Business of the House
Lord True Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life
Lord True Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and listen to a most interesting debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing it and making this possible. I did not greet some of her sallies with the same rapture of the noble Baroness opposite, nor did I agree that they were justified—but we will leave it at that. It has been a most interesting debate, including the proposition from the noble Viscount. I draw attention early to his interesting suggestion that the Select Committee on the Constitution of this House might have a look at the effectiveness of the other Chamber. That is not something that I shall be proposing to my colleagues in government, but I shall be interested to see if he takes that forward, in the light of their activities.
Parliament is a human institution, and we are, as Parliament and as individuals, who we are, with all the frailties that come from the human condition—and all the genius, remarkable gifts, insights, passions and commitments that come from the human condition. We are not perfect. In Parliament, we are the duties we perform and how well we perform them. As your Lordships’ Leader, my judgment is that, in this place, we perform those duties well, to a high standard that deserves respect.
But there is a third thing we are. We are also seen by the outsider as who we ourselves say we are. While I think we should be extraordinarily conscious of our frailties—and I own to and condemn where people fall short of those high standards, of course, because I believe that high standards in public life are essential—sometimes in politics we throw so many stones at each other. I heard what my noble friend Lord Cookham said about expecting dirty campaigning; he can include me out on that one. There have been some in this debate who have thrown stones, and we contribute to a perception that Parliament is corrupt and that parliamentarians are interested only in themselves, are bad and not interested, et cetera. The more we contribute to that narrative—and you can make a case in a research paper for this, that and the other, and in footnotes—the more we contribute to the lowering of the esteem of Parliament, which includes this place.
In so much of this debate, with constructive suggestions, we have done that. I wish only that we would actually accentuate the positive about all that we do. I do not believe that the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party or the Conservative Party are corrupt—nor, indeed, do I believe that the Church of England is corrupt. There are bad apples, but I refer to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said about helping people to understand civility, civics and citizenship. We need to help people to understand the good that Parliament does, as well as the follies that it may contain.
There were so many brilliant suggestions that came out in this debate. In saying that, I am not complacent or wanting to be Panglossian. There are changes that could and should be made. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it is true that we are seen as insiders by outsiders—we are seen sometimes as people “up there” who do not take an interest and do not do enough. We must always be mindful of our first and only duty if we are called to the high responsibility of being in Parliament, which is a duty to be public servants and to serve. I thought that my noble friend made a very powerful speech on that subject, as did others who spoke, as a matter of fact.
Having made those preliminary remarks, there are things that I do believe. I think that, really, in all our hearts, we do not believe we are as bad as we sometimes say we are, but we do believe that we could do and must do better. I believe also that we must not always privilege those who shout in the corner of the room. When I was a council leader and had young councillors come to ask me how you should address the business of service and the business of politics, I would say, think of public life and public service as a public meeting. You go into a great hall and start speaking—we have all experienced it; at least, those of us who have sought election or held public office—and someone in the corner of the room starts shouting out noisily, heckling and so on. You let him have one go—sometimes it is her, but usually him—and another go and then, finally, you say, “Look, Sir, we have heard what you think; I want to hear from all these other good people too”.
Sometimes in politics, with the ascendency of social media and the tribute we pay to it—a point made by a number of those who have spoken in this House—we privilege the shouters in the corner of the room. One great virtue of your Lordships’ House is that, in our careful scrutiny of legislation, we listen to the people who are not the noisy shouters on social media in the corner of the room. It is a vital part of parliamentary democracy that we should listen to that majority who are not always on social media, who are not always shouting and who bring their petitions humbly to the door of Parliament, as they have done for centuries.
The UK’s constitutional and parliamentary democracy is not in as bad a condition as some have said. Of course, it is flawed, like any other institution, and of course it needs consideration. I argued at the start of my remarks that its character is defined by the conduct of its actors, and that is true also of the Civil Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, in an important intervention, spoke of the role and duties of the Civil Service. The system must have the capacity to evolve and adapt in order to enable political actors to respond flexibly to the events of the day. But within this system—this was one of the abiding themes of today’s debate—a common set of principles must always underpin the standards expected of public officeholders. It is incumbent on us all to protect the good and to improve things where possible.
