European Union: Negotiations (European Union Committee Report)

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I rise to respond to what has been a typically incisive and insightful debate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that there is no reason to be concerned that she was not present during the whole debate, because the Liberal Democrat Front Bench was covered all through the debate. I do not take offence, and I am sure that the House did not.

I should declare an interest as a part-time resident in Italy—someone currently not permitted to return home to cut the grass. I am acutely conscious of the state of affairs occurring across Europe at the moment. I would also like to make another personal comment about how sad I was to read of the death of Lord Wright of Richmond. We are here in a debate on international affairs, and he was an outstanding servant of his country who always enlightened this House when he spoke. He was a very good citizen of Richmond as well. All our hearts go out to his family.

The debate started off in a not very pleasant tone, and rather a political one. I will address that point in a moment. It then evolved into an extremely measured debate. Perhaps I should take this point at the start: at the end of the debate, a number of speakers who were perhaps able to look on their iPhones—as I have not been able to during the debate, as I have been trying to listen to it—suddenly came up with this new line that the Government should not proceed any more with the pursuit of negotiations with the European Union because of the coronavirus crisis. The plea was put by the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Liddle, my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—the last five speakers. Your Lordships will very shortly hear a Statement on coronavirus so I will not go there but, without diminishing the gravity of that matter at all, I say that, in the blast of the Second World War—using the resources of William Beveridge, who would have been on the Benches on that side of the House—the Government thought about designing and redesigning the welfare state for the future and made arrangements that lasted for two lifetimes.

[Lord Cormack]

I do not think that any of us who talked about coronavirus said that the negotiations should be abandoned. We said that the deadline should be abandoned.

[Lord True]

All right—I shall accept the timetable. However, I maintain the point. In the middle of the Second World War, when Winston Churchill sent for Rab Butler—who my noble friend will remember very well—to look into the future of education in this country, he did not suddenly, when some news came in, say, “Rab, you must drop this.” The Government went on and, in the 1944 Education Act, laid the foundations to the education system in this country despite the enormous crisis of the Second World War. Everything is possible and nothing is impossible in life, but I do not think—

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, the Minister has just been advised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—and I support what he said—that nobody has suggested that the negotiations be abandoned. People have talked about the Government not being ideological about requesting an extension, so that we possibly go beyond December. There were murmurs of support for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The Minister should surely have got the message: this House does not accept his interpretation of what he is claiming was said, but he is going on with the same theme.

[Lord True]

My Lords, it is an unfortunate condition of democratic life that not everybody accepts the contention that is put forward by somebody on the other side. When I hear a plea being made for indefinite open-ended deferment—if I may go that far—that might or might not be a move towards abandonment. Let us not argue about that. My contention is that, in so far as possible, the business of this Government should go on. Until instructed otherwise, my view is that the central promise made by this Government to the electorate at the recent general election was that they would accomplish the completion of this process—and by the date agreed by both the European Union and the British Government: 31 December 2020. As I stand here, the position of the Government is that we should seek to conclude the arrangements on the timetable set out.

Having been diverted by those last few speeches, I should perhaps get back to the central response to the outstanding report put forward by your Lordships’ Select Committee and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I do not agree with all the strictures or necessarily all the rapture that attaches to that report, but I do think that it was outstanding and timely. That he, his committee and their clerks have achieved this report so swiftly and ably is a tribute, as many have said, to the work of your Lordships’ House. To the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I say that I would certainly be interested to see the report of her sub-committee when it comes out; I am sure that that would be widely shared.

In a tight timeframe, the committee has produced a detailed and informative report. I believe that everyone who has spoken would agree, at least on this: that it has facilitated the debate that we have had today on negotiations. I salute the continued dedication of your Lordships’ committee and I say clearly to the noble Earl that, certainly while I stand at this Dispatch Box, I will wish to have the closest co-operation with him and the committee and that is the position, I think, of all my colleagues on the Front Bench. He asked me some specific questions about engagement and methodologies—these were also put forward in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I will come to those, but in general terms, without setting out a specific structure for engagement, of course the Government wish to engage with and hear the opinions of your Lordships’ committee.

I was struck by the tone at the start of the debate, when, with the greatest respect to her, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke of a mean-spirited tone and of extremism—it is a fact; Hansard will record it—and went on to talk about our hard line. She actually ended her speech saying that the Government’s policy was “demented” in trying to put into effect the central proposal of our manifesto and the central request twice made by the British people. I reject that. I do not accept it and I think it was a tone that luckily we moved away from after the first few speeches, when we moved to the normal tone of your Lordships’ House.

I was asked about the current negotiations—not just about the timeframe, but whether negotiations would actually continue this week. As noble Lords will know, the EU and UK negotiators have today jointly decided not to hold this week’s round of negotiations in London in the form originally decided, but both sides remain fully committed to continuing negotiations and are currently exploring alternative ways to continue discussions. That must be right, and it must and does include the possibility of video conferencing or conference calls and exploring flexibility in the structure over the coming weeks. If we are asking the people of this country to do ever more indirectly —by video, remotely—then surely the Government of this country and the negotiators for the European Union can seek to advance policy in the same way.

Today’s debate also covered the UK’s approach to negotiations with the European Union as set out in our Command Paper. That remains, although I know it does not please everybody, that by the end of this year —I have to repeat it again—we will be fully independent and a sovereign country. The Command Paper is also clear that we are not asking for a special or bespoke relationship with the European Union: in our proposals, which are based on the political declaration, we are looking for a relationship grounded in precedent. Even the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, acknowledged in his speech that the UK proposals were grounded in precedent. The relationship that we are suggesting is aligned with the parameters for our relationship as agreed in the political declaration.

Points have been made, including by your Lordships’ Select Committee, about the political declaration—who has moved away from it, who has not moved away from it and so on. I thought that, in an outstanding speech, my noble friend Lord Barwell set out a point also made in the Select Committee report: that the wording is not aligned in every respect with the wording of the political declaration. Both sides are making new asks—no, that is not the right phrase: both sides have set out their objectives. As was explained in another outstanding speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, there are differences in the positions, and the British position is as has been set out before your Lordships.

Our view, that our future relationship must be based on sovereignty, and that autonomy of decision-making must be respected as a principle on both sides, is not incompatible with having a close relationship with the EU. Our outline for negotiations, which noble Lords have heard before, builds on precedent and the EU’s offer of a Canada-style agreement. It reflects the type of free trade agreement that should be entirely achievable between sovereign states, as the EU has done previously. We continue to see the EU as our neighbour and friend and want our future relationship to be as wide-ranging as precedent allows. I do not accept that this is a doctrinaire Government who do not want good relations with the European Union; the opposite is true. However, it is a Government who believe that the relationship must be one of sovereign equals. That is what the British people have required and requested of us. We believe that our economic and political independence is a matter of vital national interest.

I will now address the specific points raised by the report. From my reading, there were three specific areas that the noble Earl asked the Government to address. The first was on an association agreement. It invited the Government to comment on the structure of the relationship and whether it would take the form of an association agreement. It is not fruitful to parse the political declaration, but my noble friend Lord Barwell quoted from the relevant part of it, which said that it could take the form of an association agreement, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, the parties may also decide that an agreement should sit outside an overarching framework and in a series of linked agreements. We strongly believe that the content of discussions should drive the structure of the agreement, not the other way around. As my Prime Minister set out, we will seek to negotiate a free trade agreement as well as a separate fisheries agreement, an internal security agreement and other more technical agreements, which I hope will include one on aviation, where points have been made about the move in the European Union’s position.

The report also invited the Government to explain the extent to which the general principles and core values in the political declaration should form part of our future relationship with the EU. This has been the theme of a number of opening speeches on the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that there was “blithe disregard” for the political declaration. I certainly do not agree with that. The UK and the European Union signed up to the political declaration. All the areas of policy set out in the political declaration will be relevant to the UK’s future co-operation with the European Union. However, not all need form part of a negotiated treaty. Many can be developed in a spirit of friendly dialogue between the UK and the EU, which is what we seek. This vision is fully compatible with the political declaration and based on the principles of precedent and reciprocity.

The noble Earl also asked whether the Government would publish a comparative analysis of the political declaration and the Government’s Command Paper. There has been a great deal of debate on the political declaration. The document has been on public record since last October. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I think, said, the Select Committee’s own document provides what the Select Committee asked for.

The report notes Parliament’s role. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has tabled an amendment on this topic, and a number of noble Lords have touched on this point. This House and Parliament as a whole was given a chance to vote on a potential statutory role for the House when they approved the Government’s approach to negotiations and the agreements during the passage of the withdrawal agreement Bill. As noble Lord will recall, and as my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us, the other place voted decisively against giving a statutory role to Parliament in these matters. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, withdrew her amendments on this matter during the passage of the Bill. Nevertheless, as the Prime Minister said at the Second Reading of the withdrawal agreement Bill:

“Parliament will be kept fully informed of the progress of these negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/19; col. 150.]


In meeting that commitment, I ask noble Lords to note that the publication of the Government’s approach was supported by Oral Statements in both Houses and it is being debated today. A Written Ministerial Statement was also made on 9 March, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has appeared before a Select Committee in the other place.

I was asked about the role of the devolved Administrations by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. Throughout the negotiations, the United Kingdom has acted on behalf of the whole of the union. That is the constitutional position and it is consonant with the UK’s constitutional responsibilities—in particular, for the international conduct of the UK’s interests. However, on 28 January in Cardiff there was a ministerial conference on future relationship negotiations, and we stand ready to hold more such meetings. We shared a draft of our approach to the negotiations with the devolved Administrations in advance of publication, and UK government officials and Ministers have been in regular contact with their counterparts throughout this process. That must be the correct position.

I was asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government will hear what has been said in many of the distinguished speeches made today but, as noble Lords will know, a discussion is to take place on this issue at the first meeting of the Joint Committee, and I would not wish to anticipate that.

In conclusion, of course there are areas of divergence between the UK and the EU, and those have been highlighted by many in this debate. However, I like to travel in hope and we must not forget that the Government’s intention is to get a good deal with the European Union. There are many areas where there is convergence. The very act of highlighting the areas where there is divergence draws attention to the silence on the areas where there is not divergence, and that illustrates the fact that both sides want a comprehensive, friendly relationship based on free trade. We will continue to approach these conversations in that way.

We are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that both sides see reasonable progress by June, so there is a clear point in keeping the negotiations going with a view to completing ratification this year. However, under no circumstances will the Government accept an extension. We firmly believe that there is ample time to strike an agreement based on free trade and friendly co-operation.

Again, I thank the committee of your Lordships’ House for its important and insightful work. I look forward to engaging with it in the future and indeed with other Select Committees of this House throughout our negotiations with the EU.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I shall not respond to the debate—that is for the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to do. I shall speak only about my amendment. There were some elements of my speech, such as on competition law, to which the Minister could not respond due to a lack of time, but I am sure that he will write to everyone who raised points that he was not able to answer.

[Lord True]

Yes indeed, and on the customs agent point that the noble Baroness raised.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I found the Minister’s response on my amendment much more positive than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. However, because of that, I must say something on the issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, must have misread the amendment. We are asking not for a veto but for documents. I gave the example of the negotiations with America, where a parliamentary committee was specifically involved. I talked about the documents for both Houses of Parliament, not only the non-elected House. The fact that we are not elected and the European Parliament is seems irrelevant because the documents are for the Commons as well. So let us put that to one side. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, it is more the principle of scrutiny that matters and less the detail of how it is done.

More seriously, I have to respond to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—not to the Minister because his reply was more helpful—who said that the general election and the huge majority to get Brexit done somehow means, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, highlighted, that parliamentary scrutiny is neither necessary nor desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, thought that, with a decent majority in the other place, this Government would not listen. That is scary stuff: “We have a majority of 80 and therefore we will do what we like—don’t trouble us.”

But Parliament matters and must not be shut out for two reasons: first, we do not want to reach a situation, when this treaty is ready to be ratified, where Parliament says, “Oh, we don’t like that now that we’ve seen it.” That would put the country in a difficult position. We have got to the negotiations and the dialogue is necessary now so that we do not find the Government taking us down a road that would be unacceptable not only to this House but to the other House. It is also wrong in itself. The idea that because you have an overall majority—we had a much bigger one in 1997—you do not listen to Parliament is highly dangerous.

Perhaps it is different and this is not about the big majority but a fear that the new deal would not stand up to scrutiny. That is just as serious. It is obvious that it has been heard and responded to by the Minister but we will keep talking. Some of us will be sent away because of our age but there will be enough people on these Benches to make sure that if he does not come here, we will bring him back to answer more questions. He is younger than me, so he will have to be here even when I am not. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment to the Motion.

The Future Relationship with the EU: The UK’s Approach to Negotiations

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That this House takes note of the Command Paper The Future Relationship with the EU: The UK’s Approach to Negotiations (CP 211).

Motion agreed.

Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by testing the Hansard writers by saying that I suffer from a condition called prosopagnosia, which means that I do not recognise faces very easily. However, I have such affection for the noble Lord opposite that, I assure him, I can tell him from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

What can I say about the noble Lord, Lord Bird? Since he is the least vain person I have ever come across, I am allowed to praise him without turning him for the worse. We all know about his outstanding career. This is about not only prevention but enabling. I think that those two things go together. We have perhaps not heard enough about enabling; I know it is very much on the noble Lord’s agenda. I was grateful for the opportunity to talk to him about what he has in mind. Of course, he caught the attention of the House with his extraordinarily powerful and passionate opening speech. The example that he used about care in the community is one that I very much took to heart. I will never forget visiting my own father in one of those terrible institutions with the rooks cawing in the woods outside. The point about hopes for care in the community not being realised in the way that people wanted was absolutely well taken. We always have to look to the future. No good policy-making can be achieved without thinking about the human scale and the long-term impacts of policy. We are all tested—all Governments, all public bodies, all institutions—in that light.

