Vol. 806 Thursday No. 123 8 October 2020
PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT
ORDEROFBUSINESS
Introductions: Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Fleet...... 697 Questions Covid-19: Low-income Families ...... 697 Iran: UN Arms Embargo...... 701 NHS: GP Vacancies ...... 705 Housing: Rent and Covid-19...... 708 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill Report...... 713
Grand Committee Trade Bill Committee(4th Day)...... GC 205 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-10-08
In Hybrid sittings, [V] after a Member’s name indicates that they contributed by video call.
The following abbreviations are used to show a Member’s party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour Lab Co-op Labour and Co-operative Party LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party
No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2020, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 697 Introduction: Baroness Fox of Buckley[8 OCTOBER 2020] Covid-19: Low-income Families 698
House of Lords TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con): Thursday 8 October 2020 A direct assessment of Covid-19’simpact on low-income families with children has not been made. However, we The House met in a hybrid proceeding. are monitoring several data sources, including Her Majesty’s Treasury’s recent distribution analysis of Noon Covid-19’simpact on working households. The Treasury analysis has shown that the Government’sunprecedented Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn. supportpackage,includingjobretention,self-employment protection schemes and an additional £9 billion to Introduction: Baroness Fox of Buckley strengthen the welfare system, has supported the poorest working households the most, with those in the bottom 12.07 pm 10% seeing no income reduction. Claire Regina Fox, having been created Baroness Fox of Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]: My Lords, the Buckley, of Buckley in the County of Flintshire, was Government may not make an assessment but I am introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Glasman seriously worried by mounting evidence from Action and Baroness Wolf of Dulwich, and signed an undertaking for Children, CPAG and the Trussell Trust of parents to abide by the Code of Conduct. struggling to pay the bills and to feed their kids in this pandemic. We could help by lifting the benefit cap and Introduction: Baroness Fleet the two-child limit and topping up legacy benefits, but Ministers have said no and now the Chancellor is 12.12 pm threatening to scrap the £20 a week he put on universal credit. I have two simple questions. Does the Minister Veronica Judith Colleton Wadley, CBE, having been accept the evidence that a growing number of parents created Baroness Fleet, of Hampstead in the London are struggling financially? If she does, what are the Borough of Camden, was introduced and took the oath, Government going to do about it? supported by Lord Black of Brentwood and Baroness Morgan of Cotes, and signed an undertaking to abide by Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): I take the noble the Code of Conduct. Baroness’spoint well. I assure her that we are considering all evaluations—the Trussell Trust, Joseph Rowntree and Action for Children, as well as Understanding Oaths and Affirmations Society, the Covid-19 survey and the opinions and lifestyle survey by the Office for National Statistics. I 12.16 pm am sure this question will come up many times today, so I say that the £20 UC increase was put in for one The Lord Bishop of Ely took the oath, and signed an year only. As my colleague the Secretary of State for undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct. Work and Pensions in the other place said, dialogue is continuing with HMT on this, and the Prime Minister Arrangement of Business confirmed yesterday that it is under constant review. Announcement Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab): My Lords, in 12.16 pm 2010 the UK poverty rate stood at 15%; it now stands The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) at 26%—an increase of more than 1.1 percentage points (LD): My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will a year. An additional 670,000 people are expected to now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, be classed as destitute by the end of 2020. I want respecting social distancing, others are participating to press the Minister a bit more on the detail on the remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If supplementary question from the noble Baroness, the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately Lady Sherlock. The Minister talked about what has adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. been done. It does not seem to be working. Can we Please can those asking supplementary questions keep have some explanation of what the Government will them very short, confined to two points? I ask that do in the future? Ministers’ answers are also brief. Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): I can again confirm to the noble Lord that all welfare issues are under Covid-19: Low-income Families constant review and, as sorry as I am, I cannot say Question more than that at this time.
12.17 pm The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, a recent Asked by Baroness Sherlock report by the Church of England and the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted the “disproportionate impact” Toask Her Majesty’sGovernment what assessment of the pandemic on low-income families with children, they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 saying that: pandemic on (1) low-income families with children, “Without a radical change in policy direction, the prospects and (2) the support provided to them by the social for many families are likely to deteriorate further through the security system. remainder of this year as unemployment rises” 699 Covid-19: Low-income Families[LORDS] Covid-19: Low-income Families 700
[THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN] droplet transmission, particularly in small, ill-ventilated and more families become reliant on the welfare system. spaces. Will the Minister assure the House that no Following Prime Minister’s Question Time in the other families with school-age children will be evicted during place yesterday, will the Government do more than this academic year, to prevent families being placed in consider? Will they commit to making the temporary bed and breakfasts,with the increased risk of transmission uplift in universal credit permanent? Will they also of Covid-19, to prevent mental health breakdown in commit to a commensurate increase in the level of children, and avoid further disruption to their education? support for children, to reflect the additional needs of families with children? Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): I thank the noble Baroness for bringing that important point to the Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): As much as noble notice of the House. My best response is that I will go Lords press me today, I can only confirm that matters back to my colleagues at MHCLG to get their position are under constant review. I am sorry, but I am not in on the issue of evictions and write back to the noble any position to make any commitments. Baroness. Baroness Fookes (Con): My Lords, I attach great importance to the work of work coaches in getting the Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]: My Lords, unemployed into work and out of poverty. Is my noble welcome as what the Government have done is, there friend satisfied with the numbers of these at her disposal, is growing evidence of hardship among low-income and with their quality? families with children, most recently from Save the Children today. Following on from the right reverend Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): I know that my Prelate’s question, why have the Government not done noble friend is a great champion of work coaches. anything to improve social security benefits for children? They do a great job and we are proud of the work they are doing at the DWP. I am also proud of the fact that Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): The Government we are doubling the number, spending £895 million. have put £9 billion into the welfare system to help the We will have 13,500 more work coaches, 7,500 in poorest. As I said in my original Answer, the bottom the next three months. I am sure that they will do a 10% have not had their income lessened at all. I know great job. how passionate the noble Baroness is about this, and I respect her tenacity in raising it on a regular basis. I Lord German (LD): My Lords, in the first four have put my head above the parapet and organised an months of this pandemic, 300,000 people applied for all-Peers briefing session on the benefit cap, with the universal credit because they had lost their job, and Minister for Employment, next week. I am sure these failed to get it. Far too many people are falling through issues will be talked about in greater detail then. I the trapdoor of unemployment and finding that universal extend an invitation to all noble Lords to attend that credit is not available to them. The Minister has just briefing. said that we are going to have a review. Will this be a root-and-branch review? Will it look at bringing our Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]: In 1942, William tax and benefit systems closer? The evidence now is Beveridge introduced his report which led to the welfare that, if we do that, we will have a much better system state and the NHS. We are still facing the same giants by unifying the two. that he was tackling at that time: squalor, want, idleness, ignorance and disease. Is it not time that we had Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): We are all aware of another commission like that, and found an outstanding the difficult time that people are having in these days. I person with Civil Service colleagues to produce a report will take the noble Lord’s request for a root-and-branch that will really tackle the long-term issues facing us? review back to the Minister for Welfare Delivery. I will write back to the noble Lord. If he has some very good ideas, would he please write and give them to me? Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): I can only assure the noble Lord, and the whole House, that the excellent Lord Moynihan (Con): Will my noble friend the civil servants we have got, and the partners that we Ministerrecognisetheworkof StreetGamesandcommunity work with at DWP, are all the time trying to find organisations which encourage young, disadvantaged better ways to deliver services to people so that they people from low-income families to adopt a healthy can realise their destiny. and active lifestyle through the work of locally trusted organisations, which are the first port of call for many Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]: I thank the Minister for families struggling to cope with the crisis? her clear efforts in this area. I know that she is very sympathetic. My point is similar to that of other noble Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): I acknowledge and Lords. Save the Children said today that 27% of families pay tribute to the work of the organisation to which are finding it harder to find food than they were in the noble Lord referred. April. This is obviously going to get worse over the winter. I particularly want to ask about children: are Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]: My Lords, the Government going to implement the three children of school age have had their education severely recommendationsinthenationalfoodstrategy,particularly disrupted, with those in the poorest households affected about holiday hunger? The Christmas holidays will be the most. We know that Covid-19 is passed on through upon us before we know it and we need a plan in place. 701 Covid-19: Low-income Families[8 OCTOBER 2020] Iran: UN Arms Embargo 702
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con): The noble Baroness, ministerial joint commission as soon as possible. Lady Watkins, also raised with me, outside the Chamber, On what else the UK is doing, we sought to facilitate the issue of food, children and holiday cover. I pledged dialogue between the two positions to achieve a desired to talk to my noble friend Lady Berridge. I have been outcome. However, as I said earlier, sanctions remain, so busy that I have not been able to do that, but I give both from the EU and through the UN ballistic restrictions an undertaking to do so and to write to the noble on Iran. Baroness. Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) declare my registered interest as chair of the European (LD): My Lords, the time allowed for this Question Leadership Network. This is all about the JCPOA has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baroness, and the US Administration’s desire to destroy it, or Lady Massey, that there was no time for her question. to make it difficult for a Biden Administration to We now come to the second Oral Question, in the name recant it. The Minister knows of my support for the of the noble Lord, Lord Polak. Government’s policy on the JCPOA: Iran not having a nuclear weapon is a priority for our security. Does the Minister agree that however we may otherwise support Iran: UN Arms Embargo arms embargo sanctions on Iran—which we do—we Question cannot fight to keep the JCPOA alive and at the same time impose an arms embargo relating to the treaty 12.28 pm itself? Asked by Lord Polak Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans thank the noble Lord for his support. While the JCPOA theyhavetosupportanextensionof theUnitedNations is far from perfect, it remains the only agreement on arms embargo on the government of Iran. the table. We continue to press with our E3 partners on this issue to ensure that it is sustained, to prevent Lord Polak (Con): My Lords, in begging leave to Iran becoming a nuclear state in any sense. We also ask the Question standing in my name on the Order remain committed to Resolutions 2216 and 1701 of Paper, I refer the House to my registered interests. the Security Council, which prevent further exporting of arms, as well as the other sanctions from the EU and on ballistics that I have already alluded to. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con): My Lords, the UN arms embargo on Iran is due to Baroness Northover (LD): My Lords, I hope that expire on 18 October.Weremain committed to countering the Minister will answer both my questions. Has the Iranian proliferation to non-state actors. The EU’s United Kingdom said anything to the United States arms embargo and the UN ballistic missile restrictions about the importance of adhering to international will remain in place, as will other prohibitions on the agreements? Secondly, given the volatility of the region, proliferation of weapons to Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. does he agree that very active involvement with Iran is required to build on the JCPOA? Lord Polak (Con): Our abstention on extending the UN arms embargo was an error of judgment. China Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, on and Russia were always going to veto, to support Iran. the second question of the noble Baroness, I have Those three countries are not known for honouring already referred to the fact that we are working with gentlemen’s agreements. We should have voted with E3 partners and with High Representative Borrell on the US, to make it clear that we oppose Iran accessing that very issue. On adhering to international agreements, arms through the legitimacy of the UN but, sadly, we the JCPOA was agreed by all and we were disappointed chose to leave the US exposed and lonely when, in by the United States’ leaving it, but it is important, in truth, we agree with it. There are 10 days before the order for it to remain on the table, that Iran fulfils its expiry. Will my noble friend the Minister to take a lead obligations. and do what we know is right? If not, will he explain our policy going forward? How are we going to stop Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con): My Lords, I draw the spread of arms to the terror-supporting Iran? the House’s attention to the register of interests and my role as the trade envoy to Iran. While I totally Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I agree that there are many legitimate criticisms to be share with my noble friend the intention to stop the made of Iran’s behaviour, if we want stability in the destabilising influence of Iran. The United Kingdom region is it not important to recognise that Iran has its abstained because the resolution could not attract own legitimate security concerns, having been—within the support of the council, and therefore did not living memory—invaded by its Arab neighbour and represent a basis for achieving consensus. He asked having lost more lives than we lost in the whole of the about the way forward. We are addressing systematic Second World War? Given that, if we really want Iran Iranian non-compliance. Iran must engage seriously not to want to buy more weapons, should we not be with our concerns, and I know that my right honourable more careful about selling weapons into the region—to friend the Foreign Secretary has asked the High Iran’s heavily-armed Arab neighbours, some of whom Representative of the EU, Josep Borrell, to convene a have spent much more on weapons than Iran? 703 Iran: UN Arms Embargo [LORDS] Iran: UN Arms Embargo 704