There was a distinction in today’s debate between those who believe, as I do, that ultimately, this must come from within us and must be supervised by parliamentary accountability; and those on the other side who said—this was set out in forthright terms by His Majesty’s Opposition—that parliamentarians can never be good enough and must be protected from themselves, and that we must lend responsibility for policing who we are, how we behave and how we perform our duties to unelected outside panjandrums who are accountable to nobody and known to nobody. Most people in this country could probably name a few politicians. I wonder if any could name a single member of the various bodies that exercise enormous power over Parliament and can make and break parliamentary careers. There are real questions of accountability if you are arguing that we should go forward towards statutory oversight of the activities of Parliament.
We are a representative democracy, and the composition of the elected Chamber reflects the will of the people as most recently expressed at the ballot box. All of us in this House need to remember that, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, reminded us. I will come back to the position of the people; the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke powerfully and importantly on that subject. It is germane and underlies the whole debate.
Our parliamentary democracy is effective. I was very struck by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on this subject in his thoughtful speech. It is effective because it is grounded in a deep constitutionalism born of civil war, conflict, tremendous conflict between the two Houses, a honing of the constitution and a set of constitutional practice which is deep and profound. Anyone who, for example, witnessed the Coronation will have had that sense of the depth of Britain’s great national experience and what we can and have taught the world, and can still lend to the world, with humility. This system, this deep constitutional system, is flexible and adaptable to the circumstances of the day. It allows for the development of policy and the passage of legislation under the careful and proper scrutiny of Parliament. I therefore reject the proposition, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we should frame a written constitution. I am also not greatly attracted to his proportional representation proposition: I think I have heard that one before. Whenever I hear PR mentioned, I always translate it, perhaps from my frailty, as “permanent representation” for the Liberal Democrats, whoever is in office.
We must examine ourselves with humility, self-criticism and so on, but we should not throw away the great strengths of the system we have—certainly not on a coalition deal, I say to the party opposite. I might think, looking at history, that we gave rather too much away in 2010, much as I enjoyed working with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in those days. I single out the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who was the only one, before the wind-up on the other side, to mention local government, which is such a fundamental part of the warp and woof of democracy: it is the limbs underneath Parliament and is so important. His remarks on audit were important and well taken, and I will certainly reflect on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, was a bit critical of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. For my part, I welcome the fact that my noble friend has come to this House. I think it redounds to the credit of this House: it was certainly the practice of the Labour Government after nineteen-ninety-whenever it was.
A noble Lord
Lord True (Con)
That terrible year; I remember it. It is good that there are senior Ministers in your Lordships’ House. We are part of Parliament and there is good accountability: my noble friend appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons only very recently. I hope other people share my view that having a statesman of such experience here is to the benefit of the House. There is parliamentary accountability.
The other great thread of the debate was questions of behaviour and standards. I am not going to go into the issues of the other place—that is effectively a matter for them. Obviously, in this House, noble Lords are required to sign up to the Code of Conduct, which ensures accountability to parliamentary standards and is enforced by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards. Members are required to comply with the behaviour code for Parliament. Sanctions can include suspension or expulsion from the House, and those procedures derive from resolutions of the House: they are subject to our judgment and our decisions, but they fall short of the kind of statutory approach the Opposition propose. By the way, I was interested to hear the noble Baroness commit the Labour Party to reform of your Lordships’ House in the first term; I am sure that will be examined quite widely.
Throughout this debate, noble Lords, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, highlighted the important role that the Nolan principles, as articulated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, play in our political system. I agree that they are fundamental: they are what anybody who aspires to serve in any walk of life, not just politics, should live up to. The current Prime Minister stated in his first speech that his Government
“will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”,
and that “integrity in public life matters”—it does, my Lords.