It has been a pleasure to listen to this debate. I confess that when I came in a little earlier before the debate started, I wondered how I might answer if people asked me, “What was the House of Lords doing when the coronavirus crisis was raging?” I imagined saying, “Well, actually, we were sitting half the morning discussing our own composition”, and I thought the response might be, “Well, that is not a very good answer is it?” But then we come on to something remarkable, like yesterday’s debate—I was sorry to hear only the end of it but I have read it in Hansard—and here today we have the House of Lords going to the heart of a fundamental question about well-being and concern for the future, with the compassion and wisdom that the House has always shown.

We should never be complacent about our capacity to move government and make government listen. This House has a great record. One thinks of the early campaign for gay rights; the late Lord Arran was one of the heroic leaders in that campaign. In campaigns for disabled people, we all remember the late, great Jack Ashley, and Brian Rix. Heavens above, it was in here that they caught the attention of the nation. On children’s rights, we have the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Benjamin—Dame Flo Benjamin. I do not think it is in accordance with procedure, but I am very glad to be able to call her that and to congratulate her. This House has been an absolute pioneer and great pressure-maker in campaigning for rights and opportunities for children. In the wider debate on the Bill, which I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on bringing forward, he asks us to consider a single commissioner, but we should not be complacent about the power of the many eyes in this House that can catch the attention of the Government and ask us to listen.

As noble Lords will have anticipated, the Government will not be able to support the Bill as it stands. We have reservations about it. I will come to those at the end, although I never like to end on a down note; I like to end on a positive note, because that is the way that society needs to look. The points made in this debate are points that will be listened to by people across government and in wider society.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and others drew our attention to the Welsh example, which we must certainly examine. If this Bill goes forward, we will have the opportunity for further conversations about that. I was a long-standing local authority leader—you live in the past, do you not?—so I know the difficulties and challenges of local leadership. The kind of leadership that the noble Baroness described is not often recognised enough in modern society. We can have a conversation about whether that needs a corporate approach or one established in law or statute, but certainly the role she described of good governance and looking out for the well-being of local people is a key responsibility of local government.

The Government have been criticised for not looking forward enough. Any Government can be criticised for that, and I have given an example, but this Government are trying to look forward. One challenge was put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Boycott, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others: the vital importance of climate and the environment. The Government have committed to a serious long-term policy on going zero-carbon by 2050. This is a major challenge that will require people to make changes now for the interests of the future. Whatever one thinks about the Budget introduced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, one cannot accuse him of not looking forward to providing for the needs of the future, while obviously looking at present challenges, as one has to.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Benjamin, brought us on to the vital dimension of children. Because I am a Minister I am not allowed to talk about the role of Select Committees in this House, but noble Lords will know that I chaired the Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision, so I am familiar with the arguments which were put forward under my chairmanship. Certainly, intergenerational thinking is hugely important. I always feel that the best old people are those who remember that they were once young, because it is that idealism, vision and hope young people have which carry us to do our best things at all ages. Of course, younger people are only older people in waiting. We all have a common intergenerational interest. I loved that image of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, of cathedral thinking. We all need to aspire to that.

My feeling is that Governments are increasingly aware of and concerned and thoughtful about the intergenerational aspects and consequences of policy. This Government committed to the UN sustainability goals and my right honourable friend the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he was looking at a review of the Green Book later this year. A number of noble Lords mentioned the Green Book, including the noble Lords, Lord Rees and Lord Whitty. I am sure the points they have made will be noted by colleagues.

I have to encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I mentioned rooks in a rather negative context, but of course her images came to mind. I encourage her because for the first time in many years I saw a song thrush on my small suburban lawn only yesterday. Her points were well made and, as she said, the reform of agricultural policy that is now possible for this country will give us all the opportunity to debate the kind of issues that she raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, slightly depressed me at the start, with his long catalogue of great risks. He made some fundamental points about the Bill, which the Government tend to feel might be issues that we will have to look at, such as the weight placed on the commissioner, the opportunity for judicial action and the creation of a new public body or bodies, as other noble Lords pointed out, and, as my noble friend Lady Brady pointed out, the potential impact on companies. These are all issues that would have to be considered in Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, was much more mixed in his futurology. In my view he is entirely right when he says that there is a risk because we foresee some things but not others—I do not want to sound like Donald Rumsfeld. There is a balance to strike. Too rigid an approach can lead us to missed opportunities. I fully take the point that he made about the balance of opportunity and risk. I have always thought that we should look for the opportunity side of the equation while being aware of risk. However, these are matters that we will no doubt discuss further if the Bill is taken into Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said that we should look at the big picture. We will try to do that. Governments are human, but the best Governments are also humane, and part of being humane is doing some of the things that I described and noble Lords have challenged us on. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, made points about behaviour in prisons and policy on prisons that I will draw to the attention of colleagues. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that well-being awareness is hugely important.

I may have failed to respond to some points. I have not spoken about alcohol, which was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Balfe. Obviously, the misuse of alcohol is an example of where policymakers need to think through the long-term consequences of present behaviours.

All that said, it is the Government’s feeling that the sense of, importance of and duty to future generations should be a guiding and embedded spirit as far as possible in policy thinking. I mentioned the sustainability goals and the Green Book, and there are other examples. However, the question before us, on which the noble Lord, Lord Bird, challenged us, is: what are the best mechanisms to deliver these messages, hopes and aspirations? The Welsh experience seeks to hold a mirror to that. The best mechanism of course would be if everybody—private sector, public sector and every individual—got up in the morning considering whether what they were doing was imperilling or causing difficulties for ourselves or other people in the future?

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will not be discouraged to hear that the Government do not believe that the approach taken in the Bill, which is broad in its scope and nature, is appropriate. I will not give the black spot to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, but he made that point in a different way. It is not the Government’s view that this is the most effective or appropriate way to go forward. The Government therefore have reservations about the Bill as it stands, and reservations about the creation of a new public body and new duties. However, as I hope I have demonstrated, the Government are committed to protecting and promoting the environmental, economic and social well-being of the country, in the here and now and for generations to come.

If I may speak on a personal note, I found this a fascinating debate and an example of the House of Lords being on the best side of the coin, which I did not think we necessarily were earlier today. I will certainly dwell on the points made, as I know that colleagues in the Government will. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for bringing the Bill forward. I do not expect him to go away. The whole of society generally, as well as our government systems, is improved by the challenge of his great example, as it is by the thoughtful, intelligent and humane way in which he has approached debate on the Bill. I am sorry to have to say that the Government have misgivings about it as it stands, but that is the position.

Ministerial Code

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, many of whose thoughtful remarks struck a chord not only with the House in general but with me. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for giving us this further opportunity to debate the Ministerial Code. I have been a Minister for less than a month; in that time, I have signed the Ministerial Code and responded three times to your Lordships on this subject. I am therefore left in little doubt that it is a matter of importance and one in which your Lordships, quite rightly, take a great interest from a position of great experience.

I will try to answer as many questions as possible that have quite reasonably been raised in the debate, but perhaps I might offer a preface. Here I echo some of the comments made by a number of those who have spoken. We must strive to secure good governance, which means that Ministers and officials work well and harmoniously together. That is the aim of effective administration, and it is from that sense of a shared objective that good decisions and implementation should follow.

I was there in 1992 when Prime Minister Major agreed to publish the Questions of Procedure for Ministers. I suspect that some of us on the political side probably gave similar advice to the noble Lord. However, we must not overdramatise; we must recognise the issues that we have to address, some of which have been raised in this debate. In general, however, the quality of governance in this country—I do not accept, as some noble Lords put forward, that a dramatic new kind of cowboy Administration have come in—and the standards are extraordinarily high, and we do not serve good governance by denying that or overdramatising the situation. I was asked whether I wanted to defend the indefensible: I do not think that I am defending the indefensible when I say that governance generally operates well, and the Ministerial Code is part of that.

When an Administration change and when a new Prime Minister comes in, it has always been the case that there is a challenge. I remember talking to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, two days before the change of administration in 1997, saying to him, “Here you are at this stage of your career; a change of Government will present a great career challenge.” The noble Lord quite rightly relished that. Of course, we all know that history proved that a new Government came in and I am sure that the Conservatives said some of the same things about the incoming Blair Government as are being said today.

That takes me directly to the point made about the position of Mr Cummings and his authority. The cases of Alistair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, who were given direct authority over officials in 1997, is not analogous. Following the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred—I thank him for his work on that—the position of special advisers was put on a statutory basis, and Mr Cummings’s role is governed by that Act.

Turning to some of the other points that were made, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said about balance and degree. That is inherent in what I just said about not exaggerating the degree of the problem. Every case and every serious allegation that is made must be subject to a testing of the facts. That is the way things are going on currently, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. That must always be the case. In any judgment, at the end of the day—I do not refer to this particular case; I refer to any judgment—an element of degree must always come into it, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said.

My noble friend Lord Young asked me a series of questions, some of which he was kind enough to give me notice of, so I will try to answer one or two of them. As far as training is concerned—this issue was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, at the start—all Lords Ministers have done the Valuing Everyone course or have slots booked to do it. I have done it myself and agree that it is a very valuable and important course; I would encourage everyone to undertake it. There is quite a queue to take the course in this large House, as noble Lords can imagine, but I assure noble Lords that this training is being given. It is vital that all parties in both Houses continue to encourage completion of that training.

On the case of Ms Khan, I cannot comment because it is subject to litigation. I hope that the noble Lord will understand; he has put his point on the record and I am sure that that is there for people to see.

On the point about a story in the Daily Mail, it may surprise some noble Lords in this House that I do not believe everything I read in that paper. I am particularly surprised that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is such an aficionado of the Daily Mail, but one lives and learns. I am aware of no such contract. The advice I am given is that Mr Cummings is a special adviser and subject to the special adviser code of conduct.

As far as contractors are concerned—I was away for a week when Mr Sabisky was enjoying his career in government—contractors are subject to the Civil Service code of principles, but again it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a particular vetting status or contractual arrangement applying to an individual. I hope that I have answered, or at least responded to, most of the points that my noble friend made.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the issue of ministerial training and I have sought to respond to that. On the question of the employment of special advisers, I thought we were discussing the Ministerial Code but I will always try to assist your Lordships. On special advisers, the point has been made that, as set out in the 2010 Act, they are selected for appointment by Ministers, and Ministers are ultimately responsible. However, all appointments must be approved by the Prime Minister, and it is inherent in that that the Prime Minister has a role in ensuring that special advisers are appropriate to their appointment and are conducting their activities appropriately. I see nothing particularly sinister in that.

My noble friend Lady Finn made some strong and powerful points, and I am sure that everyone who heard them will reflect on them. I said earlier in my remarks that I think there is a shared challenge in making good governance work. Sometimes there will be robust exchanges and sometimes friendly ones. When a Government come in with a new approach and a new mandate, or are refreshed by a general election, of course it is incumbent on the system to seek to implement in the most expeditious and effective way what that would-be Government have promised to the people.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I am not afraid of using the word “people” because ultimately it is from a popular mandate that a Government’s authority arises. It is always interesting to hear a Liberal criticising insurgency; I thought that the beauty of the Liberal Party was that it had always been insurgent.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I was talking about Conservatives describing themselves as insurgents. I always thought that the Conservative Party was the establishment. It is a matter of puzzlement that we have so many Conservatives now describing themselves as the anti-establishment.

[Lord True]

I am a Conservative of liberal mind, I am afraid—with a small “l”.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Very small.

[Lord True]

I will not ensure that Hansard records that remark from a seated position; I would not like to think that anyone would think that of me.

With regard to reviewing the code, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth pointed out in a very authoritative speech the progress of the code over time. It is periodically reviewed, and Mr Johnson recently published an update in August. Ultimately it is not for me to say; it is for the Prime Minister if he or she wishes to make a change, but it has recently been revised and reviewed. I believe that the Ministerial Code is strong. It is subject to review and an assistance to good government—

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There is one question that I asked, and I wonder whether the Minister could reply. When the current inquiry into the Home Secretary ends, will there be transparency about the conclusions similar to what there was in the previous inquiry that I referred to?

[Lord True]

Ah, yes, my Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I cannot absolutely give that assurance. As he knows, Sir Alex Allan publishes an annual report on what he has done or looked into. As far as each individual case is concerned, and this is not unrelated to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the publication of any other summary is a matter for the Prime Minister to determine at the appropriate time. I am sure that the Prime Minister will take that decision in the appropriate way at the appropriate time. At the moment, a process is under way to establish the facts.

If your Lordships will permit, I will not repeat what I have said but I will say that the Ministerial Code is not as flawed as some have argued. It is subject to great scrutiny, including in Parliament, and I believe that we should all focus on making all aspects of good government work together, both Ministers and civil servants. From those two partners comes the best outcome.

Ministerial Code: Breaches

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer given to an Urgent Question in the other place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, on Saturday 29 February the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service received and accepted the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. On the same day, the Cabinet Secretary announced that Shona Dunn, then the Second Permanent Secretary at the Home Office responsible for borders, immigration and citizenship, would become Acting Permanent Secretary with immediate effect. Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary has breached the Ministerial Code. The Home Secretary absolutely rejects these allegations. The Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in her. Having worked closely with the Home Secretary over a number of years, I also have the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister doing a great job.