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, this agree with my noble friend, and I have said repeatedly issue was looked at in great detail by my colleagues at that our challenge and our opposition are not directed the Department for International Trade, including the at the Iranian people. It is a rich culture, whether it is Secretary of State. As I have said already, we have a Persian, Arab, Turk, Baluch or Kurd—the list goes on. very rigid arms export regime, and that continues to On his wider point about exports of arms to the apply to all countries. region, when making any arms sales we engage one of the most rigid processes, and we ask other countries to Baroness Helic (Con) [V]: Does my noble friend adopt similar measures. agree that damaging and destabilising activities are undertaken in the region by many states, including some Baroness Deech (CB) [V]: My Lords, I refer to the UK allies, and that the way forward is not unilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no doubt action by the United States—or anyone else—but a that Iran has not observed it, and the United States collective diplomatic endeavour to establish, over time, has called for snapback sanctions. Will the Government a regional security co-operation regime based on the comply with these, and how, otherwise, will they ensure principles of international law and negotiated primarily that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are blocked? by the countries of the region themselves?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I agree Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I with the point made by the noble Baroness about agree with my noble friend on the intent to get all ensuring that we curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That is regional partners engaged on this matter. That is why why it is important that we keep the JCPOA—an we believe that on issues and areas such as Yemen it is imperfect agreement, I accept, but the only one on the important, in order to reach political settlement, for table—and work to ensure that Iran adheres to it. all parties to be at the table. We continue to employ our resources to help that happen, but equally we Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): On that precise require regional partners to think very carefully: their point—how we keep the JCPOA alive—will the Minister continued intervention in other countries adds to the say what practical steps he is taking with our EU destabilisation of that region. partners, particularly as part of the E3, to bring it back to the table and to get agreement, with a view, in particular, to avoiding some of the sanctions? What is Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]: My Lords, a stated foreign happening to INSTEX and the special purpose vehicle— policy priority of a Biden presidency is Iran—and rightly has it worked? so. Should that become a reality, will the Government call for an urgent gathering in Washington of JCPOA E3 participants—including, perhaps, Iran—to put the Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I assure whole sorry mess back on track, and take that opportunity the noble Lord that we are working with our E3 partners, to press the importance of Israel recognition, and as he has suggested. On INSTEX, a number of countries Saudi and Yemen processes? have come on board. It was set up so that important sectors such as healthcare could be dealt with, which is particularly important in the current coronavirus crisis, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, we and—I can confirm—the first transaction under INSTEX continue to press for progress on the JCPOA and we has already taken place. await the outcome of the US election.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]: My Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]: My Lords, as it the Minister said that the United Kingdom abstained is pretty obvious from the exchanges of the past few at the UN because there was not going to be agreement. minutes that on Iran we are not really on the same Is that not a dangerous precedent: surely that would page as the Americans, is it not time for a complete be true of many decisions taken at the UN? Should the rethink of our own Iran policy, making much more UK not be voting? use of our old friends and connections in the region, such as Oman and the United Arab Emirates? Would Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, as it not be a good starting point to take this into the Ministers at the UN we often take a decision to integrated review of foreign policy and security which, abstain. It is very rare for us to veto any resolution: it I understand, has just been reactivated—albeit with should be a last resort. On this issue, the Security rather a low profile—and is currently being orchestrated Council resolution is valid, and can go forward, only if from the Cabinet Office? all P5 members agree to it, and we will continue to work with permanent members of the Security Council Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, on to find a resolution. my noble friend’s latter point, the integrated review is under way and the outcome will, I am sure, be debated Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): My Lords, in your Lordships’ House in due course. On his earlier last year the Government were found to have acted point about our policy on Iran, and that of our unlawfully in selling to Saudi Arabia—another oppressive partners, it is right for us to continue working with our regime—arms which it then used for the Saudi-led E3 partners, but we also need to work with the United bombardment of Yemen, leading to a huge humanitarian States to achieve a desired outcome that brings peace crisis. The Government have resumed sales to Saudi and stability to the region. In that connection, I Arabia: how do they justify that? participated recently in a UN event, initiated by the 705 Iran: UN Arms Embargo [8 OCTOBER 2020] NHS: GP Vacancies 706
UAE and involving Bahrain and Israel, where Israel Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, the shift to virtual was recognised by another two countries of the region. consultations and, in particular, virtual triaging, has These are important steps forward. Israel is a reality been a positive development in the NHS. However, for and part and parcel of the Middle East. All the many patients, a face-to-face appointment may be countries in the region and beyond need to recognise most appropriate. So, I say to the noble Lord that we its status and work together to ensure peace in what do encourage digital working; it can be more efficient, has been a troubled region for far too long. and it protects both GPs and patients from potential infection. But face-to-face appointments can be incredibly The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) important and should take place where needed. (LD): My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question. Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con): My Lords, like everyone in the NHS, GPs have had to work extremely hard NHS: GP Vacancies during the pandemic. I wonder whether my noble friend could enlighten us on what support the Government Question are giving front-line practitioners for their mental health. I note that the Government recently—Matt Hancock is 12.40 pm to be congratulated on this—set up the National Academy Asked by Lord Clark of Windermere for Social Prescribing, recognising, at last, the crucial To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many role the arts play in supporting people’s mental health, vacancies there were for general practitioners in the particularly those in the health service. National Health Service for England in July; and what were the comparable figures in (1) 2015, and Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, for GPs, NHS (2) 2010. England and the Royal College of General Practitioners have launched the Looking After You Too service, Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, in 2018-19, 1,398 which is there to provide mental health services to all practices reported 652 vacancies in the NHS Digital primary care workers in the NHS. On social prescribing, GP workforce data collection. Fewer than a third of that is an incredibly welcome development. The practices submit data to the NHS Digital collection Government’s loneliness strategy, launched in 2019, each year, and it is not possible to make estimates for committed to every eligible patient having access to a practices that did not submit data, therefore a comparison social prescribing connector scheme by 2023, and we between years cannot be made. look forward to delivering that.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab): I thank the noble Lord Loomba (CB) [V]: My Lords, from my personal Baroness for her Answer. This small reduction in the experience, waiting times to see a GP have always been number of GPs covers huge differences across the long, and appointments limited to five or six minutes country. Can the Minister explain, for example, why only. Now, it is even worse, with many appointments there is such a shortage of GPs in parts of Cumbria, by phone, denying patients the proper medical care where there are even discussions on closing the purpose- they urgently need. I believe the situation is mainly built surgery in Windermere, the largest town in the due to shortages of doctors and nurses. I also realise national park, which would leave in excess of 5,500 locals that the Government are committed to filling the and literally millions of tourists without any primary vacancies as soon as possible. Could the Minister say care cover? how and when these vacancies will be filled so that GPs are able to provide a better and more comprehensive Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, the closure of an service? individual practice is not something the central Government take charge of. However, the noble Lord Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, the noble Lord is is right that there are areas of the country where it can correct that the Government are committed to increasing be hard both to recruit and retain doctors in general the number of doctors working in general practice. It practice and other specialities.That is whythe Government is about not only increased recruitment—that is why have put in place a programme of £20,000 one-off we are increasing training places to 4,000 next year—but payments to recruit doctors in areas where recruitment increased retention, which is incredibly important. A is hard. The number of placements available under number of new retention schemes, which were included that scheme is increasing this year, next year and the in the updated GP contract, have now been launched. year after. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]: My Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]: It is Lords, will the Minister concede that, in spite of the clear that virtual and telephone appointments enable much-vaunted promises by Tory election manifestos, more consultations to the hour and are, in that sense, the actual number of GPs has decreased for the first more efficient. However, a doctor told me recently that time since the 1960s. Does she not find explaining he hoped virtual appointments would not become the the difference between rhetoric and reality somewhat norm after the pandemic, as in his view it was essential embarrassing? for a doctor to have face-to-face consultation and examination where possible. Will the Government Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, the noble Lord is encourage physical consultations again after the pandemic correct that the number of GPs is down by 600 on last has passed? year. My understanding is that a number of factors 707 NHS: GP Vacancies [LORDS] Housing: Rent and Covid-19 708
[BARONESS PENN] Baroness Penn (Con): As I said to noble Lords have impacted this, including foundation doctors on before, one of the initiatives the Government are placement in general practice being redeployed to undertaking is providing extra funding to doctors to secondary care during the Covid crisis; GPs working train in those hard-to-recruit areas, to increase provision in NHS 111 during the Covid crisis; and the quality there. The noble Baroness is right to say that equality and completeness of data being impacted by Covid. of provision is an important part of the NHS, and it is But he is right: we need to do more. We have increased something that we strive to deliver. recruitment, and our emphasis is also on increasing retainment so that we can increase the number of GPs. Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]: My Lords, it is worrying that the situation has changed so much, Baroness Sheehan (LD): My Lords, data from a and that two-thirds of GP consultations now have to 2018 survey in Pulse magazine showed that during the be done by telephone, as time and practical access to six years between 2012 and 2018, 565 GP practices surgeries are so limited, and it is no longer possible closed. What plans have the Government put in place just to walk in. In those circumstances, it is difficult to to alleviate the intense pressure on the remaining know whether a case of obesity, for example, is getting general practices in the areas most affected, such as worse or improving. Seeing patients personally is much the north-east, given that 1.7 million people were left to be preferred. But when they ring the doorbell they without a GP? have to be let in, they can only be spaced in a certain number of chairs, and everything has to be cleaned Baroness Penn (Con): One aspect of our response is after each patient leaves. It really is difficult. As for the to increase the number of GPs, but there is also an shortage of GPs, I wonder whether we might get some important role for other healthcare professionals working from Commonwealth countries—as I came, years ago, in primary care. Those numbers increased last year—both when there was such a shortage of dental practitioners. the number of nurses working in primary care and the There may now be surplus doctors in some other number of other workers, such as physiotherapists countries, who we could ask to help us out. and social prescribing link workers. A more diverse workforce and a better mix can free up GP time to Baroness Penn (Con):The noble Baroness is correct focus on those with the highest clinical need. in her references to the measures taken in GP surgeries to control infection. Those are incredibly important Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]: My Lords, there during a pandemic. However, telephone and video are complications in calculating the number of general consultations can be a triaging process to allow people practitioners, because a large number of them do to have face-to-face consultations for the appropriate variable numbers of sessions—some do four, five, six, amount of time with the appropriate primary care seven, eight and so on. The size of the general practice worker. workforce is often calculated in terms of whole-time equivalence, but this is unlikely to be accurate because The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) there are GPs who are paid for five or six sessions but (LD): My Lords, the time allowed for this Question do many more.Is this taken into account when calculating has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, these numbers? and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who have not been able to put their questions. Baroness Penn (Con): The noble Lord is correct that the numbers are calculated at full-time equivalence. There may be more individual GPs working, because Housing: Rent and Covid-19 one trend we have seen is that with increased workload, Question people with families to look after, or who are either at the end or the start of their career, are choosing not to 12.52 pm work full-time. With the retention programme, we are looking at both freeing up time and workload pressures Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on those GPs and providing specific support with Toask Her Majesty’sGovernment what assessment childcare and costs to those looking to join or return they have made of the survey conducted by Shelter to general practice. into the experience of renters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baroness Wheeler (Lab): My Lords, analysis by the Health Foundation think tank has found that people in the most deprived communities are less well served Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op): My Lords, by GPs, who are struggling to cope with shortages of I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name doctors and receive less funding per patient than those on the Order Paper, and in doing so I refer the House in more affluent areas, despite the fact that people to my relevant interests as set out in the register living in poorer areas have greater healthcare needs. What action are the Government taking to tackle the The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of lack of doctors and the funding disparity between Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord poorer and wealthier communities? Is not addressing Greenhalgh) (Con): My Lords, I refer to my residential the inequalities of provision in general practice the and commercial property interests as set out in the register. key to tackling health inequalities, which have worsened The Government have noted the results of Shelter’s because of the coronavirus pandemic? attitude survey of 5,077 adults. We have introduced 709 Housing: Rent and Covid-19[8 OCTOBER 2020] Housing: Rent and Covid-19 710 unprecedented measures to protect renters. Not only the present situation, and rising anxiety levels, will he have we increased notice periods to six months, but we consider a special coronavirus relief fund for private have extended financial support for workers and renters? strengthened the welfare safety net by over £9 billion. We continue to take action to improve standards and Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, the Government supply, we recently introduced stricter electrical safety are always receptive to creative ideas. We will continue standards, and we are announcing £12 billion of to keep the position under review, and will consider investment in affordable housing. such ideas if we need to.