The Ministerial Code details the Prime Minister’s expectations of his Ministers, setting out that they are expected to maintain high standards. Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code, and must be mindful of it in discharging their duties. The code, however, is the Prime Minister’s document; he is the ultimate judge of the behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences for a breach of standards. Ministers will remain in place only as long as they retain the confidence the Prime Minister. Again, that is where accountability lies in parliamentary democracy. If, as is asserted by some, you give enforcement of that to an unelected, unaccountable, largely unknown body, you may arrive at a point where the judgments of whether somebody or other should be a Minister of the Crown would be decided in a court of law. This would be an unthinkable route to go down.
I am very grateful for the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Pickles, and his outstanding, persistent and patient work in pushing forward reform of ACOBA will, I hope, be fully and finally recognised. Last July, the Government published Strengthening Ethics and Integrity in Central Government. It was a wide-ranging programme of reform which responded to various reports, including the Boardman report and those from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It will mark the introduction of stricter enforcement of the business appointment rules, with a clearer pathway towards sanctions, potentially including financial sanctions, for breaches. As my noble friend knows, that is very much actively under way.
We are increasing transparency and accountability in public appointments. We will be improving the quality and accessibility of departmental transparency releases, including an integrated database which will be put on GOV.UK for the first time. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others that its implementation is under way and proceeding quickly. The revised guidance will apply to all data from January 2024 onwards. We are also tightening up on compliance processes under the existing accounting officer Permanent Secretary system—all to shine more light on some of the recesses of government.
I do not have time to take up the point which my noble friend made, but it is one which has been alluded to so often that it is something we have to think about a lot more: the relationship between government and arm’s-length bodies. The process of finding effective accountability there, which has been so brutally illumined in recent weeks and months, is something that we must address and come back to. I will reflect on requests for further opportunities to discuss these matters, although obviously the upcoming Post Office legislation will enable some reflections in that narrow area.
The changes to which I have alluded come in addition to those made in 2022 to strengthen the Ministerial Code, which increased the independence, powers and status of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests and introduced an enhanced process for the independent adviser to initiate investigations, and new details on proportionate sanctions.
There were so many other important speeches made. I alluded earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who was absolutely right when she picked up on what my noble friend Lady Stowell said: the people must never be allowed to feel that the system does not belong to them. The parliamentary system does not belong to any passing elite, or people who may think they are elite, who wander in here. It belongs to those whom we serve. I also agreed with what my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said about the importance of Select Committees in your Lordships’ House. We must work to strengthen their effectiveness. Since I have been Leader, and my noble friend Lady Williams has been Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, we have worked much harder to bring committee debates to the Floor of your Lordships’ House and I hope very much that that will continue.
Nothing is perfect, not least my timing. I fear that I probably wandered too widely at the start of the debate, but I assure your Lordships that I will study it very carefully. I wanted to come to this debate and hear what noble Lords said. I cannot undertake to respond to documents which are sent to someone else and I will not, unfortunately, be able to accommodate the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. My father taught me never to sign a blank cheque, so I am giving no undertaking I have not seen. But I will have a look at whatever document those people care to send to me.
It has been such a pleasure to have the privilege of responding to your Lordships. I thank all those who have taken part and I can assure noble Lords that I will carefully study Hansard in the days ahead.
Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]
Lord True Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That the order of commitment of 28 November committing the Bill to a Grand Committee be discharged and the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the instruction to the Grand Committee of 28 November shall also be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Lord Speaker and to our new noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, for my phone going off earlier. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. I am sincerely sorry.
Do the Government regret putting back the purchase of electric vehicles and automated vehicles to 2035, now that the market has almost completely collapsed, putting at risk the investments, plants and jobs that the Government themselves are invested in?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a question about policy. With great respect, this is not the House of Commons. There are plenty of opportunities in this House to discuss policy during the progress of a Bill. Today, I am announcing—with agreement in the usual channels—that this Bill should be discussed in the whole House. That will give the noble Lord and others the opportunity to make their points at the appropriate time.