This Government always take any complaints relating to the Ministerial Code seriously. In line with the process set out in the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts. As is usual, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, is available to provide advice to the Prime Minister. It is long-standing government policy not to comment on individual personnel matters, in order to protect the rights of all involved. What I can, and will, say is that I know that the dedicated ministerial team at the Home Office, and its superb civil servants, will continue their critical work on the public’s behalf—keeping our country protected from the terror threat; bearing down on the criminals who seek to do our communities and our country harm; and delivering a fair, firm immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. The Home Office works tirelessly to keep our citizens safe and our country secure. We all stand behind the team leading that vital work.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, in answer to the second question, any Minister holds office at the wish of the Prime Minister and if he considers, in the case of any Minister on any subject, that that Minister is not performing, that Minister will be subject to the appropriate sanctions. As for the noble Baroness’s first question, my right honourable friend answered this in the other House. Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary breached the Ministerial Code and the Cabinet Office has been asked to look at the facts, as reported.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I fear that this affair may have some further way to go. There are, for example, various reports in the newspapers that there was a hitlist of other Permanent Secretaries that the Government would like to get rid of. None of us, I think, wants to go down the road of Washington, where relations between members of the American Cabinet and its staff are clearly toxic in a number of ways. Do we not now need some sort of investigation that will be published to re-establish the necessary confidence between Ministers and civil servants, without which effective government is very difficult to carry on?

[Lord True]

No, my Lords, the allegation of a hitlist is false and has been denied. All in this House would agree that good government depends on all the elements of a ministry and a Government working well together. I had the privilege of working in the Civil Service as a special adviser in the past and I know that to be the case. This Government wholly respect the role of the Civil Service; they need the Civil Service to be free to give robust advice and there needs to be proper respect between all arms of government decision-making.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord clear up one point that was a little ambiguous in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition? I welcome the fact that, in line with the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts—that is clearly very important—but in answering the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord said that the Cabinet Office has been asked to inquire whether the Home Secretary has breached the code. However, there are also allegations that the code was breached when Ms Patel was in the Department for Employment and in DfID. Can he assure us that the inquiry will be wide-ranging and will cover that full range of complaints?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I used the term “Home Secretary” because the person engaged is Home Secretary, but where allegations of breach of the Ministerial Code has been made against a Minister, those allegations, from wherever, will be investigated.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, the undignified whinge in front of television cameras by the former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office certainly shows that he is no Sir Humphrey Appleby. What matters is that the Home Office is arguably the most constipated department in Whitehall, but one of the most important. There is much still to be done to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said in May 2006 about the department being “not fit for purpose”. What really matters is that we get on with the reforms and we must welcome the fact that my right honourable friend Priti Patel is a vigorous Home Secretary who is determined, among other things, to root out the deep corruption, demonstrated in Parliamentary Questions I have asked and had answered, in the immigration department of the Home Office.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will not follow my noble friend on all his comments. All I will say is that the Home Office has been charged with a vital job, from creating a points-based immigration system to strengthening the police and so on. I have no reason to believe that the Home Office, led by an outstanding ministerial team, will not perform to the highest levels expected of Her Majesty’s Civil Service.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I read the statement and heard of the resignation of Sir Philip with extreme sadness and shock. Will the inquiry talk to Sir Philip about his allegations and include the First Division Association chief executive Dave Penman to establish the reality of what happened? I welcome the inquiry, and the Statement says that it is not the Government’s practice to comment on personal matters. All I can say is that an awful lot of other people seem to have commented on Sir Philip. Will the Minister distance himself from the shameful comments that have been made in the newspapers over the weekend?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I make no comment about any individual. My job is to see that the conduct of government is carried on appropriately. The noble Lord will know from his distinguished service in the Civil Service that how the matter is conducted is not a matter for me but for the Cabinet Secretary, taking advice appropriately, as I am sure he will do. Sir Philip said in his statement that he intends to begin legal action; I am sure the House will understand that I cannot make any further comment on that matter.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, is a timetable attached to the inquiry by the Cabinet Office? My understanding is that it is the Prime Minister who decides in the end whether the ministerial code has been broken or not. Is that the case, or will he also rely on advice and input from independent sources?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will not speculate on how long the work, which has only just begun, will last. It is in everybody’s interest that it be performed as swiftly but also as thoroughly and fairly as possible. The findings will be presented to the Prime Minister and then it will be a matter for his judgment what might or might not follow.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister reflect that it would be deeply unfortunate if, as with the BBC or the courts, the people’s Government versus the Civil Service overrode the duty of people to be encouraged to work sensibly on behalf of the people we seek to represent? As a former special adviser, will he reflect that, after seven months, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Home Secretary to have approached the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary to arrange a sensible departure for the Permanent Secretary if she could not get on with him? Is it not a worry that she might not be able to get on with anybody?

[Lord True]

My Lords, again I will not be tempted to follow a personal line, except to say that the noble Lord, when he was an outstanding Home Secretary, was never backward in coming forward with his views. It is in everyone’s interest that the heat is taken down a bit and the facts are established; once the facts are established your Lordships and the rest of the world can address their consequences.

Ministers: Training

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what training and guidance is provided to their Ministers on (1) bullying and harassment, (2) diversity and inclusion and (3) staff management; and how many current Ministers have completed any such training.

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

My Lords, the Ministerial Code provides advice and guidance to Ministers on the standards of conduct that they are expected to uphold and the way in which they should discharge their duties. Obviously, Ministers are also traditionally able to seek further advice and guidance within the departments. The Government do not hold central records of training undertaken by Ministers.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his first performance on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment.

I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord may go back to the department and see whether it can be a little more precise in trying to follow this through. In Parliament, we now have a programme for training on abuse, harassment and so on. We should seek to apply that similarly at the highest levels where people have privilege and power, which is at ministerial level. I hope the noble Lord might reflect on whether something more formal could be established.

Secondly, given that we now have the freedom and have taken our power, we have an opportunity to have laws in this land better than those in Europe. As we have an employment Bill in prospect, will the noble Lord reflect on whether we could take the principles behind the Question on this Order Paper and see whether they could be applied to employment opportunities in general for people who have problems with abuse of power in general employment, so that we end up with a law that is better in this respect than that in Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said on a personal basis.

The noble Lord is addressing an extraordinarily important point, which we all share; obviously I am not here to answer for Parliament, but we are all aware of the facilities that this House makes available. I hope all Members of this House will avail themselves of those. The Ministerial Code is absolutely clear:

“Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.”


That clear message is given to new Ministers right at the outset—I can testify to that from this week—but I accept the spirit of what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that, if bullying and harassment will not be tolerated, any Minister guilty of such conduct should no longer remain in post?

[Lord True]

The noble Lord is wise and knows very well that whether people remain in office is a matter not for me or him but for the Prime Minister. In fact, this Prime Minister updated the advice around the code last August, to include greater clarity on how investigations into alleged breaches will take place. It made it very clear that if there is an allegation of a breach, the Prime Minister will consult the Cabinet Secretary. If he feels that it warrants further investigation, he may ask the Cabinet Office to investigate the facts of the case and refer the matter to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, Sir Alex Allan.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords does the Ministerial Code apply to special advisers?

[Lord True]

My Lords, there is a code for special advisers.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the paragraph that the noble Lord just quoted actually says that the Prime Minister

“may ask the Cabinet Office”.

What is the status of the Ministerial Code? When we had an exchange in this House at the time of the resignation of a previous Foreign Secretary, now the Prime Minister, and it was pointed out that he had been reprimanded for breaking the Ministerial Code in several places, it was also pointed out by the then Cabinet Office Minister that the Ministerial Code is an honour code and based on the idea that Ministers will always act on their honour. Is it now time that we had some stronger sanction than that?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I repeat: Ministers hold office at the Prime Minister’s request and remain in office only for as long as they retain the Prime Minister’s confidence. I note what the noble Lord says. The current position is that the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected and the appropriate consequences. The conduct of any Minister in office is subject to the most absolute scrutiny—that is, public scrutiny—and this Government intend to hold, and do hold, to the very highest standards of ministerial behaviour at every level.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister further on his responses? The Ministerial Code says:

“Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect.”


The point picked up in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is: what happens when they do not? The Minister says that it is a matter for the Prime Minister, but that sets a pretty low bar of sanctions that could be imposed. I ask him to reflect on his answers. I am not saying that in every case a Minister should be sacked—there will be cases in which they should—but there is a lack of clarity about what happens when the Ministerial Code is breached.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not agree with the implied statement of criticism of the Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister expects the highest standards of performance and behaviour from all his colleagues. That is true at every level of the Government. I have said that Ministers are officeholders, not direct employees, but that does not—either at the human level, the work level or the professional level of any sort—absolve any person in any position in this country from the requirement to observe the highest standards of respect for those with whom we work.

EU: Future Relationship

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made today in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:

“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like now to make a Statement on the Government’s approach to our future relationship with the European Union.

Now that Britain has left the EU, we are entering a new chapter in the history of these islands. This Government have honoured the clearly expressed wish of the British people. Their instruction to us, their servants, to secure our departure from the EU has been followed. The votes of 17.4 million people—more than have ever voted for any democratic proposition in our history—were implemented on 31 January and we are now on a new journey. As a sovereign, self-governing, independent nation, we will have the freedom to frame our own laws, control our own borders, lower all our taxes, set our own tariffs, determine our own trade relationships and ensure we follow the people’s priorities on security, the economy and democratic accountability. Over the next nine months, we will negotiate a new relationship with our friends and partners in the European Union, based on free trade and friendly co-operation. We have today published the approach for those negotiations, and copies of the document, The Future Relationship with the EU, were made available to Members in the Vote Office from 9.30 am.

Talks with the EU on our future relationship begin next week, and it is our aim to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement, as well as agreement on questions such as fisheries, internal security and aviation. We are confident that those negotiations will lead to outcomes which work for both the UK and the EU. But this House, our European partners and, above all, the British people, should be in no doubt: at the end of the transition period, on 31 December, the United Kingdom will fully recover its economic and political independence. We want the best possible trading relationship with the EU, but in pursuit of a deal we will not trade away our sovereignty.

The Government’s vision for the UK’s future relationship with the EU was outlined with crystal clarity by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign, the election result comprehensively confirmed public support for our direction of travel, and in his speech in the Painted Hall in Greenwich on 3 February, the Prime Minister laid out in detail how we will reach our destination. The first principle of our approach is that we wish to secure a relationship based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. We respect the EU’s sovereignty, autonomy and distinctive legal order, and we expect it to respect ours. We will not accept nor agree to any obligations where our laws are aligned with the EU or the EU’s institutions, including the Court of Justice. Instead, each party will respect the other’s independence and the right to manage its own borders, immigration policy and taxes.

The second and allied principle of our approach is that we will seek to emulate and build on the types of relationship that the EU already has with other independent sovereign states. We will use precedents already well established and understood to ensure both sides’ sovereignty is respected, and by using already existing precedents we should be able to expedite agreement. We will seek functioning arrangements that the EU will recognise from its many other relationships. So our proposal draws on existing EU agreements such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement and the EU-South Korea free trade agreement. This approach will enable us to move swiftly towards the goal envisaged in the political declaration agreed last October, in which both sides set the aim of concluding a zero-tariffs, zero-quotas free trade agreement, or FTA.

As well as concluding a full FTA, we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters, as an independent coastal state, and will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets. Our fishing waters are our sovereign resource, and we will determine other countries’ access to our resources on our terms. We also hope to conclude an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, so that we can work with the EU to protect their citizens, and ours, from shared threats, but we will not allow our own legal order to be compromised, and by taking back full control of our borders we can implement measures to make the British people even safer, and we can tackle terrorism and organised crime even more effectively. We also wish to conclude a number of technical agreements covering aviation and civil nuclear co-operation, which will help ensure continuity for the UK on its new footing as an independent sovereign nation.

Securing agreement on all these questions should not, in principle, be difficult. We are, after all, only seeking relationships with the EU which it has with other nations, relationships that respect the interests and sovereignty of both partners. It is in that light that we should view discussions about what has been termed the “level playing field”. It has been argued that EU demands in this area will make full agreement difficult. Yet there is no intrinsic reason why requirements that both parties uphold desirable standards should prejudice any deal.

The United Kingdom has a proud record when it comes to environmental enhancement, workers’ rights and social protection. In a number of key areas, we either exceed EU standards or have led the way to improve standards. On workers’ rights, for example, the UK offers a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert this to parental leave so that both parents can share care. The EU minimum is just 14 weeks. On environmental standards, we were the first country in the world to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major global economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero green- house gas emissions across the economy by 2050.

We will not dilute any existing protections. Indeed, as the Environment Bill, debated yesterday, demonstrates, we wish to go further and faster than the EU in improving the natural environment. We do not need the EU’s permission to be a liberal nation leading the world in the fight against climate change and for social progress. That is why the UK Government seek an FTA with robust protections for the environment and labour standards, but we do not see why the test of suitability in these areas should be adherence to EU law and submission to EU models of governance. The EU does not apply those principles to free trade agreements with other sovereign nations, and they should not apply to a sovereign United Kingdom.

