without political influence or interference. Recommendations will still be brought into effect by an Order in Council; however, the draft order will no longer require approval by Parliament prior to making. As part of this measure, the Government’s ability to amend the draft Order in Council if rejected by Parliament is also removed.

In the other place, there was a degree of misunderstanding about the intentions of this change. I assure your Lordships that the purpose of this measure is straightforward: to bring certainty and confidence to the citizen and the elector that updated constituencies will be implemented without interference and further delay. I suspect that I am not alone in remembering what delay and interference look like; I will not touch on anybody’s sensibilities by referring to episodes in this country’s recent history.

I am sure that others will have different interpretations of the ins and outs of why boundary reviews have been delayed in the past, but I hope we can all agree that there is a vulnerability in our current legislation in this regard, and yet also an urgent need for the next review to start in good order and deliver updated boundaries promptly and reliably. Automaticity is the answer to that conundrum, and we are not the only ones to think so. In moving to this system, we draw on the experience of countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, where a similar approach is used.

We also heard support in the evidence sessions of the Public Bill Committee in the other place. Witness after witness spoke up for automaticity, including party representatives, the Electoral Reform Society and several academics. As they pointed out, the removal of Parliament from the end of the boundary review process in no way alters the fact that Parliament remains sovereign and continues to set the rules and parameters within which the Boundary Commissions operate. The contesting of a parliamentary constituency will always be about politics, but this Government believe firmly that the process by which that constituency is proposed, revised and implemented should never be.

I will finish by talking about aspects of the current legislation that the Bill does not fundamentally change. The key topic here is tolerance. Under existing law, the Boundary Commissions are required to propose constituencies that are within plus or minus 5% of the average UK constituency electorate, which is known as the electoral quota. This provision, which was introduced by the 2011 Act, ensures that constituencies across the United Kingdom are broadly equal in size, within a 10% range of the electoral quota. The Government are not changing this because we are committed to delivering not just updated constituencies but equal and updated ones. Both goals are crucial. Equal constituencies mean votes that carry equal weight. Our democracy relies on our electors having confidence that they are fairly represented, yet how can an elector in Milton Keynes South—one of 97,000—feel fairly represented when up the road in Northampton North, their fellow elector is one of only 59,000?

Within our broad ambition to achieve equal constituencies, we accept that there are a handful of locations in the British Isles whose unique geographies demand a greater degree of flexibility. The law therefore includes a limited number of exceptions to the tolerance rules. By and large, we are leaving these untouched. For example, the exception that exists for Northern Ireland remains in place, allowing in certain limited circumstances for a slightly wider tolerance to be applied. This recognises that nation’s small number of constituencies and the disproportionate impact that certain rounding effects that result from the allocation of constituencies to the four nations can have there.

Similarly, an exemption for very large, sparsely populated constituencies also remains in place, as do the four protected constituencies that were included in the 2011 legislation where the tolerance rules do not apply. Those four protected constituencies are Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney and Shetland, and two constituencies on the Isle of Wight.

The one change we are making here, following an amendment supported by the Government, is to add a fifth protected constituency for Ynys Môn—Anglesey. This move addresses an anomaly and has been widely welcomed. All the protected constituencies are islands and Ynys Môn falls within the range they set in terms of both geographical and electoral size.

To conclude, we have before us a Bill whose core purpose is electoral equality and fairness, delivered through equal and updated parliamentary constituency boundaries. Debates and witness testimony in the other place have revealed a clear consensus that this goal needs to be met—and soon. We need constituencies that reflect the electorate as they are now, not as they were at the turn of the century.

The Bill makes sensible and supported improvements to the way boundary reviews operate. We are legislating for an appropriate number of seats, a better frequency of reviews, an improved set of review processes and a more certain method of implementation designed to enhance the independence of the impartial Boundary Commissions. The people of the UK deserve fair votes; they deserve effective representation; and they deserve to have trust and certainty in the boundary review process that delivers those things.

I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, including those who have ventured to be kind about me. I have found in life that it is not the smile you get at the front door when you arrive that really counts but the curses you hear when the front door closes behind you when you go, so I will try to serve the House as well as I can.

There have been some incredibly important and thoughtful contributions. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and my noble friend Lord Naseby in pointing out that probably never so many wise contributions have been made on elections by people who do not have the right to vote in them. It has been fascinating.