Business of the House
Lord True Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to three repeats of Urgent Questions asked in the other place. It may be opportune for me to draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 6.11 of our Companion as to procedures on such Questions. It is a matter for the usual channels whether the initial response or statement is repeated; obviously, it is available in the Hansard of the other place if the repeat comes on a following day.
The important thing is that these are Questions, not Statements. If I may say so, I have noticed one or two recent experiences where there have been quite prolix interventions, not only from the other side but from the Government Benches behind me. It is to the advantage of the House if we can get as many interventions as possible from noble Lords—for example, nine or 10—in the 10 minutes allowed for these Urgent Question repeats. In a recent instance, only five Peers got in. This business is under Question procedure, not Statement procedure.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully endorse the comments of the Leader of the House. These are called Urgent Questions—the clue is in the title.
Arrangement of Business
Lord True Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, I am able to announce the current plan for recess dates until the start of summer 2024. Before doing so, I express my thanks, and the thanks of many on this side, for the warm expressions of good will to my noble friend, which have come from across the House; they have been much appreciated by my noble friend herself and have all been relayed on to her. I think I speak for the whole House when I say how much we look forward to seeing my noble friend in her place in the new year.
The full list of dates is available in the Royal Gallery in the usual place. There will be a slightly extended Christmas Recess, with the House still rising at the end of business on Tuesday 19 December and returning on Wednesday 10 January, rather than Monday 8 January as previously announced. We will then rise for the February Recess at the end of Wednesday 14 February, and return on Monday 19 February. This reflects the longer Christmas break. I appreciate that this is a shorter February Recess than in some recent years. However, I have committed to the usual channels that there will not be votes that week, so if noble Lords have made plans for February, I hope that they can still be accommodated.
At Easter, the plan is for the House to rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 27 March and return on Monday 15 April. We will then rise at the end of business on Thursday 23 May for Whitsun Recess and return on Monday 3 June. Finally, we currently expect the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday 25 July. Also in the Royal Gallery, noble Lords will find the sitting Fridays up to July. There will be an additional sitting Friday in January to debate the situation in Ukraine before Private Members’ Bills start in February. As usual, these are subject to the progress of business. Any changes and further recess dates will be announced in the usual way.
Business of the House
Lord True Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 12 December to enable the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, although this is a formal Motion, I think that it would be helpful to the House for me to outline the arrangements for the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, which will be taken on 12 December as agreed by the usual channels.
The Bill has been introduced and noble Lords can now sign up for Second Reading in the usual way. Noble Lords can also table amendments for Committee ahead of Second Reading and should do so by contacting the Public Bill Office, again in the usual way. The deadline for amendments will be one hour after the conclusion of Second Reading on Tuesday.
If amendments have been tabled, once all the necessary documents are ready, the House will move into Committee and amendments will be debated and decided in the normal way. If no amendments are tabled, I would expect all further stages to be taken formally. If it is necessary to have further stages, the Deputy Chief Whip will update the House on Tuesday as to the arrangements. I am particularly grateful to the usual channels for their practical and constructive approach to this Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there appears to be a mistake in the title of the Bill. Should it not be entitled, “Preparation for a General Election Bill”?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thought that question had strayed from the House of Commons, so I was not planning to give it an answer.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place to ask some questions about the way we do business in this House, but I will try. The brief background to my point is this: ever since BHS’s demise in 2016, the Government have promised legislation that has not materialised. Then, on 19 July 2023, the Government published a draft statutory instrument, the Companies (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. It was scheduled to be debated in this House on 17 October, as per the business papers. However, the afternoon before, the Government issued a press release stating that the proposed legislation had been withdrawn. The next day’s business papers in this House, on 17 October, said that the Department of Business and Trade had withdrawn the regulations that were due to be debated on that day. No other statement was made to this House. Can the Minister explain why no statement was made to the House when the announced legislation was withdrawn? I am sure he would agree that press releases are no substitute for Statements and Questions in Parliament. Will he now ensure that the relevant Minister comes to this House to make a Statement about this withdrawn legislation and take the appropriate questions?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, many thousands of statutory instruments are tabled in draft every year under every Government. It is not usual to make a Statement in Parliament on rescheduling statutory instruments. In relation to these draft regulations— I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice on the subject about which he was concerned—the department had carried out a call for evidence to inform a review of existing non-financial reporting. This high- lighted strong support from both UK business and investors for existing company reporting to be simplified and streamlined. The Government therefore decided that it would be better to consider the reporting measures contained in the draft regulations alongside wider reforms to deliver a more targeted and effective corporate reporting framework. I know that the noble Lord is a great enthusiast for laying regulations on business, which does, in fact, destroy jobs in the end, but there is a wider review going on. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that explanation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, getting back to the Motion before us, can I just confirm that this was agreed by the usual channels? I am very happy that it was. The process has been used before with very similar legislation. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for setting out how the process will work next week. This Bill will put money in people’s pockets. We support it and I hope that we can agree the Motion.
