Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend made a superb speech, which was not partisan and covered ground that is common to all parties.

I will pick up first on her point about law-making by statutory instrument—by powers given to Ministers—with only very limited parliamentary scrutiny. On the only occasion during my time here when this House used that power effectively, the Government went ballistic and wheeled in the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to tell us that we should all be abolished or in some way have our powers reduced. A power which is never used is not a power. In this case, whenever these powers are introduced in Bills, they come with explanations that the matter has to be considered by, and requires a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament. If we never deny that resolution, we do not exercise the power. It is a great weakness in our system, which is more important now that the Commons devotes so little time to the proper study of legislation and sits for fewer hours than we do.

My other point is the system of appointment to this House. We have had 17 new Conservative Peers—the Liz Truss list, the Boris Johnson list and then all those who were brought into this House to serve as Ministers, perhaps for less than a year, and are Peers for life as a result. It is a completely distorted system and we need to change it to an orderly one. The Burns committee produced a system which could be used, in the absence of any more fundamental reform of the House of Lords, to give some coherence and fairness to that system of appointment. It was widely accepted right across the House, but the Government have not acted on it. Theresa May did when she was in office but subsequent Prime Ministers have not done so, and they ought to. The continuing absurdity of the nomination system brings the House into disrepute.

Across the free world of parliamentary democracies there is a very real threat. We are seeing it in France, Germany and the United States, where ex-President Trump says he wants to be a dictator for one day so that he can entirely reverse US policy on climate change. This is dangerous territory. We have got to make the parliamentary democracy system deliver and get it to the point where people find that it properly deals with their concerns. We should not treat attempts to achieve that as partisan; they are very necessary to our democracy.

Ukraine

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, discussions are ongoing around the issues the noble Lord talked about. On the BBC and Russia, this was a question the Prime Minister was asked in the other place and I know that he and the Culture Secretary will be looking at how we can best support that to continue, because it is obviously extremely important to make sure that information that is true and valid is able to be accessed by the Russian people—and not just the misinformation and disinformation by the President.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, has the Foreign Office offered any new travel advice relating not just to Ukraine and Belarus, but any neighbouring countries?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said on Tuesday, I think, British nationals were being encouraged to leave Ukraine. What we have also said now is that any who are still in Ukraine should register their presence, which will allow us to provide the latest information. Obviously, now there will be a lot of difficulties around this, but we have encouraged all British nationals to leave Ukraine. We are also providing an enhanced response in the FCDO, with teams working around the clock to support British nationals and respond to political developments. Obviously, we will continue to update travel advice as and when we can.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, so much has been said about the qualities of Prince Philip, and it is all true. He might find that a little irritating, boring or lacking in interest, and would want some contrary views expressed and some lively debate brought about—he might indeed have done so himself—but it is all true.

Tempting though it is to go further into some of the examples, such as his massive contribution to the evolution of the monarchy in this century and the preceding one as well as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, which has changed the lives of so many people, I want to refer to his patronage of organisations, which I think reached nearly 1,000 in number, by highlighting simply one of them in which he took a close interest: the Anglo-Swedish Society, of which the president was my late wife, Baroness Maddock, who is remembered with a lot of affection in this House—I have now taken over that role from her. The Duke’s patronage of the Anglo-Swedish Society was no mere formality; he was actively interested in what the society was doing, particularly its work in bringing talented young Swedes to the Guildhall School of Music and the Royal College of Art, contributing to our own national cultural life. He cared about the relations between Britain and Sweden, as he did about those with all the countries with which he concerned himself.

My mind goes back to the occasion in 2004 when the society celebrated 350 years since the 1654 treaty between England and Sweden—a treaty which, perhaps inconveniently, was made by Cromwell and not by the monarchy. There was a ball, attended by the Duke, the Swedish royal family and some 300 guests, at which he delivered a very scholarly but also very humorous address which showed his commitment to relations between the two countries. When the address was over, the dancing began. On Swedish occasions, everybody surges straight on to the dance floor—quite unlike the British tradition of hanging back for as long as possible. The result was that no room was left on the dance floor, and there were the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen of Sweden dancing on the carpeted area around the edge. As on any occasion, he brought fun to the occasion and intellectual challenge. He also brought a lot of gratitude from people who saw how much good he was doing in his own distinctive way.

At a time such as this, our thoughts and prayers are with Her Majesty the Queen. There will be many in this Chamber who have sustained a loss of someone as close to them but not of someone who has been alongside them for as long as Prince Philip was to Her Majesty. Our thoughts for her are very genuine. This is a difficult time, and one on which we all wish to support her.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who I think has done a service to the House and indeed the country. It was interesting to hear what he said about advice from the Public Bill Office. However, Amendment 27, which is the one that took my eye, is precautionary and by definition refers to the coronavirus pandemic and, therefore, one hopes it is time-limited. I thank him for raising this absolutely crucial issue and yet giving the Government the facility to act as they feel appropriate.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I would not normally intervene on a Bill when I had not taken part in its earlier stages, but noble Lords will know that my earlier absence was because of the illness and death of my wife, who contributed so much to this House and had friends in all parts of it.

I speak as a member of the Constitution Committee to underline its concerns about fast-track legislation and, to some extent, the way they have been dealt with as the Government have brought forward the amendments in this group. Fast-tracking tends to limit parliamentary scrutiny and discourage necessary amendment of Bills. It also tends to increase confusion about what is the law, what is guidance, what is advice and what is merely a proposal. During the whole of the coronavirus epidemic, this has been a besetting failure, leaving those who have to enforce the law uncertain as to what it is and is not. Fast-track legislation should not be drafted widely, loosely and without clarity.

These government amendments appropriately limit the worrying power to extend the time limits on what is supposed to be temporary legislation dealing with an emergency—admittedly one whose duration none of us can be certain about. Had we passed the Bill in its original form, we would be enacting sunset clauses in a land where the sun never sets—as people used to say about the British Empire—because they can be extended for no purpose connected to the coronavirus. This might have been challenged in the courts, but it would have been a long and complicated case.

The new drafting makes Parliament’s intention in allowing these powers of extension clear: it is to allow them only to the extent necessary to deal with the effects of the coronavirus. I note that the wording deals with the effects and not merely the virus itself; we are clearly talking about the economic consequences as well. I welcome the fact that the Government have brought these amendments forward, and they significantly improve the Bill.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I am most grateful. It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Beith, back in his place, and we mourn his loss. I recognise the contribution that his late wife, the noble Baroness, made to this House; she will be greatly missed.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friends have done a great service to the House with this group of amendments, which can only improve our understanding of the temporary nature of the legislation before us today. I do not wish to add anything further at this stage.