If your Lordships will forgive me, I will concentrate on those areas that are in scope of the Bill. We heard a lot about, for example, PR. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that it is an argument for another day. I thought it was an argument that had already had its day. I hope that we can concentrate on some of the important issues that have been raised in the debate. I am pleased by the support voiced across the House for many of the key elements of the Bill—there have been doubters and how could there not be doubters in this great House?—in particular for maintaining the number of constituencies at 650. Although I noticed a small number of those voices on my side—I see my noble friend Lord Hayward in his place—I think the majority were for 650. I am also glad of the general support of the House for the new eight-year cycle and the addition of Ynys Môn as a protected constituency.

Let me come to the first issue which has been a matter of interest, to use a value-free word, to your Lordships’ House in debate, which is the so-called automaticity. I anticipated this in my opening remarks and that proved to be correct. My noble friends Lord Dobbs, Lord Mancroft, Lord Pickles, Lord Hayward, Lord Young of Cookham, Lady Pidding and many other noble Lords supported the changes to allow the automatic implementation of boundary review recommendations, as we propose. We believe that automaticity will give the public confidence and certainty that the boundaries recommended by the commissions will come into effect without risk of interference or further delay.

I note the opposition, ably expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Barker, my noble friend Lord Empey, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and other noble Lords. However, the purpose here is to remove both Government and Parliament from the process, so that those finalised recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions are brought into force promptly, with no opportunity for blocking or meddling of any kind. Under current legislation, the citizen does not have certainty that this will happen, and the boundaries of constituencies are now woefully out of date as a result. I repeat that other countries such as New Zealand, Canada and Australia have similar arrangements for implementing boundary reviews which do not involve the final approval of the legislature. I hope that, on reflection, your Lordships will come to see that that does not present the dangers that some fear.

Under the Bill, the Government will still be required to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. As now, an Order in Council will be used for this purpose. As noble Lords have said, the change, which some have objected to, will be that Parliament will not play a role in approving the draft order and Ministers will no longer be able to modify the proposals in the event that it was rejected by Parliament. We are reducing the role of both Parliament and government. However, Parliament does remain sovereign and can amend the primary legislation, providing the parameters for reviews as it sees fit.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, followed by other noble Lords, queried the possibility of future Governments delaying implementation of the Boundary Commission recommendations—as has happened before —by taking more time than is necessary to submit the draft Order in Council for making. I am conscious of the hour, but I will give a bit more detail, because I was asked to respond. The wording of this requirement has been modernised to reflect current drafting practice. As some noble Lords have pointed out, the current legislation says,

“as soon as may be”,

and the Bill includes the more common, up-to-date language of

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

However, the meaning remains the same: any Government would be legally obliged to make the Order in Council promptly and without unreasonable delay.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, supported by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and other noble Lords proposed that there should be a fixed time limit in which a Government should lay an Order in Council. We are not minded to go in that direction, purely in order to maintain some flexibility for the necessary work in preparing the draft boundary order and the associated order that designates the returning officer for each newly drawn constituency. Time would be needed to allow for this preparatory work, and setting hard time limits can cause practical difficulties down the line. I reassure the House that there would be little scope for undue—certainly not unreasonable—delay. Any Government who sought to drag their heels over the submission of a draft Order in Council would be at risk of legal challenge. With something as high profile as a boundary review, it seems likely that the move to challenge would be swift. We believe that to be an effective and appropriate safeguard against delay. However, I have no doubt that noble Lords will return to this in Committee. I assure the House that this Government’s firm and sole intention is to deliver the updated and equal constituencies that are now long overdue and to implement the recommendations made by the independent Boundary Commissions.

I do not wish to try the patience of noble Lords, but the other issue is tolerance and limits. During the Bill’s evidence sessions in the other place, witnesses pointed out that the setting of tolerance is a matter of judgment. The House has heard differing judgments today; some noble Lords have agreed with leaving it as it is now, which is plus or minus 5%. This is, effectively, a variation of 7,000 or more in the size of electorates, as pointed out by some noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Lord Dobbs and Lord Sheikh, with whom I agree.

We believe that the current tolerance level strikes the right balance between achieving equal and fair boundaries and allowing the Boundary Commission the flexibility to take account of other factors. There are other factors and noble Lords have spoken about them, such as physical, geographical features and local ties. However, this is subject to the overriding principle of equality in constituency size. For something as critical as the right to choose the Government of the day, surely equity and equality must be the overriding principles. The fundamental principle of “one elector, one vote” should be upheld as nearly as possible. The same should be true in Bangor as it is in Blyth. We intend to uphold that principle. The elected Chamber voted on three separate occasions against amending the 5% variance. I urge noble Lords to consider this as the Bill progresses through the House.