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op): My Lords, Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab): My Lords, thousands of renters are shocked to find the amount I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing of benefit they receive does not cover their rent payments. Federation. A report by the federation and Heriot-Watt I am sure the Minister will say that the tenants concerned University found that within the last two years, the can apply for discretionary housing payment—but the number of people in need of social housing has increased problem is that although there was a modest increase by 5%, supporting Shelter’s findings. We now have in DHP this year, it was announced in September almost 4 million people living in inadequate and 2019, so it was intended to deal with a non-Covid level overcrowded homes and in desperate need of social of demand. Can more money therefore be made available housing. As we move into winter, this is going to get for discretionary housing payments to deal specifically worse. Will the Minister look carefully at both reports with the extra demand due to Covid-19, and to help and commit to building the 90,000 social homes a year renters with growing rent debt, due to the benefits cap, we need as a matter of urgency? to stave off the risk of eviction? If the noble Lord cannot answer that question today, will he agree to write Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, the Government to me with a full written answer? have set out clearly a very significant investment of £12.2 billion for affordable homes, around 50% of Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I would point which will be social housing and 50% intermediate out that discretionary housing payments have increased homes to provide the housing ladder of opportunity. by some £40 million, to £180 million. We do not have We have to recognise that what we have actually seen is great data on rent arrears: the data from the National a collapse in home ownership, from a peak of 71% down Residential Landlords Association indicates that about to 64%. It is that that we are trying to address, to 7% are in arrears. However, I will write to the noble ensure that we give people the opportunity to own Lord, as he requested. their own home, as well as providing the social homes that this country needs. Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, in answer to an Urgent Question on this very subject a fortnight Baroness Grender (LD): My Lords, does the Minister ago, my noble friend the Minister said, of measures to agree that this report shows a 40-year legacy of failure help renters: to build sufficient social housing? Blackpool, for example, “They are kept under constant review in the light of evidence has two-thirds of private renters on benefits but no of public health, and we are prepared to take further measures as AHP grant funding locally to build social housing. they are needed to protect landlords and tenants alike”—[Official Does he accept that levelling up will remain a pipe dream Report, 24/9/20; col. 1948.] if poor quality private rentals are the only option Since then the public health evidence has, sadly, available to people on benefits? deteriorated significantly, so will my noble friend now introduce the further measures that he then referred Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I accept the to? Might those include the recommendations of Shelter’s challenge that we want to see more councils building recent report, Renters at Risk? council homes. I am delighted to point to Wandsworth, “a brighter borough”, which has announced the building Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I assure my of 17 three and four-bedroom properties in Roehampton. noble friend that there is no evidence yet of an eviction There is a growing recognition among councils that epidemic. Wehave established an unprecedented package they can build again and they should: that is part of of support, and the Chancellor has announced in the their core role. other place the Government’s winter economy plan to support people through the winter, and to support Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]: My Lords, despite the jobs, including the new job support scheme. We have court ruling earlier this year that made blanket bans increased local housing allowance rates to the 30th on renters who are on benefits unlawful, such renters percentile, which will remain in place at least until the are still being discriminated against. Landlords and end of March 2021. letting agents are still stating that landlords’ mortgage and insurance policies prohibit them from letting to Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]: My Lords, tenants on benefits. A number of people are now on 300,000 people are now reported to be behind on their benefits due to Covid. Can the noble Lord confirm rent. As the Minister will know, debt because of rent that any reference implying this prohibition on renting is one of the major causes, if not the major cause, to people on benefits in mortgage and insurance policies of anxiety, and it is very prevalent at this time. The and on property websites should be removed immediately? Government are to be commended on the steps they If he is unable to do that today from the Dispatch have already taken, but in view of the seriousness of Box, will he write to me to clarify the situation? 711 Housing: Rent and Covid-19 [LORDS] Arrangement of Business 712
Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, there is no 30 years, they have heard promises of job creation and obvious indication of discrimination against people social housing for local people. With 75% of the who require housing support, housing benefit or universal workforce coming from outside, leaving the boroughs credit. As noble Lords know, the increase in the housing with severe shortages of family housing, and rising benefit bill is substantial, but I will write to the noble numbers of expensive apartments leading to a further Baroness on the matter. need for family housing, will the Minister engage with local authorities and housing associations to ensure Lord Bird (CB) [V]: We should congratulate Shelter that 1 million inbuilt permissions for housing are on outlining that 60% of people in the rented sector mandated to commence immediately, with guarantees are only one paycheque away from falling into arrears. of at least 50% social housing for families? Otherwise, That is the kind of information we need to work on. I the rental generation will remain the purview and suggest that the Minister speak to the Government. If gesture of the Prime Minister’s podium rhetoric. we are to have a Cockaigne, as suggested by Boris Johnson at the party conference recently, we need to Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I will not give support people who will fall into evictions because of that precise assurance; however, it is important, when Covid-19. The only way to do that is for the Government we develop schemes such as that at Canary Wharf, to pay now, rather than later, when these people slip that there is social value, that jobs are created for local into homelessness. people and that the benefits of redevelopment and regeneration spread out to the whole community where Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I just point out such schemes take place. that as a Minister, I am part of the Government and I will always try to respond as such. We do not see an eviction epidemic. We are fully behind the noble Lord’s The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) mission to end homelessness, as he knows, and we will (LD): My Lords, the time allowed for this Question invest in that endeavour. has now elapsed and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who has not been able to put her Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]: My Lords, is the noble question. Lord aware that many of the people in arrears and liable to fall into homelessness are young people working 1.04 pm in the hospitality or entertainment industries, which are very much at risk now? Will he urge his Treasury Sitting suspended. colleagues to lift the benefit cap to support them and others like them through the winter? Does he agree that this is bound to be cheaper and more humane Arrangement of Business than the cost of more homelessness? Announcement Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, we recognise that this is a terribly difficult pandemic, and a number 1.30 pm of renters have had to move back home on losing their The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) jobs. That is the kind of mobility you see in a seismic (CB): My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. pandemic such as this, but the Government have increased Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting the benefit cap, which has cost £9 billion in total. social distancing, others are participating remotely, We will take further measures if necessary. but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]: Noting my register of the House. interests, I ask the Minister this: more than 1 million I will call Members to speak in the order listed in households are registered on council waiting lists; the the annexe of today’s list. Interventions during speeches number is rising, due to the Covid crisis. Meanwhile, or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted the number of homes for social rent has plummeted. and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than Can he explain how the housing needs of desperate the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members families are to be met now? may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, the statistics do but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a not bear that out. We have seen a slight drop in social question, including Members in the Chamber, must housing, down from 20% in 1999 to 17% in 2018, but email the clerk. there has been a seismic collapse in the levels of home The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible ownership. Of course, we need social homes, but we to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A also need those intermediate homes that enable people Member intending to press an amendment already to get on in life. debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl): My Lords, I commend When putting the question, I will collect the voices in the work of Shelter. Changes to permitted development the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely will have a profound impact, as many living in the intends to trigger a Division, they should make this shadow of Canary Wharf will testify. For the past clear when speaking on the group. 713 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 714
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill I know well the excitement, or rather the trauma, Report of boundary reviews. I was first elected in 1979 and experienced my first review very quickly, in 1983, so I 1.32 pm know what it is like. Thankfully I survived, but I have seen many good MPs have their careers ended arbitrarily Relevant document: 13th Report from the Constitution as a result of a review. Committee Wecurrently have fixed five-year Parliaments—I know some consideration may be given to that—but previously Clause 1: Reports of the Boundary Commissions we had four or five-year Parliaments as normal. If that continues, a review every eight years would mean that most MPs would face a review in every second Amendment 1 Parliament, which is not much time for them to settle Tabled by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town in and get to know their constituency, their constituents 1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and how to represent them effectively. Time would be taken up by MPs preparing for the next review, perhaps even for selection and reselection—all this just in the Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): One objection Government’s wish to get more arithmetic exactitude. to automaticity was that it left a delaying power in the hands of the Government. Given that the Minister has The Government argue that this makes every person’s added his name to Amendment 6, thus precluding that vote equal—of equal strength and equal value—but mischief, I will not move Amendment 1. thatdoesnottakeaccountof otherfactors,likemarginality. If they really wanted every vote to count, they would Amendment 1 not moved. be moving towards proportional representation, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who is following me, and others would like, but I know the Government The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) do not want that and are not going to move in that (CB): We now come to the group beginning with direction. Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only My main argument is to minimise disruption, to once, and that short questions of elucidation are increase the accountability of MPs to their constituents discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or the other and to increase their effectiveness—something that is amendment in this group to a Division should make being sidelined in our parliamentary democracy. I beg that clear in debate. to move Amendment 2, and I wish to seek the opinion of the House by Division when we come to that point. Amendment 2 Lord Rennard (LD): My Lords, the Bill sets out a Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock system for reviewing constituency boundaries which 2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out “2031” and insert “2033” will result in changes much more dramatic than those of any previous reviews ever put in place. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]: My I would like you to imagine the position of a newly Lords, I also speak to Amendment 3 in my name. elected MP in a general election in 2025. They will Amendment 2, if agreed to, would move the next review, have won a seat with new boundaries, but just four beyond 2023, to 2033 instead of 2031, thus making it a years later a new boundary revision process will begin. 10-year gap.Amendment 3 would make that a permanent From 2029 they will be engaged, over a two-year arrangement. period, in arguments about whether the constituency As a former MP,I am acutely aware of the disruption might exist again, or whether it should be redrawn in a caused by reviews, not just for MPs but for their very different form. They will not know the decision constituents, councils, councillors, local organisations of the boundary commissioners until the end of and many others within the constituency. Others who September 2031. are going to participate in the debate will confirm and Under these rules, Parliament will no longer have a testify to that. say over whether the proposals are implemented. The Some Members will recall that in Committee, in new boundaries will therefore take effect in any general discussing amendments giving priority to communities election from February 2032. There will be just four over arithmetic and amendments on the percentage months between the Boundary Commissions’ reports variation—which will be covered again today in the being finalised and their proposals automatically taking debate on Amendments 12, 13, 14 and 18—we discussed effect in any general election. All that is certain is that the importance of the linkage between the MP and her the proposed constituencies will be very different from or his constituency.Good MPs work in their constituency, those at the previous election. very hard: helping individuals at surgeries and in other The problem with eight-yearly reviews, a fixed number ways; working with organisations of all kinds; and of seats in each state or region and very limited building up a rapport and an understanding to enable flexibility from the quota of electors in each seat is them to represent their constituents at Westminster. that they will involve major changes to more than An MP is a representative, not simply a member of an 300 constituencies every time. Not many more than electoral college to elect a Prime Minister and thereby 100constituenciesarelikelytohaveunchangedboundaries. a Government, as some of the current special advisers This is not a one-off problem but is what will happen seem to believe. with every boundary review in future. 715 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 716