Some argue that we must accept EU procedures as the benchmark because of the scale of UK trade with the EU, but the volume of UK trade with the EU is no greater than the volume of US trade with the EU, and the EU was more than willing to offer zero-tariff access to the US without the application of EU procedures to US standard setting. The EU has also argued that the UK is a unique case, owing to its geographical location, but proximity is not a determining factor in any other FTA between other neighbouring states with large economies. It is not a reason for us to accept EU rules and regulations. You need only to look at the USMCA—the agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico—for an example of a trade agreement that does not require regulatory alignment to one side’s rules or demand a role for one side’s court. Geography is no reason to undermine democracy.

To be clear: we will not seek to dynamically align with EU rules on EU terms governed by EU laws and institutions. The British people voted to take back control, to bring power home and to have the rules governing this country made by those who are directly accountable to the people of this country, and that is what we are delivering.

The negotiations are due to begin next week, led by the Prime Minister’s Sherpa, David Frost, and I would like to end by looking ahead optimistically to the coming months. There is ample time during the transition period to strike the right deal for the UK. We hope to reach a broad agreement ahead of the EU Council’s high-level summit in June, whereupon we will take stock.

We know our proposals are measured and our approach is fair. We know what we want to achieve; we are ready to go. This Government are committed to establishing the future relationship in ways that benefit the whole of the UK and strengthen the union. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to deliver a future relationship with the EU that works for the whole of the UK. I take this opportunity to reassure colleagues that our negotiation will be undertaken without prejudice and with full respect to the Northern Ireland protocol. This Government will act in these negotiations on behalf of all the territories for whose international relations the UK is responsible. In negotiating the future relationship between these territories and the EU, the UK Government will seek outcomes that support the territories’ security and economic interests and reflect their unique characteristics. As the Prime Minister committed to do at the Second Reading of the withdrawal agreement Bill, we will keep Parliament fully informed about the negotiations and colleagues will be able to scrutinise our progress in the normal way.

The Government are delivering on their manifesto commitments with energy and determination. This Government got Brexit done and will use our recovered sovereignty to be a force for good in the world and a fairer nation at home. We want and we will always seek the best possible relationship with our friends and allies in Europe, but we will always put the welfare of the British people first. That means ensuring that the British people exercise the democratic control over our destiny for which they voted so decisively. That compact with the people is the most important deal of all. In that spirit, I commend this Statement to the House.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position and look forward to a series of robust exchanges in the months to come. As I was coming down to the House, I was interested to learn that there is now a revised version of the Statement. Perhaps it might be of interest to the House to point out what has been revised. The original text stated that

“as a sovereign, self-governing independent nation we will have the freedom to … lower all our taxes”.

The Minister correctly read out the revised version, which is

“to set all our taxes.”

That seems a wise revision by a Government who are about to produce a Budget which intends to increase spending very considerably. If they were to promise in a wonderfully populist way to lower all our taxes at the same time, it would be a little more Trumpian than even Johnsonian.

I would like to tackle the language and assumptions of the Government’s current approach. This is a very harsh, autonomous independence. As has been pointed out, sovereignty—independent sovereign equality—runs all the way through it, as does the notion of the people’s Government, the “servants” of the people. Saying that

“we follow the people’s priorities”

is the not the language of Churchill or Thatcher. It is the language of Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, or even President Erdoğan of Turkey. This is not constitutional parliamentary language. This is not Edmund Burke. The Conservative Party has to recognise that it is slipping into different territory.

In his speech last week, David Frost started and finished by quoting Edmund Burke, but he also rubbished the idea of shared sovereignty. I recall listening to Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher talking about shared sovereignty and how we benefit in constructing a multilateral international order by sharing our sovereignty through international treaties and agreements, international organisations and international law. Britain has done a great deal in that regard. The language of the Statement suggests that we reject most of that and that we think we are now dealing with a power—the sovereign European Union—which is threatening our sovereignty and independence.

I have not yet heard any Minister say that in dealing with the United States we will expect the United States to treat us as a sovereign equal. I hope the Minister can assure us that we expect the same from the United States because it would not be desirable to establish our independence from the European Union hostile force—as it clearly in many ways is—by reinforcing our dependence in security, intelligence and a range of other ways on the United States. We see it in current extradition procedures and in the presence of American intelligence operatives in this country, who are not fully covered by treaty arrangements and not fully reported to Parliament. That is a degree of dependence which is certainly an evasion of British sovereignty, if we are going to talk about our sovereign independence.

How are we going to establish our political and economic independence by January next year? If we are going to be economically independent, are we going to ensure, for example, that all our key telecommunications equipment is made inside this country? Are we going to ensure that we have an independently owned steel industry, or at least a steel industry of some sort, or is that not part of economic independence? Do we think that supporting offshore financial centres under British sovereignty is part of independence, given that integration into the offshore world which is the ultimate denial of sovereignty in taxation and other terms? If we are not, that is misleading, populist language. It is wonderful to suggest that we stand for the people, but actually, we do not.

Free trade limits sovereignty. Protectionism is what protects sovereignty. North Korea is in many ways one of the most sovereign countries in this world. Once you open yourself to foreign investment and trade, you limit your sovereignty, and that is what we have done. We are one of the most open countries to foreign takeovers and, as a result, we have limited sovereignty and we have to share it with others. If we are talking the language of sovereign equality, we should remember what that great realist Thucydides said: strong states do what they like, small states—and we are smaller than China or the United States—do what they must.

There is no understanding of Britain’s position in the world now we have left the European Union. We have no foreign policy at present. That is not part of this current populist dimension. How do we approach climate change and how do we deal with pandemics? We have to share sovereignty. I hope, when it comes to the climate change conference, the Government will sign up to new international obligations, which will also limit Britain’s sovereignty. Perhaps it is only signing up to shared obligations with the European Union that we object to and we do not, apparently, object quite so much to signing up with China or India.

Can the Minister also assure us that what I understood the Statement to mean on regulatory divergence is that we demand the principle of regulatory divergence but, in practice, we shall be fairly closely aligned? We are standing up for the ideological dimension that we choose but, when it comes to it, we will probably go along with them. Of course, the alternative, if we do not align with European regulations, will be to align more closely with American regulations, rather than, I suspect, to choose our own.

I hope the Minister recognises that the change of tone from the political declaration we signed last October is very worrying for anyone who cares about our position in the world. He will have read the Times editorial the day before yesterday, which said that if we now suggest that we are not bound by agreements that we signed up to last year on Northern Ireland and on the political direction, no one will be prepared to trust us and we will not be able to get a future agreement. When a not particularly left-wing newspaper, such as the Times, says that about the Government’s approach to their negotiations, we should all be very worried indeed.

[Lord True]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Obviously, I thank them for their references to my arrival here. I feel privileged to follow my noble friend Lord Callanan in answering on this subject at this Dispatch Box. He was often stoic and always willing to be open to the rest of the House. I assure both noble Lords who have spoken that I will endeavour to be fully open and I look forward to working with them. I know my noble friend is a hard act to follow and I will try to do that.

I will come to each of the contributions in a moment. I felt that they had something in common. One was, perhaps, slightly more robust but there still seemed to be a lack of recognition on the Benches opposite of the fundamental change in the circumstances in which this nation—and, frankly, this Parliament—operates and, I submit, has a duty to operate. Not only was there a very clear referendum result some years ago, following which this House did not cover itself in glory in the way it behaved, but there has recently been a general election—as referred to in the Statement—in which the British people gave a decisive steer. It is a mandate—whatever people on the other side may feel —and an instruction that, as the Statement said, we on this side feel an overwhelming duty and responsibility to respond to. Everything that this Government will try to do in this House will start from the fundamental fact that the British people have voted to leave and they have voted to be independent and that is the policy that this Government will pursue.

I come to some of the points raised. With respect to the noble Baroness, it was a little like hearing the briefing on the process before Brexit actually happened. The Government are trying to be as open with the House as possible right from the start, publishing this mandate before the negotiations begin. We are in a new phase. Brexit has happened. In the period up until 31 December, we are seeking to reach an agreement with our friends and allies in Europe; that is, an agreement based on full respect and friendly co-operation, and centred on free trade. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, it sounded as though he was seeing the Government as inspired by Stalinist socialism in one country. The Government are fully alive to our international friendships and obligations, which stretch right across the world. I repeat that the key position, which this House must understand, is that we want friendly relations and co-operation between sovereign equals, but it must be informed by the decisions taken by the British people—by our mandate.

On workers’ rights and environmental matters, the Statement was unequivocal. The position taken by the Government is that we aspire to the very highest standards in those areas. We had exchanges earlier about environmental matters. There is no question of the Government resiling from that aspiration.

The noble Baroness asked about friction. Our objective is free trade. That was the proposal put forward by our European friends. But, if it turns out that some element of friction—which we hope will be minimal or non-existent—is present, we have made clear the importance of our need to be an independent, sovereign nation. The noble Baroness talked about a different relationship. We do not want a different relationship in the sense of being hostile, as the noble Lord implied. We bear no hostility to our European friends but we do want a free trade agreement as sovereign equals. In that sense, the relationship is certainly different.

Financial services are, of course, absolutely critical. The noble Baroness asked about this. The position is that, again, it is an area of hopeful co-operation. We have a common interest with the EU in establishing an enduring relationship on financial services, based on mutual trust and co-operation. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, that means completing equivalence assessments, one hopes by the agreed June 2020 deadline.

We must not run ahead of the negotiating process—it is yet to begin. It is disappointing to hear in your Lordships’ House the assumption that everything is impossible. I do not agree with that. I am happy to repeat that we will, of course, try to keep the House informed in an appropriate way as the negotiations go forward; yes, we will keep the devolved Administrations informed. Indeed, in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend expressed his gratitude for the valuable recent discussions he had had with representatives of the devolved Administrations.

On language, I was invited to be robust, but I must try to stop being robust now that I am a Minister. I want full co-operation and friendship with the noble Lord, who I enjoyed working with in coalition, but it is a bit rich to be given a lesson on language by a party that went to the last election planning to revoke Article 50 without any reference at all to the British people. To my reckoning, that seemed mildly harsh. I will not go into a philosophical argument about what sovereignty means. Some things the noble Lord said were true; some were not. This Government intend to be a leader on climate change, as we have already demonstrated.

I have tried to answer the questions, but I am sorry to have gone over time. We must accept this as a fresh phase, and I hope the whole House, on all sides, addresses this phase in the positive spirit of wishing to get a good outcome by the end of this year, both for this country and for the European Union. That is the position of this Government and what we will try to achieve.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I warmly welcome my noble friend to his new role, and I warmly welcome the comments he has just made and the whole tone of his speech, particularly its emphasis on the principles of our co-operation with the rest of Europe—in a sense, our European policy for the decades ahead. Does he accept that the Statement might have benefited from a description of what is going on in the EU, where radical change is under way? It is adjusting to a completely new style and emphasis in the digital age. Would he applaud a statement from the 19th century and the famous statesman Leopold von Ranke that

“the union of all depends on the independence of each”?

If we stick to that principle, old though it may be, we will be able to influence our Europe—which we still belong to—constructively in the future, along his lines.

[Lord True]

I thank my noble friend and agree with him, but this Government are not going to lecture the European Union on how it should manage its own home. We respect their right, as 27 sovereign nations, to determine their own future, but the points that my noble friend made are germane and important. We will, and I personally will, bear them all in mind.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister had a lot of questions to answer, but I wonder if he could pick up the point raised by my noble friend from our Front Bench about integrated supply chains. Can the Minister assure companies such as Nissan that they would not be adversely affected by the Government’s approach, particularly to alignment? I hope also that the Government will try to avoid a triumphalist approach to the negotiations and their dealings with this House. You would never have guessed from the Minister’s Statement that, actually, 16 million people voted the other way. Neither would you have guessed that the Conservative vote increased by only 1% overall at the last election. It seems the Government should approach these negotiations in a spirit of compromise, and keep as close a relationship with the EU as possible.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am not very good at doing triumphalism, and I do not believe that either this Statement or anything the Government have done has that tone. It is not triumphalism but the act of a historian to point out the result of the recent general election. It is not a mark against any party that took part, but a clear outcome of that election was that the British people renewed an instruction. As for the key question about business interests, the Government are continuing our dialogue with business over the coming months, in the usual way. We are fully aware of all the issues involved, but let us not leap forward and assume the worst at every opportunity. The Government will wish to be informed and to inform, but many supply chains successfully exist in areas where there is no customs union—in North America, for example. I do not accept the advice that we must be defeatist and that problems and issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed, at this early stage, when negotiators have not even met yet.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that, if these discussions with the European Union do not lead to a happy conclusion, the no-deal situation will be brought to Parliament for approval?

[Lord True]

My Lords, the Government do not anticipate that these discussions will fail.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his new responsibilities. I look forward to many a True statement. He emphasised the importance of our understanding that the world has changed and that we are in a brave new world that is all fresh. What I am worried about is whether the foreigners will see it that way. I am worried that the foreigners will still believe that the joint commitment in the political declaration to a level playing field perhaps still holds. I am worried that the foreigners—the 27—noting that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister are in denial about what the Northern Ireland protocol says and that no work is being done in Belfast or in London on implementing it, may feel that “pacta sunt servanda” is no longer the governing principle here. Will the noble Lord assure me that we still believe that commitments should be honoured? If that is his view, will he please raise it with the Prime Minister?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I take particular note of what the noble Lord says. I thank him for his kind remarks. I have the highest respect for his great service to this country. I remember watching from the sidelines in the early 1990s his extraordinary achievements. I think I said at one stage in these discussions that he was the Duns Scotus, the great scholastic who understood everything. I hope he will not regret having to deal with a Dunce Anglius here at the Dispatch Box who has a lot to learn. Look, the negotiations are just yet to begin. People will lay out their positions next week. Again, the noble Lord invites me to run ahead of the position. Each side’s position will be staked out by the appropriate people as the negotiations commence.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Do the Government not appreciate that no one will invest in manufacturing capability in this country, the output for which will be dependent on demand from the single market to a considerable and possibly larger extent, in a climate of regulatory uncertainty where it is not clear whether at any moment our regulations might divert from those in the European single market? It seems to me that the Government either have decided to neglect or have never heard of one of the most elemental requirements of industry in the important area of investment.