Death of a Member: Lord Judge
Lord True Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I know that noble Lords from across the House were deeply shocked and saddened to learn yesterday of the passing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I add my sadness and deepest condolences to his family.
I enjoyed nearly a year with him as Convenor of the Cross Benches. Whatever the great matters of state that we should have been discussing, we usually ended up just talking about our families. My oh my, he loved his family so much—that is probably the one takeaway I had from him.
As is normal, we will now hear tributes from the usual channels. I know that many noble Lords have passed their heartfelt remarks on to the leaders and convenor, who will, I am sure, do their best to reflect the outpourings of admiration and sadness that they have received. I am also aware that some other noble Lords may feel that they want to pay tribute today. It is customary for the focus of tributes to come from the leaders and usual channels but, if other noble Lords would like to contribute, I respectfully ask that their contributions be as brief as possible. I expect any Back-Bench remarks to be no more than a minute long, as we have seen with other similar tributes.
Noble Lords may also find it helpful to know that the Office of the Convenor of the Cross Benches is co-ordinating written tributes and regards for Lord Judge’s family, should noble Lords wish to pass those on. I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time, they will be very warmly received.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, on happier mornings than this one, after I became the Leader of your Lordships’ House, there would from time to time come a knock on my door and a smiling, spectacled face would somewhat hesitantly edge round it. “May I have a word?”, that gentle, quiet-spoken voice would ask. How readily I always welcomed in the late Lord Judge, mildly puzzled that I would be so deferred to by someone so much more gifted than me.
Of course, infinite courtesy was a mark of his, as was that genial humility that belied his remarkable career. He was born in Malta in 1941 and, as a baby, was almost killed during the fascist siege; thank goodness for the errant hand of that Axis bomb aimer. He became a brilliant scholar. He was called to the Bar in 1963, took Silk in 1979 and, as we know, went on to become a great judge, first in the High Court in 1988, and then as a Justice of Appeal in 1996. He became the President of the Queen’s Bench Division in 2005 and was the Lord Chief Justice from 2008 to 2013.
Beyond the bare bones, I am not qualified to speak of that very great legal career but, when he retired as Lord Chief Justice, he became, I would submit, a very great parliamentarian. Noble Lords know how it is in this place: no one ever reads a speech. You sometimes struggle to calculate, as yet another page of typed script is turned, how long it is going to go on. But with Igor it was so different. He would appear with a few notes on a couple of sheets of letter paper, often written down not much before, and would speak for four minutes or so in the simplest and most beautiful English, forged into arguments of steel and illumined by humour, quote or anecdote. He would seize the whole House by the scruff of the neck and compel its attention.
He became Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers in 2019 and, as Cabinet Office Minister responsible for the constitution and later as Leader of your Lordships’ House, I regularly met him. My predecessor, my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, who both much regret not being able to be here, have asked me to express their fondest appreciation of their own exchanges with Lord Judge in the usual channels and how they ever valued his charm and sound sense—as they saw it, a mentor, counsellor and friend. Once, my noble friend Lord Ashton remembers that, in a very British manner, they conducted a whole negotiation with a House of Lords mouse which neither of them mentioned sitting motionless on the chair behind Lord Judge’s right ear. Igor, it seems, like Orpheus, could even charm the animals.