[LORD RENNARD] Lord, Lord Rennard, because I suspect, from listening The frequency of reviews involving dramatic changes to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and Lib to boundaries does not make sense if the link between Dems generally, he would wish to do away with single- MPs and their constituencies is to be valued. member constituencies altogether,in the hope of achieving Unfortunately, little consideration was allowed in the something more advantageous to the Lib Dem cause other place for the question as to how frequently of proportional representation. reviews should take place. Over the past 50 years, we have had 14 general elections. That is an average of 1.45 pm one every three and a half years. Therefore, with a Where is the radicalism in the proposal of the noble boundary review every eight years, and with the rules Lord, Lord Foulkes? No Clydesider he on this issue. as proposed, we can expect that only one in five He sounds positively reactionary in what he tells us constituencies will exist with the same boundaries for about the relationship of an MP with his constituency. two consecutive general elections. He said in Grand Committee that Somebody winning a seat shortly after a boundary “the reason for having 10 years rather than eight is to give some review will know that they will get the chance to fight stability for the Member of Parliament to get to know her or his that same seat just one more time. There will then be a constituency—to become acquainted with it and have the support 50% chance that it is reorganised in a major way, and of their constituents—and to be able to come to the House of an 80% chance of the boundaries being changed in Commons as a representative, not a party hack”.—[Official Report, some way. But somebody winning a seat more than 8/9/20; col. GC 165.] four years after a boundary review will immediately While I would not have supported my noble friend face a 50% chance that the constituency boundaries Lord Forsyth in Committee, I believe that the more will change in a major way at the very next election, frequent the review the better. Eight years is a fair and an 80% chance that the constituency boundaries balance and keeps as closely as is practical to the will be changed. It may be that some people welcome perfection of equal electorates at general elections. this kind of disruption to constituencies.Internal selection In returning to these amendments, the noble Lord, battles may be a great joy for some people but constantly Lord Foulkes, disappoints me, as do the noble Baroness, having to engage in them cannot be good for anyone Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for who wants to serve the people of a constituency or to whom I have a high regard. In my experience, candidates demonstrate that they could do so in future. Party should get to know their constituencies before elections, HQs may welcome frequent reorganisations so that not learn on the job as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, awkward MPs might find themselves forced out and suggests. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, without a seat, while more obliging loyalists could be will agree with me on that. In his talk of disruption rewarded with new opportunities. and the concept of “swings and roundabouts”, as the One of my friends on the Cross Benches, the noble noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, called it in Committee, he Lord, Lord Alton, was an excellent constituency MP, forgets the poor voter and the purpose of the Bill in but he twice found that a constituency that elected him providing fairness of representation as the registered with large majorities was effectively abolished by the electorate changes to provide 650 MPs. However,despite boundary review process. Constituents cannot be well his observations, I think that changing boundaries in served in a system in which constituencies are likely to the pursuit of fairness is not something with which he exist for only two general elections. disagrees. The difference between us is, in practice, The late and much missed Professor Ron Johnston, between his proposals in the amendment, for reviews has been quoted by all sides many times in our debates every 10 years over three elections, and the Bill clearly on the issue of boundary reviews. In Grand Committee, stating eight years and the probability of two elections. the Minister, referred to his “respect and appreciation” I have always seen the noble Lord as an early bird, a for him. Professor Johnston felt that a constituency personal clock on continental time, not a stop-abed, should exist for three general elections before its reluctant to meet the day. Quintus Fabius Maximus, boundaries could be redrawn. The only way in which the Cunctator, has nothing on him as he seeks to avoid to make that more likely while keeping boundaries a battle with public opinion. Perhaps he has already reasonably up to date is to make the reviews every achieved that objective by being in this place. He might, 10 years, not every eight. however, reflect on how the apparent policy of his party and his amendments will be received by the other Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]: My Lords, I place if, as he suggests, he pursues them to a Division apologise for not participating in Committee, having and, more importantly, on how that will appear to the spoken at Second Reading, but I followed the three voters who they seek to represent. days of debate in Committee. I saw the feed on the first day, in which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]: I have little to Cumnock, raised his proposal for a 10-year cycle for add to what I have heard. It is important that changes reviews. I was surprised at his persistence in bringing to constituencies are not too frequent. A Member of back the issue on Report. Not only has he gathered Parliament gets close to the local authorities, the electors comrades in arms from the opposition coalition, he and all sorts of organisations. I have had the experience has the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, of representing a constituency for 23 years and then and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, as co-signatories half of it being taken away from me to the east to his proposals. However, where are the interests of because the county boundaries changed. The numbers parliamentary democracy served by another example had to be made up by adding two new wards to the of foot-dragging on boundaries? I excuse the noble west. It was not easy, but we conquered the problem. 717 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 718
One had to rebuild new associations, friendships and In Committee, the Minister said the eight-year cycle interests, and people wanted to know you better. It is was “supported”, but in reply to the PQ he said it was therefore a very bad thing, in my experience as a accepted. Those are very different things.Being supportive Member of Parliament for 41 years, for constituency is, “What a jolly good idea, Minister. How wise you changes to be too frequent. I support the amendment. are.” Being accepting is, “Well, Minister, if that is really what you want, I suppose that we will have to go along Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]: My Lords, I spoke at with it.” That comes perilously close to misleading Second Reading but not in Committee, but I have the House. been following the Bill’s progress with great interest. It I would be inclined to forgive the Minister for that is fundamental to our democracy. I want to express if, when he winds up the debate, he is able to give my concern about this grouping and to speak against a clear and concise summary of exactly what the Amendments 2 and 3 in the names of the noble Lords, consultation consisted of, who was consulted and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lord Rennard, and the noble exactly what their replies were. If he cannot do that Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. in winding up—I understand that he might be a bit The fundamental reason for boundary reviews is to short of time—I would be grateful if he would give a ensure that constituencies of equal size are maintained. commitment to write to all noble Lords involved in To do this, we need the data to be reviewed on a this debate setting out at greater length and in more regular basis, balancing this with the need to avoid detail what the consultation was. In doing so, he will constant disruption. In a fast-moving world of significant make us a great deal more confident that this is not a changes in our demographics, which can be through product of ministerial whim and the justification for it housebuilding or geographical migration, including thought up only after the event. changes to people’s work patterns and locations, it seems that the Government’s proposal in the Bill to conduct boundary reviews on a cycle of eight years is The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con): My Lord, I believe fair and reasonable. If, as the amendments propose, that it is sensible to have more frequent boundary boundary reviews are held only every 10 years, there reviews than those being proposed in the amendment. will be an even greater risk than there is now that Prior to Covid, this country was enjoying very substantial constituency boundaries will become out of date and employment figures and people were relocating around unequal between the reviews. the country to where the jobs were to be found. Prior to 2011, when general reviews took place However,the pandemic has changed absolutely everything. every eight to 12 years, it was a very unsatisfactory The jobs market is dreadful and getting worse, and system where interim reviews would take place to when we eventually arrive at a new normal, I suggest consider whether particular constituencies should be that it will bear little resemblance to what we knew updated between the general boundary reviews to take pre-Covid. Jobs will be extremely difficult to come by, account of local government changes and shifts in and to find employment people will have to translocate population in particular areas. Those interim reviews in pursuit of work. This will inevitably change the were disruptive. They were made at the discretion of shape and size of many constituencies and demographics the Boundary Commission and they made it difficult in general. That is one reason that I believe it is vital for MPs to develop stable and effective constituency that boundaries are reviewed on a more frequent basis relationships with communities. A balance of eight than that being proposed in this amendment. That is years should avoid the need to hold interim reviews, why I shall support the Government. which has to be a good thing. It is right that all parliamentary constituencies should Lord Blunkett (Lab): It is always a pleasure to follow be of equal size and that everyone’s vote carries equal the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, not least because of weight. It is a balance between regular reviews and his own and his family’s historic links with the city of minimal upheaval while ensuring that constituency Sheffield. However, I have to disagree with him on this boundaries accurately represent significant demographic occasion. I shall speak briefly in favour of the amendments shifts in a fast-moving world. Eight-year reviews strike because I want to speak again on Amendment 12 and the right balance. the substantive issue around that. To pick up the point that was just made by the Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, if we are not to have the catastrophe of a amendment and I want to focus on one particular point. major shift in population further away from the north The Minister, in replying to the debate in Committee, of England, we will have to take the opportunity of put great weight on the support that he alleged his the use of social media and more imaginative and proposals had received from interested parties. I shall creative ways of bringing jobs to people, rather than quote him: people having to go to existing jobs; otherwise, we will “Prior to the Bill’s introduction we engaged with all the have an even greater imbalance in the country, both parliamentary parties and with the electoral administrator economically and socially, than we have already. representatives, and an eight-year cycle was the one that was supported.”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. GC 171.] The simple point I want to make is one that I made I had hoped for rather more than that, so I put down a in Grand Committee.Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, PQ. I did not get a lot more in response; I will come I do not believe that the issue is about the Member back to that in a moment. It said: getting to know the constituency before they are elected, “Ahead of the Bill’s introduction, the Government engaged if they are lucky enough to be so; it is about the with parliamentary parties,and electoral administrator representatives, constituents getting to know the elected Member. and there was general acceptance of an 8-year cycle.” In the single-member constituency framework that we 719 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 720
[LORD BLUNKETT] Those who have been through boundary changes have and of which I am in favour, it is absolutely will know the upheaval that can happen. Former MPs fundamental that the constituents know who is have spoken today on the impact they can have. I have representing them, that they know where to contact never been a Member of Parliament, but I speak as them and that a constituency Member gets to know someone who has had to reorganise constituency the critical areas of the community so that they become boundaries. It is difficult for all concerned, including a voice for the area, whichever party they start off party members, party organisers and electors, some representing. who can find that they have not moved to a new home I want to make just one additional point in response but that they have moved into a new constituency. to the noble Baroness who has spoken against these A change in constituency boundaries takes some amendments. I experienced an interim boundary change time to bed down, with new relationships having to be because of local authority boundary reorganisations. formed and the sitting Members sometimes having to It was nowhere near as disruptive as the major and find new constituencies to represent. In some cases, complete rebanding of constituencies in the period that they find that they do not have a constituency, which I experienced otherwise. It added a part of Hillsborough will happen when this Bill goes through. I know that into the Brightside constituency, which has allowed these things can happen whenever there are boundary me to take the title of Brightside and Hillsborough— changes, but a 10-year period means less churn and although I spent a lot of time in Hillsborough, not less upheaval and is better for democracy. The MPs least in the football ground, when we were permitted have time to build up good relationships with the to do so. constituencies that they represent, which provides stability This is all about stability and the arrangements that for all involved. Political parties play a big role in our complement and develop the concept of the citizen democracy and work closely with the MP or their knowing who represents them in our system. These party’s candidate. It is a crucial role. When boundaries amendments are a sensible way of ensuring that we do are altered, there can be big changes to make, not only not have constant disruption. That may be good for for the Member of Parliament, but for all those who numerical equality, which we will come to later, but it work with them to get them elected. A 10-year period hasabsolutelynothingtodowithdemocraticrepresentation. would allow for much more stability. There is support for this from most Peers who have Lord Tyler (LD) [V]: My Lords, I agree very much spoken today on this amendment, as there was in with what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has just said Committee. I ask the Minister to take careful note of about the emphasis on people’s interests rather than the views expressed today in favour of a 10-year those of politicians, and I shall come back to that in a review. My noble friend Lord Foulkes said that he will moment. call a vote on this, and we will, of course, be supporting In the interests of brevity, I wish merely to reiterate him. our support for these two amendments which have been clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Rennard, Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con): My Lords, this and to emphasise our approach to the Bill, because we amendment seeks to change the timings of boundary are just starting on this process again. We are concerned reviews so that a review would be undertaken every to minimise excessive, unnecessary and pointless 10 years. Currently under the Bill, a boundary review disruption. Anyone who has had the privilege of serving would take place every eight years. This is a change as a Member of the House of Commons knows that from the current law. I think many noble Lords have the commitment is to people—the human geography forgotten what the current law is: under it, a review rather than just the physical geography—and for that should take place every five years. purpose we are concerned about the way in which this The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and many other noble Bill has been drafted. However characterful a constituency Lords, in supporting this amendment, said that they may be in its built as well as its natural environment—I wanted a lack of disruption to local communities. challenge anyone to compete with north Cornwall on Many noble Lords also talked about disruption to that score—you represent views rather than vistas. Members of Parliament, but I am more interested in That is why a better electoral system with multi-member local communities. Our aim, as committed to in our constituencies would indeed be much more representative manifesto, is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies than the present one. are updated regularly but without the disruption to In the context of this Bill, for those reasons, we are local communities and their representation that might determined to maintain a consistent relationship between occur with the current five-yearly reviews. I, and the people and their representatives wherever and whenever Government, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, there are no overriding reasons to break it. I admit on the Opposition Benches, who said at Second Reading: that this is a conservative approach, but it is also the “Eight years seems to me a sensible compromise, ensuring that people-friendly one, and I hope that that will appeal to constituency electorates are kept reasonably up to date, and in the Minister. It is a matter of appropriate balance, as normal times would operate for at least two general elections.”— other noble Lords have said. Wesupport the amendments. [Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 82.] We believe that an eight-year review cycle strikes the 2 pm right balance between ensuring that our constituencies Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I thank my are based on contemporary data and avoiding the noble friend Lord Foulkes and all noble Lords who disruption of having a review roughly every time an have spoken today on these amendments, the majority election occurs. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, making a very good case to have Boundary Commission who has a lot of experience, for supporting our view reviews every 10 years. on this. 721 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 722