[Lord True]

My Lords, that argument was put in 2016 and has been put ever since, but in that time the UK has benefited from enormous inward investment and I have every confidence that it will continue to do so.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Statement has exposed the speciousness of the argument that for some reason the UK should be treated as a special case because of our proximity to the European continent. Does he agree that this is actually an indication of the insecurity of the EU? It is a euphemism for saying that we should be punished for daring to leave the EU. This is not exactly a vote of confidence in the future of the EU.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am not going to be critical of the EU. As I have said, we respect its right to conduct itself as it wishes. I repeat: we certainly do not accept the proximity argument that requires that we should be in a customs union. It is not an argument that applies in North America, and I do not believe it applies on the European continent either.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his place and assure him that we accept that we are now in a different situation. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, just asked about, do the Government still adhere to the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed on 19 October last year? I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 77, which deals with the point that the noble Lord just raised. It starts:

“Given the Union and the United Kingdom’s geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.”


That is what the Prime Minister signed up for last October. Can we have it clearly stated that the Government still sign up to that statement? This is a matter of great importance; I think hundreds of thousands of people’s jobs depend on it.

[Lord True]

My Lords, the political declaration set out our commitment to discuss open and fair competition as part of negotiations on our future relationship. We are committed to doing so.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I too welcome my noble friend to his post and wish him every success. Does he accept that the hallmark of successful negotiations has to be mutual respect? Can he assure the House that we are not aiming for splendid isolation, but rather mutual prosperity? Does he also remember that the last negotiations, of unhappy memory, were bedevilled by the proclaiming of red lines far too early in the process?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I thought I had said in the Statement and afterwards that they will be approached in terms of mutual respect. But mutual respect and friendship—as I think my noble friend will understand from our happy relations in this House—does not always mean absolute identity on everything.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box very warmly. May I tempt him to enter into the philosophical discussion? Was not the very point of Brexit that we should reclaim that part of our sovereignty that we lent to the European Union, and does not the sovereignty of a democratic state reside in its ability to make its own laws in its own Parliaments and Assemblies, accountable to its own people? The sovereignty of that people also resides in their ability to have those laws applied and interpreted in their own courts. To reclaim sovereignty is therefore not to advance propositions about power in international relationships or economic independence. It is simply about the right to national autonomy.

That being so, is it not inconceivable that the Government should accept the principle of dynamic alignment, thereby tying a democratically elected Government in this country in the future to accept whatever new regulations and laws might be promulgated by the institutions of the European Union? Should not the EU therefore, if its negotiators really care about the well-being and prosperity of its peoples, move quickly to agree a trade deal that involves no tariffs or quotas, and enables us to pursue the friendly, co-operative and mutually advantageous trading arrangements that surely we all should seek?

[Lord True]

Yes, I very much agree with the noble Lord’s analysis but I think that the House, when it has a Minister for a brief time, does not want a philosophical discussion. But I take his side in the discussion that he will no doubt have with the noble Lord afterwards, and agree with what he said. Our objective is to have a free trade agreement; that is what we have asked for and what the EU once offered. It is my hope that we will get there and have the other agreements that the Statement refers to as well. Our approach is based on a precedent that the EU has accepted with other nations. We see no reason why it should not be accepted. The EU has not asked for the kind of alignment that the noble Lord referred to in a number of other agreements that it has already accepted.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend and welcoming him to his new position, does he recall the Government— or the leave campaign’s position—at the time of the referendum clearly stating that they were seeking frictionless trade with our European partners? Why have we left that position, and is it not explicit in the Statement he has just read out that the Government intend to leave the negotiating table in June? As my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones asked, is it not incumbent that we should return to this House to discuss that position and the impact that leaving on World Trade Organization rules will have on the British economy?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not answer for Vote Leave; I was not a member of Vote Leave. I was trying to lead a local authority at the time. Business in this House is a matter for the usual channels. The direct answer to her question is no; the Government intend to procure a successful negotiation and successful outcome, and we hope very much that that view will be shared by our friends and allies in Europe. We will continue the negotiations with a view to a successful free trade agreement and agreement on the other matters covered in the Statement before December.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Like the Minister, who I welcome to his post, I do not want an academic debate about sovereignty, but I do think that, in having a sensible discussion, it is fundamental to recognise the difference between having relationships with other countries via treaties or any other mechanism and a relationship between sovereign states. To have the kind of organisation that exists in the European Union, of which we are thankfully no longer a member—whereby the multi- national organisation can legislate, trumping domestic law, and that can be interpreted by courts outside the control of the nation state and its legislators cannot be removed by the people of the nation state—is a difference in kind. It is not a gradation. It is time that people recognised that and put that particular argument to one side.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I profoundly agree with what the noble Lord said. I thank him for what he personally said and reciprocate with my respect for him and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and their strong voices through the past two or three years against the overwhelming view on the other side. I agree with their analysis; I do not agree with that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend to his place on the Front Bench. Can he assure the House that, in the negotiations, the highest priority will be given to delivering on the Conservative manifesto commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses and producers will have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom and that that will be enshrined in UK law? Does he also agree that, while Monsieur Barnier might have one interpretation of the protocol, it is not the only interpretation?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I accept that point and I can certainly assure my noble friend that the interests of all nations of this United Kingdom will be absolutely paramount, and respected and considered at every stage of negotiations this year.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord to his new position. I have two brief questions. First, we heard in the Statement and we have heard from many other noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that we want to maintain or exceed the current EU standards on the environment and workers’ rights. If that is the case, why is there any problem with signing up to them if we are planning to keep or exceed them?

Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the number of times the word “sovereignty” appeared in the Statement. We are focused on issues of national sovereignty but, if the multinational corporations around the world were countries, Walmart would be the 24th largest country ranked by GDP, Volkswagen the 43rd and Amazon—the great tax dodger—the 58th. Can the Minister reassure me on how we will maintain our sovereignty as a solitary nation state up against those giant multinational corporations, when we have found that difficult even as part of a giant union of the peoples of Europe?

[Lord True]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Howell said, the United Kingdom will never be a solitary nation state. The United Kingdom seeks friendship and alliance with every other nation of the world except those that, by their behaviour, do not merit it. I do not believe that this great United Kingdom is incapable of doing on its own what 135 other nations are capable of doing. I do not accept that we have to be told by an external power or nation what we must do as we cook our eggs in the morning. The British people want to cook their own eggs.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the European Commission responded very warmly in its mandate to what was proposed in the political declaration and that the Statements we have heard since, from the Prime Minister and today, have simply disregarded or hardly mentioned the political declaration, which was approved by so many members of his party? Can he reassure me that we will see a Statement very soon that includes things in the declaration? I am thinking particularly of international security, the CSDP missions that we do and international development.

[Lord True]

My Lords, international security will be a separate strand in discussions. On my first outing at the Dispatch Box I am not going to interpose my body between what the Prime Minister has lately said and what the House might or might not want him to say. All I will say—I respect and understand noble Lords’ feelings after what has happened—is that we must all try together, whatever our position, in the interests of this country and the European Union, to assist a constructive, positive and friendly outcome.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 January be approved.

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

My Lords, in coming to the Dispatch Box for the first time to answer for the Cabinet Office, if the House will allow me, I want to place on record my appreciation of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. His charm, urbanity and liberal mind won the affection of everyone in the House, and in doing business his openness, intelligence and sense of duty won the respect of the House. If I can do half as good a job as he did, I will have tried to serve the House well.

The health of our democracy depends on elections being accessible and fair for voters and those seeking election. Last February, an important step forward was taken towards ensuring disabled candidates standing elections share a level playing field and are treated fairly. The election expenses exclusion order made sure that expenses incurred as a result of a candidate’s disability would no longer count towards their limit on election spending when taking part in UK-wide elections, including parliamentary general elections.

This instrument will prevent disability-related expenses having to be counted as part of a disabled candidate’s election spending limit in a police and crime commissioner election. PCCs should be as reflective as possible of the diverse communities that they serve and to whom they are accountable. We must make sure that the process of standing in any election does not itself unfairly impact upon disabled people and make them less likely to stand for election.

That is why, through this instrument, we are seeking to help remove one potential barrier that might prevent disabled people running to be a police and crime commissioner and represent their community. The instrument will insert disability-related expenses into Part 2 of Schedule 7 to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, which set out the general exclusions from the spending limits of candidates standing at PCC elections. The result will be that reasonably incurred disability-related expenditure will not form part of a disabled candidate’s expenses and will therefore not contribute to their spending limits.

The instrument also brings forward changes to election forms so that they are clearer to voters about when a PCC has been given the power to undertake fire and rescue authority functions, which currently applies in only four authorities. This will make sure that, in most places, all relevant election forms better inform voters about the scope of the functions of the PCC being elected.

We have consulted on this instrument with the Electoral Commission, there has been cross-government collaboration between the departments involved and all the consulted stakeholders have been supportive of the proposals. The Parliamentary Parties Panel has also been informed that the changes are being brought forward. It is a panel that, as noble Lords will know, meets on a quarterly basis to discuss electoral issues, consisting of representatives of each of the parties that have two or more MPs. We believe it is vital that the instrument is in place as soon as possible so that these changes are effective during the preparations for and the build-up to the PCC elections, which next come on 7 May. That is why the instrument will come into force the day after it is made.

The Electoral Commission released guidance in January of this year for the upcoming May PCC elections that included information on the exemption being brought forward today. This should ensure that candidates can take note of the exemption in reasonable time before the election.

By providing a more level playing field for disabled people standing for PCC elections, and giving voters clearer information about what powers they are voting a PCC candidate to take on, this instrument builds on the wider work the Government are undertaking to support our democracy and make elections more accessible to voters and candidates alike. The changes may seem a little administrative and technical in nature, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that their application in the real world for local democracy will be actual and tangible, and I know that they will be appreciated by some people. I commend this instrument to the House.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his position as Minister. I am sure we will have some humorous debates. I am sure they will be lively and I fear that some of them will be very controversial, but this evening’s debate is not really a controversial one, because I am sure that nobody in this House will think that anyone who is disadvantaged by disability should have to bear the additional costs of personal expenses arising from their disability counting against any limit on campaign expenditure.

I am not sure it is really enough to say that, if they have these additional costs, they should not count against the limit if they have the funds. The question really is: how could they be helped to have the funds to make sure that they can compete on a level playing field? My first question to the Minister in his new position is: what is the Government’s current attitude towards helping disabled candidates stand for election? We have experience of the Access to Elected Office Fund and the EnAble Fund, but I understand that, after 31 March, there will be no funding from a government source to help disabled people to stand in these or any future elections.

Overall, as the Minister outlined, the changes proposed to election regulations are really common sense, but the need to make these minor changes highlights the way that we need to codify and modernise all our election laws, as recommended by the Law Commissions some years ago. What can he tell us about the Government’s current attitude towards codifying and modernising the whole range of election laws? The Law Commissions have done much of the work on this; they say that there are so many different pieces of legislation and there have been so many new elections since that legislation was drafted that we need to look at this issue as a whole, instead of, as I fear we will, looking at each individual bit of legislation. The danger will be that, as we look at each individual bit of legislation and potential reforms, the accusation may be made in this House that legislation is brought forward for particular parts of election law that favour a particular party that is in government and not parties that are not in government. Surely it would be better to follow the advice of the Law Commissions and look at all our election law in the round, codify it properly, modernise it and make sure we proceed on a fair basis.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to the Dispatch Box today. I congratulate him on his appointment and I wish him well with his new responsibilities. I look forward to the many debates we will have over the coming weeks and months. I also very much agree with his comments about the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I enjoyed working with very much and who is always worth listening to.

I have no issue whatever with the order before us today. A number of points have been raised, which I support, and I look forward to the noble Lord’s response. It is right that we ensure that candidates with a disability are able to stand for election so that we can ensure that our elected officials and officers reflect the people that they represent. I am very happy to support the order to ensure that expenditure related to a candidate’s disability does not come out of the election expenditure limit.

I follow on from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made. I have mentioned it many times before and, every time, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would agree with me. I would say, “Our election law is not fit for purpose,” and he would say, “I agree entirely.” We had a number of meetings—the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy all came along—and discussed these things. Everyone agrees that our election law is not fit for purpose and we have to sort it out.

One good thing about the election result is that this Government have been in office now for four or five years. They are not worried about what is going on at the other end, so they have plenty of time to look at this properly. We have to sort out election law; it is not fit for purpose. It was created for analogue elections; we now have digital elections, and we really must sort this out. I implore the noble Lord, when he goes back to his officials in the Cabinet Office, to tell his colleagues that they should use the fact that they have a majority in the other place to make sure that we can quickly, but also calmly, get to a situation where we can revise our electoral law to ensure that when people are elected, the law around the elections is fit for purpose and does what it is supposed to do. Having said that, I fully support the order before the House today.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind comments. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, say that we may be having some controversial and lively debates in the future, perhaps I should fix those comments in aspic so that I can save them and later bring them out of the fridge. But I respect tremendously each of the noble Lords who spoke, and I am very grateful for their comments.