Certainly, to discuss an issue with him was a joy, whether you agreed or disagreed. His keen intelligence, good humour and firmness of principle were always there, but with that open mind. He was a man of utter integrity; he had a profound passion for the common law, the ancient liberties of our land, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law—on which, of course, we agreed. Where we differed, which I hated, the most usual point of difference was over the prerogative or the role of the Executive. Igor was an admirer of the great jurist and parliamentarian Sir Edward Coke and, being a bookish man and fathoming another such in me, he generously gave me Coke’s biography, which he thought might persuade me during his differences with the Government over the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. One thing I could agree with Coke on was his dictum “Lex est tutissima cassis”—the law is our safest shield. Igor took that as a title for a book and a watchword for life; and, in his sure, safe judgment in court and in this place, he was the living embodiment of it.
His deeply rooted constitutionalism rested in a lifelong interest in history, which it so happened we had both read at the same university. When the business was done, he would enjoy a talk of history or cricket—or music, a love he inherited from a gifted mother, who we can deduce admired Stravinsky. Your Lordships may allow me one anecdote. When, as Leader, within a matter of days, I was plunged into having to do one of the most difficult things I have ever had to—pronounce the eulogy for our late Queen—I was struggling alone an hour before in my office wondering if I would be able to say what I thought the House would want to hear without actually breaking down. Then came that gentle knock on the door and the smiling face came round. It was Igor. “How are you getting on?”, he asked kindly. I told him my problem. “Just read the difficult bits aloud four or five times,” he said, “and then you will know them by heart or be familiar. That will get you through.” Of course, as ever, Igor’s advice was right.
King’s Speech
Lord True Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the convention is to say that it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I have to say, having listened to the noble Lord on this auspicious, splendid and happy day, that it was a bit like being served at the end of one’s meal cold coffee and a soggy soufflé.
I would like to think that I could say something warmer about the noble Lord’s speech so I will try to do so. I find it amazing that, after a quarter of a century of trying since I first came to work here, I have now reached the average age of your Lordships’ House. One of the things about being older and Conservative is that one likes things to stay the same, so it was deeply reassuring to hear the trenchant criticisms of the Government from the noble Lords opposite. Some things never change and, as a good Conservative, I look forward to next year hearing them make the same criticisms—perhaps not always in the same terms but from the same seats that they occupy today.
Nevertheless, I like the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. They are not always angry, and they and their colleagues make the usual channels on which the operation of this House fundamentally depends work smoothly, and almost always with good humour. I should not forget the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, honed by 16 generations of Scottish deftness and silken charm—you have to watch those ones. But I sincerely thank them all.
Speaking of Scottish deftness and charm, I should say how much we all enjoyed the superb speech of my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, as we did that of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. My noble friend Lord McInnes recalled—as did His Majesty in his gracious Speech—the extraordinary lifelong service of our late beloved Queen Elizabeth, to which the noble Baroness opposite also referred. It does not seem so long ago that we gathered here after her loss on that so very poignant day before the empty Throne; but experience has a habit of making the extraordinary seem ordinary.
This whole House—as we have heard today—is already steeped in gratitude for the dignity and good humour with which His Majesty has, after what was already over half a century of dedicated public service, taken up his great new responsibilities on behalf of us all. He did our nation proud in those memorable first state visits to Germany, France, and now, lately, to Kenya. I believe we are fortunate in our deeply thoughtful and gracious King.