Many noble Lords spoke up for the union and were concerned about the impact of this legislation on the union. There was particular mention in this context of rural constituencies with sparse populations. I understand where such noble Lords are coming from; I was particularly struck by the very powerful speech on this by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. Our union of nations is the most successful in history. This Government are determined to sustain it and of course I share that desire to see it at its strongest. It is a matter of judgment, which we can test in Committee, but the Government believe that equal votes for all the electors of the union is an important part of maintaining its strength and the democracy at its heart. That is why the Bill does not change the tolerance level put in place by Parliament in 2011 with, at the time, very strong support from the Liberal Democrats. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve parity of representation for all electors across the union and within its constituent nations. Surely, wherever a vote is cast, it should have the same power in deciding who governs our country. That principle is a solid one and the Government continue to support it.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my noble friend Lord Bourne, asked about Cornwall, mentioning the controversy caused by the 2018 review, when a constituency that crossed county boundaries was proposed. It is important to recognise that that review was based on 600 constituencies. While this will be a matter for the independent Boundary Commission, the changes under review are based on 650 constituencies and are likely to be less dramatic. I welcome the comments made about public hearings and the move to allow the public to come in later in the proceedings, although I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, that the Boundary Commission must be flexible.

On the question of the Boundary Commissions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friends Lord Dobbs and Lord Taylor of Holbeach all raised the independence of the Boundary Commissions. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, referred to this as well. They all wondered how important this is in the light of automaticity. I agree—and the Government agree—that the commissions are independent and neutral; they must and will remain so however their recommendations are implemented. When Ministers formally appoint commissioners, it is done only after a rigorously fair and neutral recruitment process under the Governance Code on Public Appointments and overseen by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Finally, some noble Lords talked about the building blocks on which constituencies are based. No doubt we will return to this in Committee as well, particularly the question of whether or how the Boundary Commissions might split wards into smaller geographical units. Other noble Lords spoke about polling districts. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, on the specific points she raised about the local government reviews. As far as the 20 March date is concerned, as I explained in my opening remarks, this is because we do not wish to wait to use the December 2020 date, given the potential impact of Covid. Therefore, that is effectively the latest date not affected by Covid.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke powerfully—as always—about community, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and others. I recognise that that matters; I have spent most of my lifetime representing a ward and was proud to do so. Whether or not to divide wards is an issue for the independent Boundary Commissions when conducting their reviews. It is already within their power to do so if they judge it to be necessary, in their expert opinion, and after receiving representations. Political parties and individuals will be able to make representations.

A number of noble Lords returned to the issue of underregistration. This was a widely and properly expressed concern in the House. Online registration has made it easier, simpler and faster for people to register. It can take as little as five minutes and there are no significant boundaries, if you have access to a computer. But not everybody does, and it is vital that we get to the hard-to-reach people. We all want eligible electors to be registered, but we do not wish to compel people to register. That is a matter for the individual, not the state, and we are not tempted by the course referred to of compulsion. I have no doubt that we will have other discussions on this, not only on this legislation but later in the Parliament. Without going into it at length at the moment, there are a number of ways in which the Government are looking for ways to increase the level of registration.

In response to those who raised the possibility of using alternative data to estimate electors—for example, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, floated the issue of census data—again, we can perhaps get into the detail of this in Committee. However, the Government consider that the current process of using data from the electoral register represents the most robust and transparent picture of the electorate on which to base proposals. Boundary reviews have always been based on registered electors, and we believe that that approach should continue.

On votes at 16, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who I see is in his place—I owe him a reply, since he asked for it and is here—I have great respect for noble Lords who have long campaigned to lower the voting age in parliamentary elections to 16. However, the Government have no plans to do so and were indeed elected on a manifesto commitment to retain the current franchise at 18. We may differ on the principle—I see from the noble Lord’s expression that we do—but that is the position which the Government have adopted.

In summary, I am incredibly grateful to noble Lords for their excellent and constructive contributions. I have not been able to find an answer to my noble friend Lord Trenchard on high sheriffs, but I will write to him on that point. If I have not answered any of the points in the debate, I will try to make sure that a letter is made available to all those who have taken part covering points that, on reflection, I feel that I have not addressed. I realise that I will not have convinced everybody to withdraw from the positions they have taken up—positions that I respect. I look forward to discussing the Bill in greater detail in Committee, but I hope that I have made the Government’s position clear.