On the EnAble Fund and its continuation, there is a point that the political parties have to accept their own responsibility to encourage disabled candidates to stand, as parties do. In terms of helping disabled people, every part of society has its contribution to make, and that must include political parties. The EnAble Fund was designed as an interim measure to allow political parties time to put in place support themselves. We are not reiterating the fact that political parties have a place. The Government are considering what support they might provide to succeed the current EnAble Fund, which I acknowledge is running out. The disability unit is currently considering options in connection with the national strategy for disabled people, which is due to be published later this year, so I can give the noble Lord some encouragement on that. But I reiterate that this applies to all political parties, and that they all deserve praise for what they are doing to encourage disabled candidates.

In the general points made by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Kennedy of Southwark—who was elected a councillor on the same day as I was in 1986; we have tramped our parallel ways while serving our parties since then, and it is very nice to see him opposite—they both asked more broadly about what the Government were going to do to deal with electoral law. On my first outing at the Dispatch Box, I am not going to rise as a trout to those particular flies, but I will take note of what both noble Lords said and will take that back to colleagues.

On the question that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised about the word “reasonable”, I am not going to tread too far into that area for obvious reasons, having spent some years throwing darts at the person on the Front Bench from behind. With a former Lord Chancellor behind, I am not going to have a long go at it. But it is true that the draft order does not define what a “reasonable” election expense is. There is an argument that trying to provide an exhaustive list of such expenses would potentially narrow the scope of application and could exclude some disability-related expenses that have not been listed.

The order gives some examples of the kind of thing that might be applied, but the Government want to ensure that the order exempts all—I must not use the “r” word that the noble Lord mentioned—disability election expenses that it can. I can give him further details of how the system actually works, but there is, first of all, a process of examination of the case and, secondly, obviously anybody who infringes electoral law in any form faces the risk of penalties thereafter. There is a balance, in that there is a right of confidentiality: some people wish to have some confidence about their disability and that also has to be taken into account. The reason there is no list of particular cases is that if something were inadvertently omitted it would be excluded from scope. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Lord, and if he would like any more information, I am sure we could provide it. If there are no more questions, I will thank noble Lords who have taken part.

The Government appreciate the unity on this matter. The instrument makes an important if small change to the electoral system. It can only be a good thing for local democratic representation and accountability: we all want to see more participation in that. Having made those points and tried to answer the questions, and having acknowledged the kindly comments, I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord True Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, I shall briefly echo the comments made by my noble friend Lady Hayter from the Front Bench. I respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and those who support him that it is quite difficult for some of us to understand what we are doing here. This House agreed that this Bill should have a Second Reading and that it should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and it has already had a substantial element of Committee scrutiny. It is really difficult to see what purpose is being served by the debate we are now having, in which the substantive issues from Second Reading are being reintroduced, other than to delay the progress of the Bill. I hope that we can bring this debate to a swift conclusion and move on with the Committee stage.

[Lord True (Con)]

Those strictures of course apply to the noble Baroness’s noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as well, who has perfectly legitimately laid a Motion before your Lordships. I am never popular on my side of the House when I say this, but I agree with the spirit of that Motion and express some sympathy. I agree with some of the sentiments expressed, and I think we should be dealing with amendments as much as we can. I reject the charge of filibuster, particularly when it comes from those Benches that we have had to listen to for day after day filibustering on the question of Brexit.

I agree in principle with what my noble friend Lord Cormack says about incremental reform, but where is the incremental reform on the Liberal Democrat Benches? We introduced provision for retirement, and when I looked at the figures today I noted that despite the retirement provisions being in place for months there are still 98 Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They are not stampeding for the exit. There is no incremental reform there. There is no increment at all. I think that those who do not partake in the spirit of reform should be the last to lecture the House on the subject.

There is the question of proportion, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Cormack. The reality has been alluded to briefly and is that the effect of this measure, if your Lordships pass it, is over time substantially to change the proportions within the House. It has been argued by others that we need to do something because, otherwise, proportions would change. If this measure is passed—I have an amendment on this matter later so I will not develop it at great length—then 20% of the Conservative Benches, 16% of the Cross Benches, 4% of the Liberal Democrats and 2% of the Labour Party would be removed. So it has a profound effect over time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I can see where the noble Lord’s argument is going, but could he tell me at what point we would reach those figures? How many years will it take before those reductions took place?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am not an actuary, but I know that at least 20 of the hereditary Peers on the Conservative Benches are already over 75 and a considerable number of them are over 80. I do not wish the Grim Reaper to visit any of my noble friends or indeed the noble Lords opposite, but the noble Lord knows very well that that is the position. It will happen. This would be statute, and over time that proportion will change. I have an amendment later that I hope will address that question; I hope we will get on and get to it, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will accept it.

I ask your Lordships not to accept strictures from the Opposition Benches but to guard the point of proportion. I agree that this should be a matter for the Government. I think we should also be looking at the issue of more comprehensive reform, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, if I may add to what my noble friend has just said on the issue of proportion, in a smaller House of, say, 600 Members, if Burns is implemented, the proportions of the hereditaries and of the Bishops would simply revert to what they were immediately after the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999. So in a sense one could argue that the proportion of hereditaries and of Bishops has declined gradually beyond what was agreed at the time of the reform in 1999.

I also support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I believe it would be wrong of your Lordships’ House to agree to remove the hereditary by-elections, for the very simple reason that it was made very clear in 1999 that the hereditary element would remain until and unless the House was substantially reformed into some kind of more democratically elected Chamber. I have heard it said on many occasions that the retention of 92 hereditary Peers and the system of by-elections to replace them was only ever intended to be a temporary measure. That is not my recollection of what happened at the time. I remember my noble friend Lord Salisbury, as he now is, explaining to a meeting of Conservative Peers that it was quite likely that the by-elections would remain for a very long time because he thought it likely that the House would not agree to substantive reform. My noble friend’s characteristically astute judgment has proved correct. It was on this basis that a large majority of Peers decided to support the passage of the Act. It would be quite wrong to change the terms of the agreement then reached without once again seeking the opinion of all those who were disenfranchised by the House of Lords Act.

I also take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said in the debate on 11 July on the Procedure Committee report. I understand that the committee considered the proposal that Standing Orders should be amended to provide that the whole House should take part in hereditary by-elections. That is different from the change that I think the Procedure Committee should consider, which is that the three party blocs and the Cross-Bench bloc should be retained for all by-elections other than those in the list of 15 Peers who originally held office as Deputy Speakers, but that those four blocs should be opened up to life Peers of the same party. This would get rid of the charge that the Liberal Democrat and Labour Party by-elections, with as few as three electors, are absurd. I think the House should make this change.

It is also right that the Conservative and Cross-Bench life Peers should have a vote in the selection of a new hereditary colleague equivalent to what their hereditary colleagues have, even though the existing electorates of 30 or 40 are not so ridiculous and have provided for some quite competitive and interesting elections. Indeed, I do not think there is any logical reason for the difference in the Standing Orders adopted in 1999 between the ability of the life Peers to vote in the Deputy Speaker elections but not in the single-party bloc elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, for the record, I am not a hereditary Peer, nor do I favour the outcome that would follow the passage of this legislation in time, of an all-appointed House. We have many Bills in this House that are opposed, and we have seen a number of them attract far more public attention in recent weeks, where Bills have gone on for day after day in Committee. I do not think it is appropriate or reasonable to call fellow Peers who have a point of principle to put forward a “disgrace” or to say that one is “ashamed”. I am ashamed when I see in the House other people stand up and say that Members of this House have no right to put forward a point in principle. I raised reasonable objections to this Bill at Second Reading. There are strong objections to the Bill—in my view, it should be a government Bill and in terms of the proportionality effect, which I have described, and of the binding commitment in honour. All those arguments are reasonable, and there are others. I will not be silenced by people saying that I am a disgrace or that I bring disrepute on the House. What is our Parliament for if not to allow those who have a minority view to put it before this House?

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, if I may continue speaking to Amendment 15 about Scottish and Northern Irish Peers, let us consider the position in 1999 when, according to Dod’s Parliamentary Companion, the House had 785 Members in total. Of these, Dod’s labelled 85 as Scottish and no fewer than 67 as Northern Irish. The regional numbers of the current House of Commons show that, at the last election, there were 59 Scottish MPs elected and 18 Northern Irish MPs. On the same basis, there should be nine elected Northern Irish hereditary Peers and 11 Scottish ones. Current figures for the composition of the 90 hereditary Peers in the House show Scotland adequately represented but that Northern Irish Peers, on the above alternative comparisons, should number between three and eight, rather than the one Peer at present. I will give a brief historical background to support my argument—

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, to save the time of the House, and perhaps to protect its reputation, can the noble Lord confirm that, if his argument on this amendment has merit, he will seek to test the opinion of the House and put in Tellers so that we can show our opinion? If, on the other hand, he is not going to test of the opinion of the House, or not put in Tellers and waste our time, surely he is accepting that his argument does not have real merit and he is simply trying to filibuster and defeat the Bill.

[Lord True]

Is the noble Lord’s view that no amendment should be put before this House unless it is put to a Division?

[Lord Northbrook]

I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the best way to respond to the spirit of the Burns report would be to pass this Bill and turn it into an Act, because, for as long as it remains on the statute book, for every one hereditary Peer who leaves for whatever reason, he or she—well, it is “he”, actually—will always be replaced by another hereditary Peer. Everyone else would be under a system whereby it is two out and one in, with the exception of the hereditary Peers. I suggest that if the noble Lord is concerned about the Burns report, he should withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True]

My Lords, surely this is a matter than can be addressed when we reach the Burns report. I understand the fervour of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is a good old Labour man, to end the procedure that his party agreed on. However, every time he puts his point before the House, I feel that I must repeatedly say, so that the public realise, that the result of this legislation would be the creation in time of an all-appointed House of Lords. That is the effect of this legislation, but the noble Lord never refers to the effect. One of my fundamental objections is that we would, through passing this legislation, create over time an all-appointed House of Lords without the consent of the British people to a manifesto commitment or a Bill brought before Parliament by a Government. That is the proper way to proceed. This House should not, by a hole-in-the-wall procedure masquerading as modernisation, pass legislation that will have the effect in time of creating an all-appointed House for which there is no current democratic consent. Every time the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, makes his point, I will put that point before the public.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this is an all-appointed House; it is just that some people are here because their fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers were appointed by the King or the Queen at the time. It is an all-appointed House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I agree very much with the sentiments of the noble Lord who has just spoken. The trouble is that some of us see this as a party political strike against the Conservative Party, given the disproportionate number of Conservative Peers who would be removed. This was not a move that has been made by the Conservative Party—rather, it has been made by the Labour Benches. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with support from his Front Bench, was rejoicing in the fact that he had universal approbation. Underneath this Bill is a political strike and a poison. It upsets many people who have given long service to this House. It upsets the traditional balance of the House without, as I have said before, broader democratic consent.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[Lord True]

No, at this stage I will not give way to my noble friend. He has had plenty to say, so I will give way to him later.

It is very unfortunate that the Bill is being pressed in this way and at this time which, notwithstanding my noble friend’s agreement with it, is in my judgment party political. Of course I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I was grateful to have the fifth cavalry arrive to give support to the point I have been trying to make; namely, that the effect of this Bill is to create what the majority of people here want but do not proclaim, which is a permanent nominated House. That is what they want and that is why they support this allegedly incremental step.

Perhaps, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has just said, we could come back to the amendment. While I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Northbrook, the Bill as I read it excludes all 92 peerages in the sense that there will be no succession. It therefore would do what my noble friend Lord Cormack has said he does not want to see happen: it would exclude the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal.

I will give way to my noble friend.

[Lord Cormack]

I am most grateful. I will make one brief point. If my noble friend had been in the Lobby, he would have seen plenty of Conservative colleagues, including some very prominent ones, in it. The point is this: the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has said repeatedly, is to abolish by-elections. It does not touch on the Lord Great Chamberlain or the Earl Marshal because they are not subject to by-elections. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has got this wrong and he has acknowledged that he has done so. He has made his personal observation that he does not see why these two people need to be Members of the House of Lords. That is his point of view—it is not mine—but it is not affected by his Bill because it deals with by-elections, and only with by-elections.

[Lord True]

As always I thank my noble friend for his agile clarification for the House. I agree that I would not want to see him upset by the removal of the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal. By the way, the previous Earl Marshal was a very assiduous attender of this place.

If the House is going to be asked to vote, we need to know what we are voting on. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has put this Bill before the House. My noble friend Lord Northbrook has tried to clarify the point which my noble friend Lord Cormack supports, which is that the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal should stay. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, thinks that they should go. It is a rather minor point, but actually this is a legislative House. Given that, before we vote, can we be told by the mover of the Bill what he is proposing? He wishes to remove all 92; that is the effect of his Bill and that is his intent. We have heard what my noble friend Lord Cormack says, but what is the mover of the Bill telling the House?

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the Bill is quite clear. It says:

“No more than 92 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1”.


That means that the 92, including the two referred to by the noble Lord, would no longer be Members of the House of Lords—or rather that their membership would not pass to their successors. It does not affect in the slightest their capacity to perform ceremonial duties. I have tried to follow this but I simply do not understand the method of succession for the Lord Great Chamberlain; it is beyond me. Do not try to explain it. I want to protect the Bill in its present form and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True]

The effect of the Bill is not as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said—that the two Peers or their successors would remain. They would all go. That is a perfectly clear position and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for clarifying it. It is not what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, wished for but I am thankful for the clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, one or two people in the House for whom I have great respect have suggested that we could solve the issue of absurd by-elections on a party basis—because in the case of Labour and the Lib Dems, we have only four hereditary Peers, so we get these idiotic procedures—where the whole House votes. I have two problems with that, one of which is insurmountable. The first is the turnout, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. He rightly said that turnout figures can be very high in party by-elections: in the Lib Dem by-election, I think that the turnout was 100%. There were three electors, all of whom voted, so that is a high percentage.