Those who do not stray too often into the Not-Content Lobby—and I note from last Session’s statistics that that includes the overwhelming preponderance of the independent Cross-Benchers—will not know that as you come out of that Lobby my noble friend Lord McInnes is standing there, always smiling, cheerfully telling everyone who passes, “Another vote coming up soon, my Lords”. Given that we lost nearly 70% of the votes in the last Session and a record number of votes in the Session before that, I think that stamps my noble friend not as the dour Presbyterian that he has described himself as but as a sunny and incurable optimist. We need a bit more of that—perhaps I can offer some to the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I turn to my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. I know we can all agree that it has been the great good fortune of this House to have benefited from her profound generosity of heart, her direct, sound sense and her expertise on welfare. We on the Government Benches were very sad when for personal reasons she had to stand down from the Department for Work and Pensions and her other duties. I believe she has made and will continue to make a real difference to the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society, and for my part that is surely one of the highest callings of anyone in public service. Simply put, my noble friend is one of life’s good people. She is one of those people in this House who you are always delighted to see heading towards you—and I must confess that that is not an absolutely universal quality. [Laughter] Do not tempt me. The whole House will have been moved by the poignant story that my noble friend told from her visit to New York last year. As the noble Baroness opposite also said, we think of our friends in Ukraine as we gather today.
The Government’s commitment to Ukraine will remain unwavering. Whenever I say that in this House as your Lordships’ Leader, I am fortified by the resolve shared by the whole House, as we have heard again today, that Putin’s foul aggression cannot and must not prevail.
We think also of the victims of the truly barbaric atrocities perpetrated by Hamas against Israel a month ago today in which at least 14 British nationals were killed, and for which there can be no justification whatever. The Government continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself in line with international humanitarian law. We must also support the Palestinian people and are doing so; they are victims of Hamas too. As the Prime Minister has said, there is no scenario where Hamas can be allowed to control Gaza again. We are working to support British nationals in Gaza and the wider region and to secure the safe return of hostages. We continue to work with international partners to prevent a destabilising regional escalation.
Before I proceed further, I join others in thanking Black Rod, the doorkeepers and all the staff for the skill with which our historic ceremony was conducted today. It was good to see it in all its finery once again. In fact, it is the first time for over 70 years that we have had a King and Queen present with full trains, and some thought went into the pages moving the trains and getting the royal couple in and out. And what about a Lord Chancellor walking backwards? Don’t you just love it?
In my first speech on this occasion, I want to thank my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park. I know she will be aghast to hear any praise for her, but she was an extraordinary Leader of this House for over six years, and it has been a hard call to follow her. I would like personally and publicly to thank her for her kind and wise advice to me.
I thank too my sterling Front-Bench colleagues for their tremendous work and dedication. They do a brilliant job, many of them without remuneration. I believe it is unacceptable in the 21st century that some of those who serve this House can do so only if they have private means. It does not reflect the dignity of the House or give those who serve our country faithfully their proper due. I have sought ways to overcome this, so far unsuccessfully, but I will continue to try.
No one could say that the last, long 16-month Session was a breeze. I am not a fan of long Sessions, as the appetites of departments—we could all round up the usual suspects, I am sure—all too often “level up” to fill the time available. Of the near 8,000 amendments that your Lordships considered in the last Session, 2,680 made to Bills came from the Government. That is too many, and I can assure the House that I and my noble friend Lady Williams, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms—and how lucky we are to have her—make this point to colleagues. However, the House never failed in its duty to scrutinise and revise—although perhaps sometimes we should recall that the elected House is not so stupid that it cannot hear our requests for it to think again the first time round. In the midst of it all, we passed a useful and, yes, improved programme of legislation, which will have tangible benefits on the lives of our citizens—even though at times it seemed easier, perhaps, to row a kayak across the North Sea during Storm Ciarán than to get a Bill to stop the boats through your Lordships’ House.
There is another important programme of work before us this Session. That programme will help us to grow our economy, keep our people safe and promote our national interests. Yes, we will back North Sea oil and gas extraction. Why? It is to help secure energy security and independence and save hundreds of thousands of jobs. We remain committed to our net-zero targets but we must get there in a prudent and proportionate way.
I know that this is not the favourite word of some of your Lordships, but we will continue to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Brexit. Unwanted retained EU law will finally go and this Session we will cement accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, fostering trade and investment with some of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Public service broadcasting will be safeguarded and we will repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which would have limited press freedom. We will give the police the tools they need to prevent complex new forms of crime.