While we were drafting the Bill, we shared our I agree that it is important for representatives to know broad plans for the Bill’s contents with parliamentary their constituents well. However, the realities of the parties and electoral administrators. We also discussed electoral cycle surely mean that MPs must be able to a range of technical issues with them. During those build a rapport with constituents in less than five meetings, we stated that the move from a five-year to years. If 10 years is needed to establish good relations, an eight-year review cycle was government policy, but that would seem to take for granted that one will be that we would be interested to hear from anyone who re-elected. disagreed with this idea. I must say to the noble Lord, The argument was also made that a constituent Lord Lipsey, that there was general acceptance that might approve, or disapprove, of their MP’s behaviour, the eight-year cycle was the right approach. but be unable to express their opinion at the ballot box Parliamentary parties also raised understandable because a boundary review had now made them part concerns about ensuring that the data used was as up of a different constituency. This is not an argument for to date as possible.This was particularly notable regarding reviews to take place every 10 years as opposed to the use of local government boundary data. I am every eight or five, or any other length of time, but an surprised that nobody has brought that up today, argument never to change constituencies.The Government because it was brought up in Committee. The Boundary believe that a far more unfair and frustrating situation Commissions take all that data into account when to be in as a voter is knowing that the vote one is drawing up proposals for constituencies. This was the casting is not of equal value to those cast in a neighbouring rationale behind Clause 6, which allows the Boundary constituency. I thank my noble friend Lady Pidding, Commissions to consider a more up-to-date picture of who has a lot of knowledge of this, for her explanation local government boundaries and allows them to factor of this issue. that into their proposals where appropriate and relevant. It was argued that a 10-year cycle would enable reviews to take place at a predictable point before each When we engaged on this measure—I point out to election and thus ensure that the boundaries used for the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey,that it was an engagement— each poll were fully up to date.Some Lords acknowledged representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral that their reasoning assumed that each Parliament administrators were supportive of it. They thought would last for five years. However, we should test the that reviews only every 10 years would further undermine strength of that assumption with care. Since 2010, the aim of having updated constituencies. It would the law has required Parliaments to last five years, mean that the data used would be even more out of notwithstanding certain exceptions, but in that time date, and that over time constituencies would become only one Parliament did last five years. Therefore, even less reflective of current local government boundaries when terms of Parliaments are fixed, a world in which and demographic changes. The parties also told us boundary reviews are conducted at a particular point that they find it helpful, for campaigning purposes, for before a general election has proved impossible. Will it up-to-date local government wards to be used in be more possible, however, when terms of Parliaments constituencies. are not fixed? Neat schedules where boundary reviews With the longer review cycle of 10 years, the question and election dates align perfectly are attractive in of interim reviews, which has not been mentioned this theory, but this has not proved possible in practical afternoon, also arises. The representatives of political terms and is unlikely to in the future. parties and the electoral administrators with whom we I agree with my noble friends Lord Taylor and engaged were against the prospect of introducing interim Lord Shrewsbury: we believe that the middle ground reviews. Let me explain the chain of reasoning here. proposed in the Bill today is the right way forward. Prior to 2011, when general reviews took place every Eight years removes the disruption of a review happening eight to 12 years, interim reviews also took place to roughly each time an election occurs, but it also ensures consider whether certain constituencies should be updated that boundaries remain up to date and fair by making in between general boundary reviews to take account sure that not too much time elapses between reviews. I of local government changes and shifts in population therefore urge the noble Lord to withdrawhis amendment. in certain areas. Were we to move to a 10-year review cycle, the rationale for interim reviews would remain Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]: My strong. Our stakeholders told us clearly—and we agree— Lords, this has been an interesting debate which has that we should not return to this approach. Interim served to convince me that we were absolutely right to reviews bring further disruption and confusion to move this amendment and to pursue it. However, I constituencies, and uncertainty to sitting MPs. An would like to congratulate the Government Chief Whip, eight-year cycle removes this problem. It treads the who has done a good job in mobilising the noble most balanced path between the need for stability and Baroness, Lady Pidding, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, the need for contemporary data. and above all, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor,his predecessor, I will address some of the arguments made in to speak against this amendment. The noble Lord, support of the amendment when it was discussed in Lord Taylor, says he is surprised at my persistence. As Grand Committee and which have been repeated this a former Government Chief Whip, he is one of the afternoon. Most of the noble Lords who are supporting people who should be least surprised by my persistence, this amendment—the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and not just on this but on other matters. He said he was Lord Blunkett, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord surprised because I am normally a radical, and I am Morris—argued that eight-year reviews would prevent making what he sees as a reactionary move. Perhaps MPs and constituents building a rapport. There is an he is thinking that there is a Private Member’s Bill assumption in that argument that I find problematic. along the same lines in the House of Commons, 723 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 724
[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK] Clancarty, E. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. supported by Peter Bone and Sir Christopher Chope. Clark of Calton, B. Kerslake, L. I hope he will look at that; it might convince him to Clark of Kilwinning, B. Kestenbaum, L. rethink his opposition to my proposal. Clement-Jones, L. Kilclooney, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. It is interesting to note that all the former MPs who Collins of Highbury, L. Kramer, B. have spoken in this debate support this amendment. Corston, B. Krebs, L. They have experience on the ground of how these Coussins, B. Lane-Fox of Soho, B. things work, and I am very encouraged by their support. Craig of Radley, L. Layard, L. Crawley, B. Lea of Crondall, L. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for Crisp, L. Lee of Trafford, L. finding out that when the Minister, the noble Lord, Cunningham of Felling, L. Lennie, L. Lord True, who dealt with this issue in Committee, Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Levy, L. said that the Government’s proposal was “supported” Davies of Oldham, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. by all those consulted, that was totally wrong. As the Dholakia, L. Liddle, L. noble Baroness, Lady Scott, confirmed, they “accepted” Donaghy, B. Lipsey, L. Donoughue, L. Low of Dalston, L. it, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out the Doocey, B. Ludford, B. difference between those two things extremely well. Drake, B. Macdonald of River Glaven, I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett Dubs, L. L. Dykes, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. for reminding me of one other important aspect of Elder, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, constituency representation that I had forgotten—the Faulkner of Worcester, L. L. football teams in each Member’s constituency. I had a Featherstone, B. Mallalieu, B. slight problem there, in that I had both Cumnock Filkin, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Juniors and Auchinleck Talbot in my constituency, Finlay of Llandaff, B. Massey of Darwen, B. and they are bitter rivals. I had to be neutral when they Foster of Bath, L. Maxton, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. McAvoy, L. played each other, which was not an easy thing to do. Fox, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, However, I understood the respective supporters and Freyberg, L. L. their various interests. Gale, B. McDonagh, B. Garden of Frognal, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. I remind the Minister and the House that up to German, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. 2011, Boundary Commissions were instructed to hold Giddens, L. McNally, L. reviews every 8 to 12 years. On that basis, 10 years Glasgow, E. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. seems to strike a sensible balance. I therefore intend to Goddard of Stockport, L. Mendelsohn, L. press my amendment and hope the House will support Golding, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it as a sensible way forward. Goldsmith, L. B. Goudie, B. Mitchell, L. Grantchester, L. Monks, L. 2.15 pm Greaves, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Greengross, B. Morris of Aberavon, L. Grender, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 2 Grey-Thompson, B. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Newby, L. Contents 261; Not-Contents 240. Grocott, L. Northover, B. Hain, L. Nye, B. Amendment 2 agreed. Hamwee, B. Oates, L. Hanworth, V. Osamor, B. Harris of Haringey, L. Paddick, L. Division No. 1 Harris of Richmond, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Haskel, L. Pannick, L. CONTENTS Haworth, L. Parminter, B. Addington, L. Blunkett, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. Patel of Bradford, L. Adebowale, L. Boateng, L. Hayman, B. Patel, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Pinnock, B. Adonis, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Prescott, L. Alderdice, L. B. Henig, B. Primarolo, B. Allan of Hallam, L. Boothroyd, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Prosser, B. Allen of Kensington, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Houghton of Richmond, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Alli, L. Boycott, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Quin, B. Alton of Liverpool, L. Bradley, L. Humphreys, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Bradshaw, L. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Ramsbotham, L. Andrews, B. Bragg, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Randerson, B. Ashton of Upholland, B. Brinton, B. Hussain, L. Razzall, L. Bach, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Redesdale, L. Bakewell of Hardington Brown of Cambridge, B. Hutton of Furness, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Mandeville, B. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Janke, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. Barker, B. Bryan of Partick, B. Jolly, B. Rennard, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Burnett, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Beecham, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Beith, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Benjamin, B. Campbell of Surbiton, B. Jones, L. Rooker, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. Jordan, L. Rosser, L. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Cashman, L. Judd, L. Rowlands, L. Berkeley, L. Chakrabarti, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Blackstone, B. Chandos, V. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Blower, B. Chidgey, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Scriven, L. 725 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 726