The provisions of the Bill have been endorsed by the elected Chamber, to which it relates. To be frank, our current boundaries are horribly out of date and we do not see a case for further delay. We believe that this legislation will help the Government to meet a manifesto commitment to deliver updated and equal parliamentary boundaries to ensure that every vote counts the same, and to do so on the basis of 650 constituencies. I urge noble Lords, on reflection, to support the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Covid-19: Debt Collection

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to reform debt collection processes (1) during, and (2) after, the COVID-19 pandemic in response to (a) the report by the Centre for Social Justice Collecting Dust: A path forward for government debt collection, published on 26 April, and (b) representations from Citizens Advice, the StepChange Debt Charity and the Money Advice Trust.

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

My Lords, we welcome the Centre for Social Justice report and look forward to advice sector representations. We responded to Covid-19 by pausing outbound debt collection and on 29 June published a call for evidence to inform post-Covid policy in this important area. Central Government have for some time had a debt strategy that advocates the use of the widely welcomed fairness principles. Each local authority, however, is responsible for its own autonomous interpretation of the relevant debt management legislation on, for example, council tax enforcement.

[Lord Best (CB) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord for his positive response. A debt management Bill would establish clear protocols and an independent regulator for bailiffs as proposed by the Centre for Social Justice and others. Does the Minister agree that heavy-handed debt collection processes, principally by some local authorities owed council tax, are costly, ineffective and often ruinous for those concerned? Will the problem not get much worse post Covid, if we do not act now?

[Lord True]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, action was taken in 2014 in relation to enforcement agents. This is an area under examination. We have recently launched the call for evidence to inform policy, as I mentioned. That will obviously influence the consideration of whether a debt management Bill is a proportionate and reasonable response.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, over 1.3 million households are estimated to have built up council tax debts because of coronavirus. They will be counting down the days to 23 August, the day that the bailiffs can arrive—or debt D-day, as the coalition charities have called it—with complete dread. The Government can help to avert this disaster by ensuring that local authorities put in place these charities’ proposals to have sensible schedules for repayment of council tax debts in ways that do not resort to sending in bailiffs. Will the Minister commit today to doing so?

[Lord True]

My Lords, noting the noble Lord’s title, I congratulate him on last night’s events at Anfield—all we need now is for Notts County to get back into the league, where they belong. He asked an important question. Local authorities should be sensitive. Obviously, with Covid, the ban on enforcement visits was imposed. As the noble Lord says, that is currently due to come to an end in August, but I follow him in urging restraint on all in the current situation.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]]

With his vast experience in local government, does the Minister agree that we need urgently to review the council tax administration and enforcement regulations in the light of the current difficulties? Does he further agree that, post Covid, there is a key role for financial technology—fintech—to help with debt management and enable everyone to have a much greater sense of their finances and how best to manage them?

[Lord True]

Yes, a consistent understanding of the problems of debt using such techniques is extremely important. The regulations on council tax were promulgated, I believe, back in 1992—now a sort of Neanderthal age, when I was in No. 10. The Local Government Minister has announced that MCHLG will update its guidance to councils on collection and enforcement of council tax.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]]

I am sure that my noble friend is hearing the strength of view on this issue. I hope that he has seen the letter that 55 cross-party Peers and Members of Parliament wrote to the Government at the end of May to support the CSJ report. Is there more that the Government could do, not just to encourage local authorities to show appropriate sensitivity in relation to these bills, but to require them to do so, given that local authorities themselves are asking the Government for restraint in chasing money that they owe the Government?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am of course hearing what noble Lords are saying and I endorse the principles of the Centre for Social Justice report. I am very proud of having done public service in local government. Local councils are custodians of their whole community and community interests. They should be sympathetic and act proportionately towards anyone in genuine hardship. I will reflect on the points that my noble friend has made and pass them on to colleagues in the department.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]]

Does the Minister agree that government, especially local government, needs to take a leaf out of the commercial sector’s book and adopt more humane and effective methods of collecting debt? Will the Government postpone the reintroduction of bailiff visits until a new government debt management Bill can be introduced?