Noble Lords will be aware that a number of Bills have already started in the other place and will be carried over. They include a Bill to ban public bodies implementing politically motivated boycotts of foreign countries and a Bill to improve the law on rents, to give tenants more security and landlords more control over their properties. There will also be a Bill to reform leasehold. I have to say that, when it was mentioned in the gracious Speech, I peeked out from under the Cap of Maintenance at the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and saw that there was not a flicker of a smile on that normally sunny countenance. I hope that, given his constant, almost daily, questions on this subject, we may expect his strong support for leasehold reform.
As well as carry-overs, some of which will arrive before Christmas, there will be four Lords starters. These will include the pedicabs Bill, the autonomous vehicles Bill and the investigatory powers amendment Bill, which will have their Second Readings this month. I look forward to spirited but constructive debate in the months ahead. I know that it could be the last Session before a general election, when passions flame, but I hope that we will always be mindful of our traditional courtesies. They are part of who we are and why we work here well.
Perhaps I may conclude with a personal note, because it has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve this House for over 26 years, first below the salt and now, in a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan way, with the silver salt cellar of the Lord Privy Seal set before me. This may be a fault in me, but I can think of no greater honour than to be asked to lead this House. It would be the happiest and greatest thing for me if your Lordships were to feel not only that I was skilful in getting “terrible government legislation” through—that is what the Opposition would say, of course; I have to put that in, in case people read Hansard and have not heard the tone—but that I was dutiful in listening to Peers on all sides, and in helping the whole House to secure the good service and support that makes this a place where we can carry out our unique duties comfortably and well. That this should be a happy place is something that matters very much to me and, I know, to others opposite. I wish sometimes, however, that we would focus on the great if often humdrum work that we do, rather than calling out imagined faults and fidgeting about change that no one outside calls for and few would notice.
The reality is that, because of the failure of the procedure of the House of Commons in recent generations to do its legislative work thoroughly, this House recovered from the folly of a challenge to the Budget to fill that space and has become a literally indispensable revising Chamber. That is our role, and to do it we need rich diversity—more than we still yet have—including diversity of thought and experience. We need deep expertise, open minds and that sense of proportion which must always inform our judgments. The last thing we need is a House of political clones told by the media to turn up every day and be judged on how often they speak.
If I may, increasing numbers of your Lordships complain to me that sometimes in Committee and on Report, some of us speak for a little too long and a little too repetitively. I believe we could, with advantage, reinforce some of our older conventions, not only in these respects but in the way we regard the view of the other House. This House must, at some point, normally defer to the elected Chamber.
I am conscious that it was from this Dispatch Box that the great Duke of Wellington lead an unwilling House to let pass Catholic emancipation in the 1820s, reform the franchise in the 1830s and usher in free trade in the 1840s. Let us never forget that the Atlee Government started with only 16 Labour Peers, was outnumbered 10 to one by this side but went on to secure its reforming programme by agreement, good practice and convention.
As we continue to reflect on how best to perform our vital role and carry out our functions in line with our conventions, I will continue to reach out to your Lordships across the House where there is potential for reinforcing and building confidence in them. In my humble submission, unlike the vaulting ambition of grand reform, this approach is entirely in our hands.
I know I have troubled noble Lords’ digestion and agitated your good wine for too long. It has been a great and historic day in the presence of our new King, so I will finish by sharing the sunny optimism of my noble friend Lord McInnes. As that optimist, I say that I trust that this serious and ambitious legislative programme, which comes from a Government led by a Prime Minister with dedication to the long-term changes Britain needs, will commend itself to a majority of your Lordships. I look forward to sharing the work of the next Session with you, and it gives me great pleasure to support the Motion.
Senior Deputy Speaker
Lord True Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That Lord Gardiner of Kimble be appointed as Senior Deputy Speaker (Chairman of Committees) for this Session.
Royal Commission
Lord True Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, it not being convenient for His Majesty personally to be present here this day, he has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.