However, turnout figures are consistently very low—often less than 50%—when a turnout of the whole House is required. That is lower than the lowest turnout in any constituency in the country at the last general election, by way of a useless fact, mainly because I am sure that people like me think that the system is idiotic so do not bother. Certainly, the whole-House elections have a low turnout so the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would be proposing a system with a low turnout.

The far more fundamental issue, which is why I hope that the House will reject this proposal, is that this does not nothing whatsoever about the spectacularly unrepresentative nature of the register of hereditary Peers. The question of who can vote is one thing—by all means, you can put forward a proposal for the whole House if you want to—but we would still face a choice restricted to the 211 people on the register, 210 of whom are men and among whom there are no members of ethnic minorities, for example. It is utterly absurd to proceed with by-elections, whatever the mechanism of election or the electorate, if the eligibility of the people to stand is so totally unrepresentative. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True]

I can see entirely the logic of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Obviously, it is an argument more broadly for reform of peerage law, not just through the Bill.

It is not for me to speak on behalf of the Procedure Committee, although I am a member of it. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that this matter was put to the committee on his request, as well as that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, I believe, speaking from memory. That is true. The Procedure Committee considered it but felt—as I believe is the mood of the House generally, beyond your Lordships’ committee—that with the Burns report’s proposals before the House and a stage of incremental change approaching, this was perhaps not the moment to address the perfectly understandable and reasonable point put forward by the noble Lord. That is my personal position; I do not speak on behalf of committee members. I understand that the House can take a different view from the committee. My noble friend Lord Caithness sees his proposal as an improvement to our system. It is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has given the reasons why he opposes it. As far as the Procedure Committee is concerned, with this Bill and the Burns Committee before the House, this might be best addressed at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord True]

33: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert “, if that person is, or has been, a member of a political party group within the House of Lords which has at the time of the vacancy a higher proportion of the total membership of the House than the proportion that political party secured of the total votes cast at the preceding General Election”

[Lord True]

My Lords, I must tell the House that I do not recall having put the case for Amendment 33. I will not detain the House with it at this time. I believe that it is a profoundly important question. It relates to the fact that there is a grotesque overrepresentation of Liberal Democrats in this Chamber—a far more glaring problem in terms of the management of democracy than the presence of the by-elections for hereditary Peers. Since I discovered this morning that it had been listed as “already debated”, although I remember degrouping the matter, I will not detain the House because it would be discourteous, given that it affects the Liberal Democrats’ interests for me to pursue it. I accept that I will not move it, but I give notice to the House that if we reach Report on this Bill I will take that opportunity to raise the question of Liberal Democrat overrepresentation, because I do not think that this minor matter in the Bill should go forward before that glaring democratic anomaly has been addressed. I am afraid that it is a matter we will have to return to.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I apologise that the great reaper has not taken me away yet, but does the noble Lord not think that there is an overrepresentation of white, privileged, well-off, middle-class men—or even more privileged men—in this House compared with the population as a whole? Does he not think that there is an imbalance in this House in people who represent ordinary people in this country?

[Lord True]

My Lords, that would be an argument for reform and change of the House. I do not do identity politics, I am afraid. I regard every member of our society, whatever race or gender, as equal and deserving equal respect. This House is a deposit of historical tradition. It is as it is. The composition of this House—it has become largely a nominated House—is the result of the choice of party-political leaders in this country. Let us not have all this flim-flam about representation. If we want representation, let us have election. So far as the composition of this House is concerned, with primary life Peers, nominated people who get attention, lucky folk who get a selector of one—the Prime Minister or the party leader of the day—who says, “Go there”, the noble Baroness’s strictures should be addressed not to this House, but to the leaders of the political parties, including the Liberal Democrats, who have sent here the people who are here. That is a matter we can debate further when we come back to it, but it is entirely irrelevant to this Bill, which will do nothing—

[Lord Tyler]

It is also totally irrelevant to the amendment to which the noble Lord is supposed to be speaking.

[Lord True]

I gave notice out of courtesy. I came here to speak to this amendment; out of courtesy to the Liberal Democrats, when I discovered that it was listed as “already debated”—I have explained my position—I said that I would not speak to the amendment but that I would bring it back on Report. Out of courtesy to the Liberal Democrats, having been asked a question from the noble Lord’s noble friend, I gave an answer. I would like to proceed to the amendment before the House, but we will return to this matter.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Moved by

[Lord True]

33A: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert “, if, within a month of the vacancy arising, the Prime Minister has recommended to Her Majesty the conferment of a peerage under the Life Peerages Act 1958 on a person who has the same party affiliation as that of the group to which the deceased excepted peer was originally elected”

[Lord True]

My Lords, I shall now address Amendment 33A, which, alongside Amendment 33, which addresses the Liberal Democrat question, addresses a glaring defect in this legislation. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is no longer in his place. I have tried to persuade him before now, outside of this House, to address the point that Amendment 33A seeks to address. I do not wish to see this Bill proceed for wider reasons, but if it does, it will lead not only to the creation of a wholly nominated House—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and one that I have made—but, as alluded to earlier in our discussions, to a rebalancing over time of political strength in the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is returning. I apologise for having said that he was not in his place. I do not wish to repeat to the House, but I made the point that the noble Lord and I have discussed outside the House the Bill’s impact on the political balance in the House over time. The position is that, because of the way the colleges came into being—I was involved in the negotiations in 1999—the hereditary peerage currently constitutes I think 48, at the moment, although 49 is the normal number and maybe that has just changed, of the total Conservative strength. Some 20% of the Conservative Party’s strength in this House—the party of government—is provided for by hereditary Peers as a result of a historical, or I might call it incremental, evolution of the nature of the House.

[Lord Snape]

On that point, would the noble Lord reflect that back in 1945, when the Attlee Government were elected by a very substantial majority, there were I think six hereditary Labour Peers in this place? The vast majority of the Liberal Democrats, who he complains about, were created by a Conservative Prime Minister during the coalition. It seems that his main source of complaint about political imbalance in this place is based on the fact that there would be a dilution of the centuries-old Conservative majority.

[Lord Snape]

I am not quite sure who is intervening on who here, but I was one of Tony Blair’s Peers. I remind the noble Lord that when Tony Blair was elected in 1997, with a very substantial majority indeed, much of the legislation in the early part of that first Parliament was blocked by the Tory majority in this House. “Tony’s cronies”, as they were known, pale into insignificance compared with the number of Peers created by David Cameron during his period. He said openly that this House should reflect the majority of the Government of the day in the House of Commons and behaved accordingly. We should have a bit less of this point from the noble Lord, Lord True. He should come back to reality and stick to his amendment.

[Lord True]

The noble Lord might hear a bit less if he did not provoke me by making an intervention.

[Lord Snape]

That is what Parliament is for, though the noble Lord might not agree with it. He might not have conducted himself in the same way when he ran that local council—but that is the way this place works and he should get used to the fact.

[Lord True]

The noble Lord imputes to me things that I do not agree with. I have given way to him twice and enjoy his interventions. It is only that if he makes an intervention, it requires a courteous answer from me. That is the point that I was trying to make—not that he was not right to intervene.

I shall come back to my fundamental point, but I have to address the point that the noble Lord made. The historical position in 1945 was entirely different. There were no life Peers; there was a historic House, with, yes, a huge preponderance of Conservatives, partly as a result of the Irish home rule debate and partly as a result of the rise of the Labour Party, which gave great service, and still gives great service, to this country. There was an imbalance. That was addressed within that House by convention and by mutual respect—the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, spoke about earlier that enables the House to work: fairness. The great reforming Labour Government of 1945 changed Britain with the acquiescence of the House of Lords, notwithstanding the numbers. That is the historical reality.

I do not think that it is really relevant to the present position, which, to return to the argument that I was trying to make, is that 20% of the Conservative Party’s strength in this House is made up of hereditary Peers. We have heard distinguished contributions from the Cross Benches today. Sixteen per cent of their strength in this House, because of the way the colleges were agreed in the negotiations with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, is made up of hereditary Peers. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, it is 4% or perhaps 5%, and in the case of the Labour Party it is 2%. The raw numbers are different. We would lose over time on our side 49; the Labour Party would lose four—a difference of 45 net votes. That would obviously have an effect on the composition of the House. Meanwhile, the majority of the House is saying perfectly reasonably—I do not happen to agree with the argument—that the numbers of the House should be limited. I agree with the Prime Minister’s restraint in creating new peerages; David Cameron created far too many—perhaps including this one.

[A noble Lord]

Hear, hear.

[Lord True]

Tony Blair went much further. He went up to 354.

[Lord Snape]

He did no such thing.

[Lord True]

He created 354 Peers, my Lords. Again, we do not want to get sidetracked, but I will send the noble Lord the figures.

If this Bill goes through, there would a disproportionate attrition in the numbers of Conservative Peers and Cross-Bench Peers at a time when the call from everybody in the House is not to create new Peers and to limit the number to 600. The effect of the Bill would be noticeably to reduce over time the proportion of Conservative and Cross-Bench Peers in the House. That is a perfectly reasonable aspiration of the parties opposite, but it is not a proper effect of a Private Member’s Bill. I have therefore suggested an amendment which, in this transitional period when we are told that great new incremental reform is coming after the Burns report, provides that, so long as the reforms proceed and if this Bill goes through, there should be an understanding—just as there was an understanding in 1999 that if a Labour Peer died, the Conservatives would vote for a Labour Peer under the Carter convention.

To avoid that disproportionate effect, whereby the Conservatives would lose nearly 50 out of 250 Peers whereas Labour would lose four out of nearly 200, there should be provision for a life peerage to be created, rather than election to take place, so that there would be a steady state in political strength in this House. That would ameliorate the political impact of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the effect of which I and many others believe—I am not entering into the question of the hereditary peerage, although, as noble Lords will know, I have my views on it—would be to create a disproportionate political strike over time at two parts of the House: the Conservatives and the Cross Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

I think that the Conservatives currently have 60 more Peers than the Labour Party. Does the noble Lord regard that as fair? Surely, we should get to parity—which I believe was the convention established when the House of Lords Act was passed in 1999—before his amendment takes effect.

[Lord True]

There is an argument there. As I understand it, the convention is that the governing party should not have a majority over the opposition parties—and we certainly do not have that on this side. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was present during the debates on leaving the European Union, but he may well have noticed, in the course of those debates, that the Conservative Party did not command an overwhelming majority in your Lordships’ Chamber.

[Lord Adonis]

My noble friend Lord Grocott knows these things because he was Chief Whip, but I do not believe that the Labour Party was the largest party in this House until a few years before it left office. Even after the passage of the 1999 Act, for some years the Conservative Party was still larger. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that the Conservative Party needs a buffer of 50 or 60 seats in order to deal with the disunity in its own ranks?

[Lord True]

The noble Lord is suggesting that, and of course it is utter nonsense. I will not follow on with what I am tempted to say, because it is very rare that the noble Lord speaks nonsense. The reality is, of course, that in time there will be attrition. I believe that anybody who has the honour of being Prime Minister should have regard to balance. I had the honour of working in the Administration in No. 10 under Sir John Major, and it was put to Sir John frequently at that time that it would be good to have more Labour creations. I think that the failure to have more Labour creations at that time led, probably indirectly, to the anger that caused the 1999 Act. Of course, there should be fairness as well as restraint in creation, and I think that the Prime Minister is trying to have that.

My point is that I do not think that there is a principle of friendship and comity across the House for a majority in the House which is not the Conservative Party—although many might agree with it. I am sorry if they do; I try to persuade them. But I do not think that we should pass legislation—and I could not support legislation—the back door of which would be to strike heavily at the political strength of the Conservative Party, the governing party. It would cut the number from 250 to 200—which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said he would welcome. Yes, it would be over time, but I remind the House that, I think, 20 Conservative hereditary Peers are already over 75 and a number are over 85, and the effect will take place.

I have prolonged my remarks because of interventions. I think that the principle is clear: I believe that, if the House wants to proceed with legislation, an element of fairness towards the Conservative Benches and the Cross Benches could be achieved by including an amendment of this type. I beg to move.

[Lord Grocott]

Perhaps I could clear this up with a couple of facts. On the question of the party strengths in the House of Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord True, need worry too much about a Conservative leader ensuring that their party strength in the House of Lords remains strong. By way of illustration, the Labour Party was elected with a huge majority of 157 in 1997, at which time there was a colossal majority of some 200 or 300 Conservative Peers in the House of Lords. Many of them—90% of them—went in the 1999 Act and we have only the cream left: the 10% who were elected, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, among them. However, it was in 2006, nine years after the Labour Government were elected, that Labour became the biggest party, although obviously not the majority party. So the Tories were the biggest party for the first nine years of a Labour Government with a majority of 157 in the House of Commons. The noble Lord need not worry: the Tories are much better at making sure that they have friends in this House. Does he know how long it was after the 2010 election before normal service was resumed and the Tories were the biggest party again? It was just two years: by 2012 the Tories were the biggest party. So if the noble Lord, Lord True, is having sleepless nights about Tory leaders not appointing enough Tory Peers, I think that he can sleep well.