[Lord True]

My Lords, those are two important questions and I have touched on each. The call for evidence that we issued last month will inform policy in these areas. I hear what the noble Baroness and others say in relation to enforcement agents. I can only repeat that local authorities can act responsibly and many councils have responded positively to the challenges and have indeed signed up to the protocol developed by Citizens Advice, which was referred to in the original Question. I hope that more will consider doing so.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, being in debt is a tremendous burden. What can local authorities do now to relieve people who cannot pay in full or at all from this distressing burden?

[Lord True]

My Lords, local authorities have discretion to act, as indeed central government does. This Government have made a clear commitment to introduce a breathing-space protocol to assist with the effective management of problem debt.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, returning to my noble friend’s Question, is the Minister aware that, last year, councils used court action 2.3 million times and bailiffs 1.4 million times to collect council tax debt? The bailiff fees added £200 million to people’s debts. Given the expiry date of 23 August, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wood, referred, will the Minister bring forward, in advance of the review, a specific examination of pre-action protocols?

[Lord True]

My Lords, again, I hear what the noble Lord says. I find myself in the position of answering on behalf of a department that manages the group in relation to government debt. Obviously I will pass on to my colleagues in MHCLG the points that he and noble Lords are making. I repeat that they had announced last year that they would update guidance to councils on collection and enforcement.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of StepChange, the debt charity. I thank the Minister for his very full replies to these questions today. To follow up my noble friend Lord Wood’s question, recommendation 3 of this excellent report states:

“Council tax debt is the only form of civil debt for which people can be sent to prison in England.”


Will the Government consider repealing Regulation 47 of what he called the “Neanderthal” 1992 council tax regulations, as recommended?

[Lord True]

I fear that I referred to “Neanderthal” to mean the age-old days when I was young but, certainly, part of the call for evidence and part of the appropriate and proper management of debt would be reflection on experience since that time. I can only repeat that my colleagues in MHCLG have said that they will update their guidance to councils on collection and enforcement.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

What lessons have the Government learned from the progressive reforms that have been made in Scotland on the use of sheriff officers, the equivalent of bailiffs in England, by local authorities for debt collection and, more recently, the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014, which have made major strides in restoring dignity and support for people in repaying debt and have proved to be more effective for the public purse? Will the Government make sure that it is not just a call for evidence but a proper review of those other examples from across the United Kingdom?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am sure that all those experiences will inform things going forward. I am a strong proponent of local authorities working together and pooling experience. I would say that this Government have acted consistently over a period in seeking to improve management of debt centrally with a code of practice, government debt standards and fairness principles. It is a constant learning curve from which we can all learn—we all have a duty to govern and manage sensitively and I take the noble Lord’s point on that.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

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

Parliament: Restoration and Renewal Project

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter from the Prime Minister to the Chief Executive of the Sponsor Body and Chief Executive Designate for the Delivery Authority for the Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Project on 15 July, what their proposals are for the relocation of both Houses of Parliament during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.

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

My Lords, as I said in my Answer on this last Monday, the location of Parliament is a matter for Parliament. Both Houses will need to review their sitting arrangements as part of restoration and renewal. The Government are keen to ensure that the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster delivers best value for money and asked the sponsor body to advise Parliament on a range of options and consider decant locations outside London in its strategic review. The Government are not prejudging any particular outcome.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, do the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that after restoration and renewal is complete, both Houses will continue to sit in the Palace of Westminster as their permanent home? Bearing in mind that only one bicameral legislature in the world, that of the Ivory Coast—we owe that information to the Lord Speaker—has Chambers in different geographical locations, does the Minister accept that it makes no constitutional or economic sense to remove either or both Chambers to any other city within the UK for just a few years?

[Lord True]

My Lords, in the original debates on this subject, my noble friend rightly pointed to the heritage nature of this great Palace of Westminster, which I think we all hold dear. Indeed, heritage is one of the aspects referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter. So far as how the Houses will operate when decant—if decant—takes place, that is a matter for them. I would simply say that the broad and generous acres of Yorkshire are not in another continent.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, any suggestion about a move should have been made to the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, not in a letter to non-parliamentarians. I ask the Minister to remind the Prime Minister that he is not a president but is accountable to Parliament, which needs to be located close by so that the Prime Minister and Ministers can report to Parliament, no matter how much he dislikes having to do so. This is the nature of our democracy, and Parliament will hold him to it.

[Lord True]

My Lords, the sponsor body is independent: that was the decision of your Lordships’ House and of the other place. The strategic review was announced in May by the sponsor body and it is for it to progress as it wishes. It is open to every Member of Parliament, not just the Prime Minister, to put forward their views to the sponsor body.