Sharkey, L. Tope, L. Framlingham, L. Montrose, D. Sheehan, B. Touhig, L. Freud, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Sherlock, B. Triesman, L. Fullbrook, B. Morris of Bolton, B. Shipley, L. Truscott, L. Gadhia, L. Morrissey, B. Shutt of Greetland, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Morrow, L. Sikka, L. Turnberg, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Moylan, L. Singh of Wimbledon, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Garnier, L. Moynihan, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Tyler, L. Geddes, L. Murphy, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. Uddin, B. Glendonbrook, L. Nash, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Verjee, L. Gold, L. Neville-Jones, B. Smith of Newnham, B. Goldie, B. Snape, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Goldsmith of Richmond Newlove, B. Stair, E. Park, L. Stephen, L. Walmsley, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Goodlad, L. B. Stern of Brentford, L. Goschen, V. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Noakes, B. Watts, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Norton of Louth, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Greenhalgh, L. West of Spithead, L. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Greenway, L. Wheatcroft, B. Strasburger, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Wheeler, B. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Stunell, L. Whitaker, B. Hague of Richmond, L. Patten, L. Suttie, B. Whitty, L. Hailsham, V. Penn, B. Taverne, L. Wigley, L. Haselhurst, L. Pickles, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Wilcox of Newport, B. Hayward, L. Pidding, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Helic, B. Polak, L. Teverson, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. Henley, L. Porter of Spalding, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Winston, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. Rana, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Wood of Anfield, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Thornhill, B. Wrigglesworth, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Ravensdale, L. Thornton, B. Young of Hornsey, B. L. Rawlings, B. Thurso, V. Young of Norwood Green, L. Hogan-Howe, L. Reay, L. Tonge, B. Young of Old Scone, B. Hogg, B. Redfern, B. Hooper, B. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. NOT CONTENTS Horam, L. Ribeiro, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Risby, L. Aberdare, L. Callanan, L. Howard of Rising, L. Robathan, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Howe, E. Rock, B. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Rogan, L. Altmann, B. Carrington of Fulham, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Rose of Monewden, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Cathcart, E. Janvrin, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Saatchi, L. Arran, E. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Jopling, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Judge, L. Sarfraz, L. Astor of Hever, L. Choudrey, L. Kakkar, L. Sassoon, L. Baker of Dorking, L. Coe, L. Keen of Elie, L. Sater, B. Balfe, L. Colgrain, L. King of Bridgwater, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Bamford, L. Colville of Culross, V. King of Lothbury, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Barran, B. Colwyn, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Barwell, L. Cormack, L. Laming, L. Sheikh, L. Bates, L. Courtown, E. Lang of Monkton, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Berridge, B. Cox, B. Lansley, L. Shrewsbury, E. Bertin, B. Craigavon, V. Leigh of Hurley, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Bethell, L. Crathorne, L. Lexden, L. Somerset, D. Bichard, L. Cromwell, L. Lilley, L. St John of Bletso, L. Bilimoria, L. Cumberlege, B. Lindsay, E. Stedman-Scott, B. Black of Brentwood, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Lingfield, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Blencathra, L. Davies of Gower, L. Liverpool, E. Stirrup, L. Bloomfield of Hinton De Mauley, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Strathclyde, L. Waldrist, B. Deben, L. Lothian, M. Sugg, B. Borwick, L. Deighton, L. Lucas, L. Suri, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Devon, E. Lupton, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Dobbs, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Trefgarne, L. Bowness, L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Trenchard, V. Brabazon of Tara, L. Dunlop, L. Mancroft, L. Trimble, L. Brady, B. Eaton, B. Mann, L. True, L. Bridgeman, V. Eccles of Moulton, B. Manzoor, B. Tugendhat, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Empey, L. Marland, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Brookeborough, V. Erroll, E. Marlesford, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Brown of Eaton-under- Fairfax of Cameron, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and Wakeham, L. Heywood, L. Fairhead, B. Cookstown, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Browne of Belmont, L. Falkner of Margravine, B. McGregor-Smith, B. Warsi, B. Browning, B. Fall, B. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Farmer, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Wei, L. L. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. McLoughlin, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Buscombe, B. Fink, L. Meacher, B. Whitby, L. Caine, L. Finn, B. Meyer, B. Wilcox, B. Caithness, E. Fookes, B. Mone, B. Willetts, L. 727 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 728
Williams of Trafford, B. Young of Cookham, L. Layard, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L. Young of Graffham, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Wyld, B. Younger of Leckie, V. Lee of Trafford, L. Rooker, L. Leitch, L. Rosser, L. Lennie, L. 2.29 pm Rowlands, L. Levy, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 3 Liddle, L. Sharkey, L. Lipsey, L. Sheehan, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Contents 251; Not-Contents 214. Sherlock, B. Low of Dalston, L. Shipley, L. Ludford, B. Amendment 3 agreed. Macdonald of River Glaven, Shutt of Greetland, L. L. Simon, V. Division No. 2 MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Singh of Wimbledon, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Smith of Basildon, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. CONTENTS L. Mallalieu, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Addington, L. Drake, B. Mandelson, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Adebowale, L. D’Souza, B. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Snape, L. Adonis, L. Dubs, L. L. Stair, E. Alderdice, L. Elder, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Stephen, L. Allan of Hallam, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Stern of Brentford, L. Alli, L. Featherstone, B. Maxton, L. Stern, B. Alton of Liverpool, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. McAvoy, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Foster of Bath, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Stone of Blackheath, L. Andrews, B. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Fox, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and Storey, L. Bach, L. Gale, B. Cookstown, L. Strasburger, L. Bakewell of Hardington Garden of Frognal, B. McDonagh, B. Stunell, L. Mandeville, B. German, L. McNally, L. Suttie, B. Bakewell, B. Giddens, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Taverne, L. Barker, B. Glasgow, E. Mendelsohn, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Beecham, L. Golding, B. B. Teverson, L. Beith, L. Goldsmith, L. Mitchell, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Goudie, B. Monks, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Berkeley, L. Grantchester, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Thornhill, B. Bhatia, L. Greaves, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Thornton, B. Birt, L. Greengross, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Thurso, V. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Grender, B. Morrow, L. Tonge, B. B. Grey-Thompson, B. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Tope, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Neuberger, B. Touhig, L. Bradley, L. Grocott, L. Newby, L. Triesman, L. Bradshaw, L. Hain, L. Northover, B. Turnberg, L. Brinton, B. Hamwee, B. Nye, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Oates, L. Tyler, L. Brown of Cambridge, B. Harris of Richmond, B. O’Loan, B. Uddin, B. Browne of Ladyton, L. Haskel, L. Osamor, B. Verjee, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. Paddick, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Bryan of Partick, B. Hayman, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Burnett, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Pannick, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Parminter, B. Walmsley, B. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Hendy, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Henig, B. Pinnock, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Carter of Coles, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Watts, L. Cashman, L. Hollins, B. Prashar, B. West of Spithead, L. Chakrabarti, B. Houghton of Richmond, L. Prosser, B. Wheatcroft, B. Chandos, V. Howarth of Newport, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Wheeler, B. Chidgey, L. Humphreys, B. Quin, B. Whitaker, B. Clancarty, E. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Whitty, L. Clark of Kilwinning, B. Hussain, L. Ramsbotham, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Randerson, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Clement-Jones, L. Hutton of Furness, L. Razzall, L. Wills, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Janke, B. Redesdale, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Corston, B. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Cotter, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Rennard, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Cox, B. Judd, L. Ricketts, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Craig of Radley, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Young of Old Scone, B. Crawley, B. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Crisp, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. NOT CONTENTS Cunningham of Felling, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Davies of Oldham, L. Kerslake, L. Aberdare, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Dholakia, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Donaghy, B. Krebs, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Astor of Hever, L. Donoughue, L. Lane-Fox of Soho, B. Altmann, B. Astor, V. Doocey, B. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Balfe, L. 729 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 730
Bamford, L. Greenhalgh, L. Ravensdale, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Barwell, L. Greenway, L. Rawlings, B. Stirrup, L. Bates, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Reay, L. Strathclyde, L. Berridge, B. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Redfern, B. Sugg, B. Bertin, B. Hague of Richmond, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Suri, L. Bethell, L. Haselhurst, L. Ribeiro, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Bilimoria, L. Hayward, L. Risby, L. Trefgarne, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Helic, B. Robathan, L. Trimble, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Henley, L. Rock, B. Tugendhat, L. B. Herbert of South Downs, L. Rogan, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Blencathra, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Saatchi, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Bloomfield of Hinton Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Sanderson of Welton, B. Verma, B. Waldrist, B. L. Sarfraz, L. Wakeham, L. Borwick, L. Hogan-Howe, L. Sassoon, L. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Hooper, B. Sater, B. Walney, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Horam, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Warsi, B. Bowness, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Wasserman, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Howard of Rising, L. Sheikh, L. Wei, L. Brady, B. Howe, E. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Bridgeman, V. Howell of Guildford, L. Shields, B. Whitby, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Shrewsbury, E. Willetts, L. Brookeborough, V. Janvrin, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Brougham and Vaux, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Smith of Kelvin, L. Wyld, B. Browne of Belmont, L. Jopling, L. Somerset, D. Young of Cookham, L. Browning, B. Judge, L. St John of Bletso, L. Young of Graffham, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Keen of Elie, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Younger of Leckie, V. L. King of Bridgwater, L. Caine, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. 2.42 pm Caithness, E. Laming, L. Callanan, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Lansley, L. Amendments 4 and 5 not moved. Carey of Clifton, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Lexden, L. Carrington, L. Lindsay, E. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) Cathcart, E. Lingfield, L. (CB): We now come to the group beginning with Cavendish of Furness, L. Liverpool, E. Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members Chalker of Wallasey, B. Livingston of Parkhead, L. other than the mover and the Minister may speak only Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Lothian, M. once and that short questions of elucidation are Choudrey, L. Lucas, L. Coe, L. Lupton, L. discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment Colgrain, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. or anything else in this group to a Division should Colwyn, L. Mancroft, L. make that clear in debate. Courtown, E. Mann, L. Craigavon, V. Manzoor, B. Crathorne, L. Marland, L. Davies of Gower, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. Clause 2: Orders in Council giving effect to reports De Mauley, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Deben, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Deech, B. McLoughlin, L. Amendment 6 Deighton, L. Meacher, B. Moved by Lord Young of Cookham Dobbs, L. Meyer, B. Duncan of Springbank, L. Mone, B. 6: Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out “As soon as reasonably Dundee, E. Morgan of Cotes, B. practicable” Eaton, B. Morris of Bolton, B. Member’s explanatory statement Eccles of Moulton, B. Morrissey, B. Empey, L. Moylan, L. This amendment and the amendments at page 2, line 26 and Erroll, E. Moynihan, L. line 38 ensure that a draft Order in Council implementing the Evans of Bowes Park, B. Murphy, B. reports of the Boundary Commissions must be submitted to Her Fairfax of Cameron, L. Nash, L. Majesty in Council no later than four months after they have all Fairhead, B. Neville-Jones, B. been laid before Parliament unless there are exceptional circumstances. Falkner of Margravine, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. Fall, B. Newlove, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Noakes, B. Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, I beg to Fink, L. Northbrook, L. move Amendment 6 in my name, which is reinforced Finn, B. Norton of Louth, L. by the names of my noble friend the Minister and the Fookes, B. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. three noble Lords who supported my original amendment Framlingham, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. in Committee. Freud, L. Patel, L. Noble Lords will recall that, as Second Reading, Fullbrook, B. Penn, B. I drew attention to the following words in Clause 2: Gadhia, L. Pickles, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Pidding, B. “As soon as reasonably practicable”. Gardner of Parkes, B. Polak, L. This refers to the requirement for Ministers to lay Geddes, L. Popat, L. the draft Orders in Council giving effect to the Gold, L. Porter of Spalding, L. Goldie, B. Powell of Bayswater, L. recommendations of the Boundary Commission reports. Grabiner, L. Rana, L. Without repeating those arguments, I will say that this Grade of Yarmouth, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. lack of precision could enable the Government to 731 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 732
[LORD YOUNG OF COOKHAM] “a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit; and for that delay implementing those recommendations, thereby purpose a day is only a day on which a House sits if the House negating the objective of the Bill, which is to put this begins to sit on that day.” issue out of reach of political mischief. IhopeIhaveexplainedthebackgroundtotheamendments We debated this further in Committee in relation to as well as their key details. My noble friend the Minister, my amendment to require the Order to be laid within whose DNA is all over the amendments, will be able to three months, in my case, and in a more exacting six answer any detailed questions that arise during the weeks in a similar amendment from my noble friend debate. I beg to move Amendment 6. Lord Cormack. The principle was supported by all those who spoke, and my noble friend the Minister The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) made an emollient reply while reiterating the Government’s (CB): The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has preference to leave the words as originally drafted. We withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, had further discussions, as promised, in the interval the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. between Committee and Report, the outcome of which are Amendments 6, 7 and 8. Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD): My Lords, I I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for will be brief, taking full advantage of the speech of the listening and then seeking and ensuring collective noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, whom I wish agreement to the amendments. They are a compromise to congratulate on bringing this matter to the attention and, like all compromises, each side ended up with of the Committee and, indeed, persevering with it to slightly less that they would have liked but enough to the extent that we now know that consensus has been be satisfied with. May the negotiations on the EU treaty achieved. In that respect, it would be only right and have a similar outcome. proper to thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for being constructive in these discussions. The noble Lord referred 2.45 pm to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who certainly Amendments 6 and 7 make changes to Clause 2 deserves a mention in dispatches as having been a very and provide that fervent supporter of the principle, albeit with a different “a draft Order in Council implementing the reports of the Boundary figure in mind. Commissions must be submitted to Her Majesty in Council no The mischief that this amendment seeks to address later than four months after they have all been laid before is the fact that, under the previous legislation, the Parliament unless there are exceptional circumstances.” Government had what one could reasonably describe This is in addition to as an unfettered discretion, which has now been “As soon as reasonably practicable” substantially removed. The consequence is that the after the reports have been laid before Parliament, so onus will rest with the Government to establish whether it is a sort of backstop. or not the exception that is contained can be fully My noble friend persuaded me that there should be supported. I venture to suggest that the Government—any some elasticity in my original three months, and this Government—will find it a lot more difficult to defend updated amendment provides for a four-month limit. The exceptional circumstances that would have had reasonable period of four months is deemed by the Cabinet Office practicability. to be sufficient to allow the necessary work in drafting the Order in Council bringing the recommendations Lord Blencathra (Con): My Lords, I am delighted to of a boundary review into effect to be completed. It welcome this amendment and to add my name to it. I also provides a measure of flexibility to ensure that a can also be brief because of the excellent speech by my meeting of the Privy Council is held during the specified noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I strongly period within which the Order must be submitted supported the three-month provision in Committee, because, at certain times of the year, it does not meet and I welcome this amendment, because it keeps the regularly. Conservative Party’s hands absolutely clean and above My noble friend also persuaded me that we needed board. I make no apologies for reminding the House, an “exceptional circumstances” clause to deal with, as I did in Committee, that there have been only two for example, a global pandemic or the death or prolonged occasions when Boundary Commission reports were illness of the sovereign, when it would not be feasible abandoned: one was the disgraceful episode involving to submit the Order. Without this clause, if those Jim Callaghan’s Government, who scuppered the report; circumstances arose, it would not be possible, without and the other was a rather grubby move by the Lib further primary legislation, to lay the Order once the Dems in 2011 to scupper the Boundary Commission circumstances returned to normal. report then. That was done purely out of spite because Amendment 7 inserts new provisions into Section 4 they had lost the PR referendum. of the 1984 Act to provide that Enough of going over old bones: this now means “If the draft of an Order in Council is not submitted … before that this Conservative Government will deliver on the the end of the four month period, the Secretary of State or the commitment to make sure that Boundary Commission Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay one or more statements reports are presented automatically within four months before Parliament … specifying the exceptional circumstances.” unless there are these exceptional circumstances. My This regular reporting requirement would prevent any noble friend Lord Young cited a couple; they do seem delay being quietly swept under the carpet. to be rather serious and very exceptional circumstances. Amendment 8 inserts new subsection (7A) into I will be grateful if my noble friend the Minister has Section 4 to define “sitting day”, which, surprisingly, got any more examples, but they do seem to set a means: standard that it would be very exceptional circumstances 733 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 734 indeed before a Boundary Commission report did not deal with this issue—I do not think it is a problem, but proceed. Therefore, I welcome this compromise and I it is addressed in the Bill—by allowing this “exceptional commend it to the House. circumstances” exemption. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this, because I think it is a weakness in the amendment. Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I certainly support this amendment; without it the Bill would have been based on a false prescription Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, not for the first time I find myself very much in sympathy with the Repeatedly during the passage of the Bill, we heard points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who from Ministers that through it, Boundary Commission always contributes sage and sensible comments to proposals can be brought forward without political debates on constitutional affairs. interference. The dreadful word “automaticity” entered our vocabulary —or was refreshed—repeatedly. Under I would like to begin by congratulating and thanking the system prior to this amendment, which I hope will my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. By accident, pass, there certainly was not automaticity; there was my amendment went ahead of his in the debate in automaticity “up to a point, Lord Copper”. An automatic Committee, but he was the one who did all of the work car goes up through the gears without any interference and he made a most impressive speech, as the noble from the driver. In the case of this Bill, the Boundary Lord, Lord Campbell, said a few minutes ago; he has Commission proposals could move forward seamlessly also been foremost in the negotiations following the over the first few hurdles, but at the point where the debate. It would be churlish—because my noble friend Order in Council had to be presented, that involved Lord True was effectively replying to my amendment— the driver, who, in this case, of course, is the Minister. not to thank him for what he said and what he has The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, subsequently done. deals with that problem to a considerable extent—not I do not want to enter a discordant note, but I was quite as far as far as I would have liked, but there tempted, as I said to my noble friend Lord Young the we are. other day, to put down an amendment on the timing. I I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young. I reread am very disappointed that it is four months. My noble his Committee stage speech and it really was masterly. friend Lord Young suggested “three months”, I suggested The Minister, in fairness, realised this and all but “six weeks”. I would happily have compromised, but I said, “game, set, match and tournament” when he was think four months is a shade long and I would like a winding up. Of course, we still do not quite have brief explanation from my noble friend Lord True as automaticity, and the part of the amendment that to why he felt he had to go to that far. maybe I should have put down an amendment to and ThenobleLord,LordGrocott,talkedaboutexceptional do not feel too happy about is that the four-month circumstances. Of course, I accept that there are certain requirement for the laying of the Order shall proceed very sad and exceptional circumstances—one of which “unless there are exceptional circumstances.” my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referred In his speech today, the noble Lord, Lord Young, to—but “exceptional” really has to be exceptional. I was all too aware that the validity and strength of this remain,always,suspiciousof theExecutive,fromwhichever amendment depends to a degree on what is meant political party they come, and I am always, first and precisely by “unless there are exceptional circumstances”. foremost, a Parliament man. We have at least got a The Minister said that they would be things like the better outcome that we had in the original Bill. I am Covid crisis.No one would deny that that is an exceptional grateful for that, and I very much echo the words of my circumstance but of course, as far as I can remember noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who said there in my political life, whenever there are exceptional is great virtue in compromise. Of course there is, and circumstances of anything approaching that level, may this indeed be a lesson to those who are currently emergency legislation is immediately introduced. Among conducting the most important negotiations in which other things, as with the Covid legislation, this sets our country has been involved for a very long time. asides all sorts of aspects of normal political behaviour. It postpones local elections. You cannot get anything Lord Hayward (Con): My Lords, before I comment quite as interfering in the normal processes of democracy on this amendment, can I pick up on what two noble as postponing local elections. Lords have said? When I spoke in Committee, I referred I am quite certain that if exceptional circumstances to automaticity and its derivation in this particular of the sort the Minister is envisaging were ever to take context. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed place and emergency legislation were required, it would out that the trade unions had got there first. I have be easy to insert a provision stating that the four-month mentioned to her since that, while we were in Committee, rule must be overruled. I really see no need to put in I was doing a search on the word “automaticity”, as the Bill the phrase “unless there are exceptional was one of my noble friends, who managed to come circumstances”. It may have been one of the compromises up with an even earlier use of it. Shall I say, he was that the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged are “cycling” through the web, which may indicate who necessary when parties are involved in discussions, but found this wonderful piece of information. It is a study the Minister really does need to address this point of the when he winds up. Can he please list the exceptional “Effect of adenosine on sinoatrial and ventricular automaticity of circumstances the Government have in mind and are the guinea pig”. worried about? In each case, can he give me an example My noble friend Lord Blencathra talked about the of when it would not be necessary to introduce emergency years 1969 and 2011. Of course, he missed out 1983. I legislation? Any emergency legislation could easily know that he, like the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, 735 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 736
[LORD HAYWARD] majority of these processes are not lengthy, complicated does not have a direct interest in 1983, but it affected and unnecessary post-drafting processes.The vast majority some of us very strikingly and was the third occasion can be undertaken at a much earlier stage. when this occurred. 3 pm Lord Tyler (LD) [V]: My Lords, the noble Lord, I welcome this amendment, because in effect it Lord Hayward, has brought some very important, achieves a declaration of full time. When this legislation practical questions to your Lordships’ House this originated, there were no timescales in it. I pointed out afternoon. I hope the Minister will be able to reply to in Committee that the 1986 legislation introduced the them. The noble Lord speaks with a great deal of first timescale, which was not that useful because it experience and expertise on these issues. It is significant just said when the reviews would start, which was that he has done the research to spot some potential wonderful, but it did not say when they would finish, difficulties. giving no timescales whatever.In the process of legislation In the meantime, I am full of admiration for the we have now seen, each different process has a timescale noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. We have known of four months. each other for many years and I have a huge amount However,like my noble friend Lord Cormack, I would of respect for his experience of the way in which like to have seen a much briefer timescale, because the ministries, Whitehall generally and the House of amount of work involved is overdone. Here I might Commons and House of Lords operate. He has almost correct myself and apologise,because in Grand Committee unique experience. It is interesting that so many I said: distinguished former MPs and Ministers have contributed “As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, it is just 27 lines to the development of this amendment at all stages, with vast quantities of pages thereafter. The argument made to some of whom spoke again this afternoon. I wonder me on previous occasions was”— whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, who must be this is in relation to the need to prepare the orders— one of the best experts to tell us about what happens “‘Well, the maps have to be prepared; we have to ensure that behind the scenes,is wholly confident that the amendments we have’”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. GC 180-81.] he is now promoting, as he said, put these matters out got them complete. I have done some research on of reach of political mischief. If they are totally out of these orders since and, in fact, there are no maps, so I reach of political mischief, we will be all be relieved; if apologise for misleading the Committee. I thought he is confident of that, I take his word as very persuasive. you would need laptops, websites, et cetera; in fact, all you need for the orders is a photocopier, because you However, I take seriously the issues originally raised lift it straight from the reports of the Boundary by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Commissions, which give the details of the wards. then referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Cormack—quite a trio. They were asking what On the question of returning officers, all you need exactly the exceptional circumstances were that would is a list of them. I can stand here now and say that permit any return to a more lackadaisical approach to there will be two constituencies in Richmond borough the timing of the tabling of these proposals from the and therefore who the returning officer will be. Some Boundary Commissions. If the Boundary Commissions 90% of all returning officers can be identified now. It are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, just said, is almost the reverse of the game “Pointless”, where in absolutely specific and there is no room for manoeuvre one round they give you a few letters and you have to for Ministers or the House of Commons, surely it fill in the blanks. In this process, in relation to returning should be a much smoother operation than is implied officers, it is only in those constituencies which cross here, even in exceptional circumstances. I hope the borough boundaries where you have to wait until the Minister will explain in his response exactly what he final decision. As I say, I know how many there will be has in mind. in Richmond, Bristol, Manchester or wherever, give or take one or two constituencies. We should pay tribute to the Minister. It is always a There is justification for this and I hope, as my mark of a good Minister and a listening Government noble friend Lord True has identified, that that is the when there is a move between Committee and Report. maximum necessary period. It should be possible to There has been a move; the Government have accepted do it in a shorter period. As I think a number of a change here and we should all welcome that. It is a Members know, I had discussions with him because, sign of a Government who are prepared to think again, as well as this issue about the end of the process, the and that must be healthy. noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, identified on Second It also indicates that this Bill is being improved in Reading the question of what happens if there is a your Lordships’ House. I know there were some general election. I tried to find the phraseology for an Conservative Members who thought it was rather amendment which would be operable if all the reports inappropriate for the House of Lords to make any had been received. Unfortunately, due to time pressures changes to a Bill that dealt specifically with elections and other events, I was unable to find a satisfactory to the other place. As a former Member of Parliament, amendment, or else I would have done so, because this I take exactly the opposite view; after all, there is a is another issue that has not been touched on at any degree of self-interest at the other end of the corridor point and could apply—and did actually apply in 1983, which we hope at this end we are largely able to avoid. in those very circumstances. We have a greater degree of impartiality in that respect. Therefore, I regret not being able to put down an As a result of two Divisions and likely support for amendment. I accept and welcome this amendment, this amendment, we now have some changes that will but I hope there will be recognition that the vast undoubtedly have to be considered in the other place. 737 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 738