On the other crucial fact, with respect, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill over the disproportionate effect of my Bill on the future composition of parties in the House of Lords! I have been doing calculations on a sheet of paper while the noble Lord has been talking and just for the record, since the 1999 Act there have been, I make it, 34 hereditary Peer by-elections, roughly one third of the total. Of those, nine were Conservatives. So over a period of 19 years, although he used the phrase “striking heavily” about the effect on party representation in the House of Lords, the Conservative membership would be down nine if my Bill had been in operation. Just for the record, the Labour Party would have been down two, so the net benefit to the Labour Party in opposition over the Government would have been seven Peers over 19 years. Once again, I suggest to the noble Lord that he can sleep well still, even with that anxiety hanging over him about the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, having heard my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, down that road, but the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not alone in not adhering to the Labour manifesto policy on that matter. I am disappointed by the reaction. I do not believe this Bill is the right construction, and I oppose it in principle because it has the effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly said, of entrenching a nominated House. It is true that in the interests of fairness my amendment would, for a temporary period until reform, lead to a life Peer replacing a hereditary Peer, and he or she would be a nominated Peer. However, that is not the purpose of my amendment in the long term. I have every sympathy.

It is interesting that whenever a noble Lord stands up in your Lordships’ House and even entertains the idea of an elected House of Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is familiar with this, as am I—a sort of posse, often led by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, rises with a mugging party and says, “It shall not be”. The reality is that almost everyone here who is a life Peer wants to stay and believes the House is absolutely perfect as it is and that we should not have any reform. Yes, we can talk about little bits of increment but never reform. That is the reality of the position. I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that I do not accept her comments. She is right to a point to say that it is an atavistic and understandable wish of the Labour Party and socialist movement more generally to eliminate the hereditary Peerage in Parliament. It is a perfectly respectable wish that can, and I am sure will, be accomplished one day by a Labour Government because that is the way our democracy works. My basic submission, however, is that it should not be accomplished by stealth in a Private Member’s Bill that entrenches an all-appointed House. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, did not address that point. She returned to the evasion which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has continually used, saying that this is just about ending by-elections. It is not just about ending by-elections; it is about, over time, creating an all-nominated House. For those who wish to achieve something, there is a piece of Virgil—I shall not quote him because it is not right—that states that often those who wish to achieve something weave a different pretext for it.

My noble friend is rising to tell me that it is all about incremental reform and I will hear it again.

[Lord Cormack]

His noble friend is rising to say that if everyone is trying to come clean on things, will he please come clean and say that his policy is for the abolition of this House and its replacement by something totally different? That is a valid and respectable point of view, but that is his point of view. Mine is the opposite.

[Lord True]

I definitely respect that, but since I do not share his opinion that all will necessarily be hunky-dory once hereditary Peers go, it is perfectly legitimate for me to point out my point of view, and I will do it as often as I am invited to by my noble friend, who frequently reminds us of his own position. I do not necessarily think this Chamber would be made more effective by the removal of the hereditary Peerage, but that is not what I am arguing.

I am disappointed by the reaction to the amendment. The fact is that the effect of the Bill over time, whatever the noble Lord says, will be disproportionate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judd, said the Cross Benches could look after themselves, and of course they can. I am sure the hereditary Peers on the Cross Benches may well disagree with me when I say it is a pity that they are going. I will speak only from my point of view as a Conservative: I believe a Bill that would result in 20% of the Conservative strength in this House being removed over time is a political Bill and an unfair one.

I believe the Bill could be improved by the amendment; I think equity would be restored. The amendment would not stop the noble Lord’s Bill to abolish hereditary by-elections. It would permit him and the Labour Party to achieve their objective; it just asks for temporary political equity. I think it is mean-minded to reject it out of hand, and on these political grounds I wish to test the opinion of the House.

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

Lord True Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

I was not going to go down that track but the noble Lord is an old friend and I am delighted to dispose of that myth too. My noble friends in this House did not support the deal that was referred to. We were not in that particular discussion. We do not support the deal that was done but we have been unique in being consistent in supporting the case for reform. We supported the case for the 2012 Bill, which gained a majority in the House of Commons of 338—the biggest majority of that type for a big Bill. There was a majority on the Conservative Benches, a majority on the Labour Benches, and unanimity among the Liberal Democrats. I stand four-square behind the reform of your Lordships’ House but until that happens, just as we have to live with these unfortunate facts of life, we have to live with those facts of life too.

[Lord True (Con)]

I was a member of the official group that was tasked to negotiate the details of the arrangement entered into by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and Lord Cranborne, and there were Liberal Democrat representatives. I remember it well, so it is not actually true that the Liberal Democrats did not assent. The college system that noble Lords should be elected only by members of their party was insisted on by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, for the understandable reason at the time that they did not trust that the whole House would preserve the balance between the parties. As has happened since, because of the Carter convention, that has been respected. But it is simply not true that the Liberal Democrats were not there at the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

In deference to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I am not giving way to him but I declare my interest as a hereditary Peer and declare my interest that I know why I am here. Some people in this House are, I guess, still wondering why they are here.

What the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has said is absolutely right. I want to pick up three brief points on what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talked about 15-minute speeches in Committee. I hope that he will pass the Standing Orders on to his noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, who spoke for 40 minutes at 10 o’clock at night in moving an amendment, and various others who have prevaricated in that Bill.

I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on what she said on one Parliament not binding another, but actually, what her noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg proposed was personal on each of us who came to vote. It was not one Parliament binding another; it was for each of us who turned up to vote. Therefore, it is up to us to decide whether that is a principle that should be maintained, as I do, or that it is not a principle worth supporting anymore.

On the point about succession, I would be only too happy to support a Bill that gave the first child the right of succession to a hereditary peerage. That would be an extremely good move but, unfortunately, that is not the Bill that we are discussing. I have supported that before, and I would support it again.

[Lord True]

My Lords, perhaps I could briefly intervene and declare an interest as not being a hereditary Peer. I doubt that I would ever catch the eye of the selectors, even if there were such a provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to the late Ivor Richard. Having been present at those times, I add my appreciation to the great service that Lord Richard did to his country, his party and this House. It was an honour to deal with him, albeit briefly. The misunderstanding in what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said was that the late noble Lord did not support an all-appointed House, which this Bill would produce. I heard many times in those days and since that Lord Richard supported the principle of a two-thirds elected House—believing that the public should be entitled to elect their politicians to both Chambers of this Parliament—and a one-third appointed House. That was his provision, and he was summarily dismissed in 1998 and further and different arrangements were made. My view on the future of this House, to follow on from the noble Earl who spoke, is rather akin to that of the late Lord Richard. I do not see in the longer term why the public should not elect the politicians to both Chambers of this House.

Apart from the point of honour, which is a personal point, and which, having been involved, I do hold, I accept that that will not count for other Peers, and I respect that and do not expect to bind them to that—but that is something that moves me in this respect, as well as my feeling that it is an objective fact and truth, however much we may protest otherwise, that the longer-term effect of this Bill would be to create an all-appointed House by stealth, bit by bit and stage by stage. That is the inevitable result of your Lordships agreeing to this legislation and, if it went down there, the other place agreeing to it.

I personally believe that such a proposition of the creation of an all-appointed Chamber permanently as part of our legislature in the 21st century should be brought before Parliament in a serious and major Bill by a Government in future. Yes, if the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats or even our party succeeds in winning an election, and it is our view that we wish to present a Bill for the abolition of the hereditary peerage and creation of an all-appointed Chamber, that is the proper way in which to proceed in a democracy: to secure a mandate from the public before the election for such a great proposition, and to go forward. In my submission, we should not, in a hole-in-the-wall piece of legislation, move bit by bit towards that end. I detect a certain eagerness, exemplified on the Benches on my side, to push this Bill forward. It has not escaped my notice that some of the most eager are those who wish to create an all-appointed House in the longer term.

I have sympathy with those hereditary Peers who have spoken. I do not believe that we should start challenging the right by which one sits here. As has been said, that would be a difficult and uncomfortable place for some of us to go to. While we are all here, we are all equal. We are all Peers and should be allowed to be heard. I would not follow my noble friend Lord Hamilton entirely, but having sat through many hours on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the minority sometimes feels it has to hear a lot from the majority. I do not particularly care for majorities ganging up on minorities. I support Amendment 59, and if it is pressed I will vote for it.

I will make some other brief points. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, the argument about gender within the peerage is strong and valid, but that matter needs to be addressed by wider legislation on the peerage. If the noble Baroness wishes to attempt that, she can bring legislation forward.

So far as binding the Parliament’s successor is concerned, the original deal had two parts. The first was that, until the end of that Parliament, hereditary Peers who departed—the proper English word is died—would be replaced by ones on the list of those who had been put forward at the election. It was not conceived at the time that this arrangement would continue, but provision was made by Parliament for it to continue in successive Parliaments. That is the process we have now, which came into effect after the 2001 election. So provision was made specifically for this to last until such time as your Lordships’ House is finally reformed.

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, who is no longer in his place, referred to his Bill. A serious mistake was made in that Bill—which I did not support—requiring that a hereditary Peer who retires should be replaced. Under the original arrangements, when there was no retirement system, a hereditary Peer who took leave of absence would not be replaced. In the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, it was your Lordships, in your wisdom, who made the deliberate decision to extend to retired Peers the privilege of being replaced.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, included that provision in order to avoid the kind of exercise we are seeing from some hereditaries today.

[Lord True]

I do not know about that but, having heard what other hereditary Members of the House have said today, I doubt that would have been the case. At the time, I thought it was a very odd decision, but there it is. That is why retirement is there, and if an amendment comes forward to remove it I will support it, irrespective of the wider provisions.

The proportion of hereditary Peers is now lower now than it was in 1999, when there were 666 of us. I do not believe that that is a conclusive argument either way: I simply note the fact. I found unattractive the appeal to self-interest of my noble friend Lord Cormack, who said: “You will not be affected, so do not worry, you can come along with us”. That exemplified the eagerness to beguile noble Lords into accepting a long-term result. No one in this House, including my noble friend, should feel they have to act upon self-interest, even if that were the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord True. His speech was probably the most substantial criticism so far of the Bill—which I support. Does he notice the apparent contradiction at the centre of his arguments? Up until now, the main argument against the Bill is the independence and independent authority of the hereditaries. In his closing remarks, the noble Lord made the opposite argument: the reduction in hereditaries was important because it affected the party-political balance, as the hereditaries had an overwhelming party-political role in the numbers of the Conservative Party. Does he see the apparent conflict in those two arguments?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not see any distinction at all, though I am always grateful for a compliment from the noble Lord, whom I esteem highly. I do not particularly follow the argument about independence. It is true that hereditary Peers come here by a different route, but I have never made that argument. As was said in a challenge to the noble Viscount, it is an objective fact. They come here through election by a political college and they take a political place. I therefore have some doubt about the argument. There are nuances in all these things.

[Lord Balfe]

Does the noble Lord accept that his point about the disproportionate effect on these Benches is exactly why such a reform might appeal to certain elements in the Labour Party when they become the Government of this country, as they inevitably will?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I never like to challenge or take issue with my noble friend, but his argument is—to put it politely—feeble in the extreme. If the Labour Party wished to achieve its historic objective of getting rid of the hereditary peerage and was armed with a popular mandate, I very much doubt it would wait until the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, died in 2060 to do so. The noble Lord’s argument is immaterial to that.

[A noble Lord]

My Lords—

[Lord True]

I will not take further interventions. There are serious points to be made against the Bill and some of those that I have addressed remain unresolved.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, very briefly, I am wholly opposed to this whole group of amendments for the very important reason given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern: these are wrecking amendments. If they were going to be pursued appropriately in your Lordships’ House, they should have been raised at Second Reading as an opportunity to vote against the Bill then. I am particularly opposed to Amendment 59, which has been given so much emphasis in the last few minutes and reads:

“Whereas it is no longer intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular basis”.


That is a subjective supposition. It may be true; I do not know whether it is true. What sort of timescale is envisaged? It is not a fact and, therefore, for us to put it into the Bill would be absurd.

If I may take this opportunity, the first person who I think would have reacted to that particular suggestion would be our former colleague Lord Richard. I served with him in a number of capacities but, in particular, through a whole year on the Joint Committee on the then draft Bill brought forward by the coalition. He would not have accepted that as a statement of fact, because it is not a statement of fact. It is a supposition. I therefore hope we will dispose of this whole group of amendments and, in particular, dispose absolutely clearly and without any doubt of Amendment 59, if only to make sure that Lord Richard’s view on this issue remains with us. He was always clear and consistent and argued his case with such conviction; we should at least respect that in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

I am afraid the noble Lord needs to attend rather more frequently before he makes interventions on what happened when. The Bill was passed. There were long discussions and long debates; I do not object to that. However, what is happening here is a deliberate attempt to do in Committee what should have been done at Second Reading. These are age-old procedures and I respect them enormously: First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. To do what is being done now in Committee is an abuse and it should stop.

[Lord True]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has spoken of abuse—we are in Committee, so I may come back—I believe that I tried to make a reasonable speech and I asked the noble Lord a specific question on Amendment 33A. He has not had the courtesy to respond. I am disappointed by that; it was meant as a constructive amendment to enable progress to be made, I do not accept widespread, scatter-gun accusations of abuse against those of us who seek to make a contribution on this matter.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the noble Lord, of all people, should know that we will debate Amendment 33A when we reach it. If I start responding to amendments we have not even reached, we will go on even longer.