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

My Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister’s letter proposing that both Houses of Parliament might relocate to York had already been sent when the Minister answered questions on this on 15 July, yet he made no reference to it in any of his replies. Was that because he was not aware of the letter or because he chose not to inform this House that the Commons might also be moved?

On 9 July, in answering questions on the ISC report on Russia, he described suggestions that the Conservative Party had received large sums from Russian donors as “wild charges”. Now that several articles in the quality press and the published ISC report have substantiated that such sums have been accepted by the Conservatives, will he withdraw that reply?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I think the second part of the noble Lord’s question is germane to the Question that follows; I am not sure if he has a chance to ask a question on that. The Conservative Party’s donations are declared, permissible and controlled. On the first part of his question, I stand by every word I used last week.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I hope our democratic machinery will get a move on in taking a decision about relocation and will take a wholly common-sense view on what is appropriate, which I personally believe is to stay in Westminster. The great cities of this country have an important local leadership role and a role liaising with Westminster, but I do not think it makes any great sense for them to be considered as a location for our Houses of Parliament. The Minister is not necessarily in a position to support that, but I would be interested in his personal views.

[Lord True]

My Lords, giving personal views from this Dispatch Box is probably not the wisest thing. On the timescale, again, the sponsor body is independent. It will conduct its review on the timescale it has set out, but I understand that it expects and hopes to report this autumn.

[The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Earl of Devon was first summoned to Shrewsbury, so I am not averse to sitting elsewhere, but I am very concerned about delay. We passed the restoration and renewal Act last autumn with an urgent mandate to get to work immediately to save the Palace. Nowhere in the Act is the sponsor body empowered to second-guess that mandate. Under what authority is the sponsor body conducting its strategic review, and why is it not complying with its obligation to restore this key national heritage?

[Lord True]

My Lords, again, the sponsor body is independent. It was obliged under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act, which your Lordships assented to, to prepare a strategy on this and to consult Members of each House of Parliament. That was published in May and, as I said, I hope and understand that the sponsor body will report in the autumn, but I take note of what the noble Earl said.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl because the situation is now confusing in terms of its accountability. Options seem to be coming out of No. 10 like chaff from an aircraft under missile attack. But given that we are in the season for crackpot ideas and bearing in mind that the furthest point from the sea in our great maritime nation is Coton in the Elms in Derbyshire at 45 miles, and that a large number of cruise ships that are now lying idle may in the future be available at very cheap rates, could not both Houses embark on a ship and operate from it while visiting all parts of our islands? I have raised this idea before on the Floor of the House and the Minister replying said that it would be looked at. Has it?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will have to take advice on the matter in order to respond to the noble Lord. Options coming out like chaff will have varying effects, as he will know. I repeat that this is a matter for the exclusive cognisance of your Lordships’ House and, in the last resort, of the other place.

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

My Lords, since the origin of the idea to move to York came from No. 10, perhaps we should carry on up to Barnard Castle. In the meantime, the real wake-up call for this House is that for the past 20 years, the Conservative and Labour Benches have frustrated any real and radical reform of this House. I ask the Lord Speaker to call together the leaders of all parties to consider such a programme of radical reform. While I know that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, unless we are willing to reform ourselves, we will certainly be plucked and stuffed by that cabal in No. 10.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I always commend an open mind, but unfortunately for the Liberal Democrat party, many of its proposals for reform have fallen on stony ground.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, in the event that the Government should decide to move this House to another location against its will, would that require primary legislation and would the Minister propose to take such legislation through all its stages in this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I never answer hypothetical questions. On the factual point, as I have said, this is a matter for the exclusive cognisance of both Houses.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]]

I welcome the statement by my noble friend the Minister that this is finally a matter for Parliament and not one for the Government to order. Knowing the obvious benefits of the two Houses working together in many fields, I hope that the Joint Committee which is investigating this matter recognises the importance of ensuring the closest possible co-location of the two Houses, and that in view of the problems caused by the pandemic, it seems quite unrealistic to try to move Parliament elsewhere in the country because it will be difficult enough to operate it even in our present locations.

[Lord True]

My Lords, a number of factors have been raised by noble Lords during our various exchanges of which I have taken careful note, and the considerations that my noble friend has put forward are among those. Indeed, they were alluded to in the Prime Minister’s letter, along with timelines, the effect on the work of Parliament and so on, which were specifically referred to.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

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