Elections Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Thomas of Gresford

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. Amendment 139, as has been said, seeks to extend the franchise for parliamentary elections to prisoners serving a term of 12 months or less. This Government believe, in common with the party opposite, that when a citizen commits a crime that is sufficiently serious to detain them in prison, they have broken their contract with society. In addition, the Government have made their position clear. We said openly in our manifesto:

“We will maintain the ban on prisoners voting from jail.”


Prison means the loss of a number of rights and freedoms, not least the right to liberty and freedom of association. The Government believe that the loss of voting rights while in prison is a proportionate curtailment of such civic rights. As such, we cannot support this amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I thank those who have supported me in this amendment. I am particularly grateful to those on the Labour Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who have spoken in favour.

I just wonder about the Labour Party. In Cardiff, it moved to bring about voting for prisoners, seeing it as an important part of its remit from the people of Wales. Here, however, it is dismissed in a sentence: “We haven’t changed”. The Labour Party is a little bit split. I am not sure what it said in Scotland; I will have to look that up after this and investigate.

This is the way the world is going. You can stand in the way if you like, but ultimately the vote will be given to prisoners, just as it is in most democracies around the world. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents

Debate between Lord True and Lord Thomas of Gresford

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have given the House the reasons for the Government not wishing to adhere to the convention. However, the United Kingdom Government are absolutely committed to transparency and the principles behind the convention and recognise the work done by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in this sphere. We routinely disclose information well beyond our freedom of information obligations and in line with many of the provisions of the convention.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

I am sure the Minister is entirely apprised of the fact that the Council of Europe is completely separate from the EU. The attitude of the Government on an issue such as this tends to smack of an anti-European thread in the Government, which I am sure is not in the interests of this country. Can the Minister kindly explain why such a universally accepted treaty should not be acceded to by this Government?

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have underlined the principle of this Government’s belief in transparency. I refute the idea that there is anything anti-European here. The current adherents to the treaty are Bosnia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, Sweden, Ukraine and Iceland. The majority of EU countries are not signatories. I think that answers the noble Lord’s point that this is some kind of EU line.

Standards in Public Life Report

Debate between Lord True and Lord Thomas of Gresford

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again, I will not comment on individuals. We have discussed this before, and I maintain the view that the Prime Minister’s constitutional role means that he or she has overall responsibility for the organisation of the Executive and the implementation of the Ministerial Code. The committee’s interim report has made some observations on the code, and obviously we will consider those carefully.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, do the Government accept the committee’s recommendation that a finding of a breach of the Ministerial Code by the independent adviser should be final? If not, should not the Prime Minister’s role in reviewing his findings be quasi-judicial, as in other areas where Ministers are required to make judgments, necessitating his personal, impartial reconsideration of the case and the giving in writing of his reasons for reversing the decision?

UK Policy Implementation for Wales and Scotland

Debate between Lord True and Lord Thomas of Gresford

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, let us begin where we begin—with the forthcoming summit. I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming the Prime Minister’s initiative. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the fundamental importance of economic recovery. Again, repeating what I said earlier, I am sure that everyone in all parts of this kingdom will put their shoulders behind it.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

The Conservative Member of Parliament for Aberconwy promised Conwy County Borough Council at a recent meeting access to a £20 million capital sum from the levelling-up fund and £3 million from the community renewal fund. Money from the shared prosperity fund, he indicated, would go directly to that council. Is it government policy that Members of Parliament should be announcing largesse in this way? What discussions have there been or will there be with the Welsh Government about the sharing out of public money in Wales?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, with all respect, I regret to say that the minutes of Conwy County Borough Council are not on my reading list, but obviously I will add them to it instantly. The spending power will cover infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport, and will support education and training activities and exchanges in the UK and internationally. It will complement the devolved Administrations’ existing powers and will allow the UK Government to deliver investment more flexibly and dynamically. It will also strengthen the support given to citizens and businesses in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales without taking any responsibilities away from the devolved Administrations.

Covid-19: Vaccination Passport

Debate between Lord True and Lord Thomas of Gresford

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Baroness, as always, make a profound point, which is that the best thing that we must wish and work for is that all Administrations work together on this. We do not want internal divides. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is speaking further to First Ministers today, which is another opportunity to reflect on the details of the published road maps. I take what she said: we will continue to work with the devolved Administrations to reflect on the implications of the road maps, and to co-ordinate and co-operate on our response to this and other areas.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I live five miles from the English border, and I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not pressing for a passport, with 15,000 vehicles going one way and 32,000 coming the other way to work, every day. Referring to the discussions that the Minister mentioned, what is the Government’s attitude to people coming to this country who have been vaccinated by a non-approved vaccine, and are they discussing this with other countries?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I confess that I cannot find the answer to that at the moment. I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I apologise for not being able to answer it now.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Thomas of Gresford

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I wholly support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, just said, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said in introducing this debate. The matter that concerns the Delegated and Regulatory Reform Committee is on page 9 of its report, at paragraph 54. Not only is the power “very wide” in scope, but it,

“is to make whatever provisions—including ones amending and repealing Acts of Parliament … We note that it has become standard practice for provisions of this type to be included near the end of a Bill”.

This is appearing all the time. It is really an insurance policy: “We might make a mistake, and if we make a mistake we do not want to have the trouble of admitting it; we will just get some secondary instrument through Parliament, and that will be all that we have to do”. That is not a sufficient justification for such a wide power.

The committee suggested that at the very least, the power could be restricted by some type of objective test of necessity: to where it is necessary—to “where we have made a mistake” if you like—or to where something important has been omitted. We need something that gives substantive limitation to such a widely expressed power.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, although I feel rather rash in doing so after the compelling interventions we have heard. As I understand it, this power applies to any enactment, not just, as the noble and learned Lord said—I am sure misspeaking—to what is in this enactment. My position is as a lay person, but also someone who was for a long time in the usual channels, interested in the drafting of legislation and how that was done by a Government whom I opposed for 13 years. I have to say that we would have looked a little askance at this sort of thing in those years in opposition. I understand the innocent intent and perfect integrity of the present Ministers involved, but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rather anticipated my thought: if clear drafting instructions are given on what is required to be enacted and a Bill is properly drafted by expert draftsmen, there should be no need for the sweeping brush to be around afterwards. That is really how legislation should be presented to Parliament.

This is the second piece of planning legislation we have had in a year. I submit that there has been time to think through these things, but it is the wider point that concerns me. This is not an ad hominem, or a criticism of Ministers here, but this will become a practice—I was struck by that paragraph in the Delegated Powers Committee report. It will become part of the constitution if Parliament continues to accept, in Act after Act, that Ministers of the day can be given power to change any other enactment as a result of something that arises out of their further ruminations or representations on it. I hope that my noble friend will consider this carefully.

The other thing I would say, in the broader context of planning and the challenge of getting more housing and more things done, is that there is immense distrust out there—anyone who lives with the planning system knows the distrust and fear that people have that the system is loaded against them. The system is actually fair, and bends over backwards to try to be fair, but if government arms itself with powers to change the rules if something does not quite work out as might have been intended in the first place—instead of building that consent for new planning and new development that I want, and which I know the Government want—it may add to the sense, so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, that the system is loaded. That must be something to avoid. Although my main objection is on the wider constitutional principle, as a practitioner—a local authority leader who has to stand between the forces of government and popular feeling—and as a layman, I argue that we should be particularly cautious in the context of this legislation.