It is very healthy that MPs be asked to think again to get into a debate about Orders in Council and aperçu about these issues. As was mentioned in a previous on the EU negotiations, which I do not think was strictly debate, there is already substantial Conservative Back- germane—my noble friend Lord Cormack followed Bench rethinking on the important issues of the 7.5% on that—but I also agree with his sentiments there and quota tolerance in preference to 5% and on the 10-year hope very much that they will be translated into the review period. I therefore hope that the fact that there languages of all 27 nations of the European Union. is now government support for a government change The Government were happy to accept this to their Bill will be taken as an indication that our role amendment. The case was clear. The Government’s in this House is to make sure that this Bill is improved intention is to put beyond reach the idea that there before it goes back to the other place. might be unconscionable delay in laying these orders. It is of the utmost importance to us that it should not Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, be felt by anyone that Parliament or the Government we do not need to detain the House on an amendment should have the opportunity to interfere politically in where everything has been said and has been said by that way. I was grateful to have the opportunity to everyone. I simply applaud the Government, as we discuss with my noble friend Lord Young, other Members have just heard, for seeing sense on this amendment, of the House and, indeed, the noble Baroness opposite which answers one of the two fundamental issues which the points raised. The noble Baroness has been very concerned us about moving from a final parliamentary gracious and I greatly appreciate the courtesy with sign-off towards automaticity—that is, the ability of which she withdrew the first amendment and responded the Executive to delay the implementation of the here. We may not be in agreement for all of today, but Boundary Commissions’ plans, despite having handed I appreciate that response. effective authority to the commissions to put those plans I think there is widespread agreement and welcome into law. Without this amendment, no one, neither the for this. Therefore, I do not need to detain the House commissioners nor Parliament, could have forced the at great length. One or two points were raised about a Government’s hand had they chosen to delay. Government calling a general election. Obviously, at I retain one concern, which is that retained by the the moment the rules around a general election are guinea pig—not the guinea pig, the noble Lord, Lord controlled by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. So long Hayward, who obviously gets his feeds on automaticity as that obtains, we are legislating in that light. As far even faster than I can. The issue he raised about what as the future is concerned, no doubt points have been might happen should the Government decide to call put on the table, privately and publicly, which may be an election during that four-month period should considered. There would always be a difficulty if there continue to concern us. was suspicion in legislating on the matter. I am here to I had assumed that “exceptional circumstances” talk about future legislation, but the example of 1983 meant that, but that in itself is quite worrying. As shows how difficult it would be to prevent a general my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lord, election in the period before orders had been laid. Lord Cormack, have said, we need more explanation That is something that people would have to wrestle about what exceptional circumstances are—putting with. The Government have no intention of seeking a aside Covid because, as my noble friend said, that general election. No Government should seek a general would be dealt with in another way. Given that the election to frustrate the presentation of these orders to Government are committed to repealing the Fixed-term a meeting of the Privy Council. The whole political Parliaments Act, which puts the decision back into world would deprecate that action and any Government No. 10, there must remain a worry that a difficult that sought to do it would not be rewarded by the boundary review could somehow be circumvented. electorate. The Minister needs to allay these fears which, as he has heard, are from across the House. 3.15 pm The issue of the time cap introduced by this amendment Two other major points were raised. First, why is was a major concern to us. It was not the major one the time limit so long and why is it four months? My for the Constitution Committee—we will come on to noble friend Lord Cormack suggested six weeks. The that shortly in Amendment 11, about moving to original amendment was three months. We believe automaticity—but it was certainly one of our two that there has to be a prudential element in the legislation. major concerns. The fact that the Government have There are two elements here. The first is the period of accepted and even put their name to the amendment four months. My noble friend Lord Hayward said that means that it would be churlish for me not to say that things could be done much quicker: you could just we support it too. photocopy something. I say, with respect, that the legislation is not prepared by photocopying other The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) documents. Even if that were the case, we cannot (Con): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have legislate for the shortest possible time if we are imposing spoken in the debate. The House will not object if I a time requirement. We have to go for a prudential say first that I thank and, indeed, congratulate my time and that includes, for example, the need to noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Whenever I accommodate the potential irregularity of Privy Council hear him speak in your Lordships’ House, I realise how meetings, as well as the preparation time. In discussion much I have to learn in responding to your Lordships and reflection and with the wish to place a time limit at this Dispatch Box. He has done a service to this in the Bill, which the Government agree is the right House and to the electoral system, along with others thing to do this matter having been raised—it was not who have raised this point. He was also skilful enough something that occurred to me before it was raised in 739 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 740
[LORD TRUE] To conclude, I hope that, in backing the amendment, Grand Committee—we believe it better to have the the Government helped to bring more certainty and prudential element. A four-month period would surely confidence to your Lordships’ House, and to electors, accommodate anything that might arise in normal that the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions circumstances. Secondly, there should be a provision will be implemented without political interference or for exceptional circumstances. I will come on to this unnecessary or undue delay, as soon as practicable. I shortly. hope that noble Lords will, therefore, be able to support I remind the House that there is an implied the amendment. I thank all noble Lords who have misunderstanding of how my noble friend’s amendment spoken, in particular my noble friend Lord Young of will operate. The primary legal obligation that remains Cookham. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment in this amendment is to submit an order as soon as is that he has put before the House. reasonably practicable after the four reports are laid. This is certainly not an invitation from this Dispatch The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) Box or anywhere else for anybody to be lackadaisical—to (CB): I have received a request from the noble Lord, pick up a word used. The four-month period is a Lord Blencathra, to ask a short question for elucidation. deadline to help ensure there is not deliberate,unreasonable delay. The Government would be in breach of a legal Lord Blencathra (Con): My Lords, this is not a obligation if they submitted the order only at the end question as such. I want to commend my noble friend of four months when it was reasonably practicable Lord Hayward for mentioning the 1983 Boundary to have done it sooner. It is important to put that point Commission review, which I intended to mention but on the record. The primary expectation of this clean forgot. That was implemented by the late, great Government, all future Governments and this Parliament Viscount Whitelaw of Penrith. He did it, even though in passing this legislation is that all those involved it added large swathes of Lib Dem-held wards to his should present the material as soon as is reasonably own constituency. In the by-election which followed practicable and certainly not later than four months. his elevation to this place, I almost lost the seat because I believe I said something about “exceptional of that. As usual, Willie did the right thing. The circumstances” at an earlier stage. In case I did not, I Government are doing the right thing now and I commend will say it now. If we did not have an exceptional them. circumstance element in the provision, were it not possible for whatever reason—and my noble friend The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) has given one—to deliver this in the four months then (CB): Does the Minister wish to respond? it would need full-scale primary legislation to overcome the failure to meet the four-month time limit. The Lord True (Con): My Lords, I do not think I need to noble Lord, Lord Grocott, invited me to give a full add anything, except to say that I share my noble list of the exceptional circumstances envisaged with friend’saffectionate remembrance of Viscount Whitelaw, explanations for each one. The Government do not whose general election tour I managed in 1979. I had envisage exceptional circumstances being the norm. I to learn to drink quite a lot of whisky in a short time. point out that not all circumstances are foreseeable. The noble Lord said that it goes off like an automatic car—you start it and it moves up through the gears. Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, I can be My wife would rather like that her automatic car would brief. I join the Minister in thanking all noble Lords move up through the gears at the moment. Not every who have taken part in this short debate. I suspect it is contingency in life is foreseeable. Some very exceptional one of the more consensual debates that the House things, such as a war—God forbid—could arise. will have on the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my role in the amendment. That approbation I am not going to follow that invitation, not because needs to be shared with the Minister. I do not wish to help the House, or assist Parliament further; it is simply that legally I am advised that Two issues arose in the debate: four months rather giving a whole series of examples would risk people in than three, and exceptional circumstances. It would be the future erring on the long side as well as the short impossible for me to improve on the excellent explanations one. I repeat that our expectation is that this Government on both issues given by my noble friend in his reply to and this Parliament—and, I hope future Parliaments—will this debate so, without further ado, I beg to move. ensure that they are presented as soon as is reasonably practicable and certainly within four months. The Amendment 6 agreed. exceptional circumstance would arise only in the rarest and most undesirable cases.In those cases,the amendment Amendments 7 and 8 provides an extra requirement that Ministers would have to come repeatedly to the Dispatch Box, in both Moved by Lord Young of Cookham Houses, to explain their actions in being dilatory. Were 7: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert— the circumstances not exceptional, and the matter “(1A) The draft of an Order in Council must be concerned not grave, that would be a humiliating and submitted under subsection (1)— devastating admission of dereliction of duty. I am (a) as soon as reasonably practicable after all four sorry that I cannot go further on that, but I hope that reports have been laid before Parliament as mentioned the House will accept my assurance on this Government’s in that subsection, and intention and my hope that future Governments would (b) in any case, no later than the end of the four month operate in the same way. period unless there are exceptional circumstances. 741 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 742
(1B) “The four month period” means the period of four (a) a selection panel shall be convened by the Secretary months beginning with the first date on which all of State to select the members of the Commission, four reports have been laid before Parliament as which shall comprise— mentioned in subsection (1). (i) the deputy chairman of the Commission, and (1C) If the draft of an Order in Council is not submitted (ii) two persons appointed by the Speaker of the House under subsection (1) before the end of the four of Commons; month period, the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay one or more statements (b) the selection panel shall determine the selection before Parliament in accordance with subsection process to be applied and apply that process; (1D) specifying the exceptional circumstances. (c) the selection panel shall select only one person for (1D) A statement must be laid— recommendation for each appointment as a member of the Commission; (a) before the end of the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the end of (d) the selection panel shall submit to the Secretary of the four month period, and State a report stating who has been selected and any other information required by the Secretary of (b) before the end of each subsequent period of 20 sitting State; days beginning with the first sitting day after the previous statement was so laid, until the draft of an (e) the Secretary of State shall on receipt of the report Order in Council is submitted under subsection (1).” do one of the following— Member’s explanatory statement (i) accept the selection, See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 2, (ii) reject the selection, or line 20. (iii) require the panel to reconsider the selection; 8: Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end insert— (f) the power of the Secretary of State to require the “(4) After subsection (7) insert— selection panel to reconsider a selection is exercisable only on the ground that, in the Secretary of State’s “(7A) In this section, “sitting day” means a day on opinion, there is not enough evidence that the person which both Houses of Parliament sit; and for that selected is suitable for appointment as a member of purpose a day is only a day on which a House sits if the Commission; the House begins to sit on that day.”” (g) the power of the Secretary of State to reject a Member’s explanatory statement selection is exercisable only on the ground that, in See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 2, the Secretary of State’s opinion, the person selected line 20. is not suitable for appointment as a member of the Commission; Amendments 7 and 8 agreed. (h) the Secretary of State shall give the selection panel reasons in writing for requiring the reconsideration Amendment 9 not moved. of, or rejecting, any selection.” (6) In paragraph 4, at end insert “, but the term for which each member (other than the chairman) is appointed shall be a Clause 3: Modifications of recommendations in non-renewable term.”” reports Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would ensure that the appointment of members Amendment 10 not moved. of the Boundary Commissions is made and is seen to be made independently and without the influence or appearance of influence The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) of the Executive, to remove the possibility of political interference in the process of setting the boundaries of Parliamentary (CB): We now come to the group consisting of constituencies. Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]: My Lords, discouraged. Any noble Lord wishing to press this Amendment 11 seeks to put in place matters essential amendment to a Division should make that clear in to dealing with the important consequences of debate. automaticity. As the decision of the Boundary Commission will become final, and there will be no parliamentary veto, it is essential that the commission Amendment 11 is, and is seen to be, entirely independent and so is its Moved by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd appointment processes. Although I have taken up the 11: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause— kind invitation of the Minister to discuss this issue “The Boundary Commissions: constitution with him, and have done so very cordially on two (1) Schedule 1 to the 1986 Act (the Boundary Commissions) occasions, the Government have made it clear that is amended as follows. they consider that no change is necessary to the current (2) At the end of paragraph 2 insert “in accordance with position. I do not believe that this accords with paragraph 3A below”. constitutional principle, hence I will seek to take the (3) In paragraph 3(a), for “Lord Chancellor” substitute opinion of the House on the amendment. “Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales”. In many senses, the new role of the Boundary (4) In paragraph 3(c), for “Lord Chancellor” substitute Commission will become very much nearer to that of “Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales”. a judicial tribunal: sitting in a panel of three, gathering (5) After paragraph 3 insert— and hearing the evidence and coming to a decision. “3A The two members of each Commission appointed There will be no appeal from that decision and the by the Secretary of State shall each be appointed in other two branches of the state must accept it, just as accordance with the following process— they accept decisions and judgments of judges. The 743 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 744
[LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD] are appointed under a process set out in the Government’s amendment therefore seeks to ensure that, in a manner Code on Public Appointments, promulgated under akin to the appointment of judges, the appointment of the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. the boundary commissioners is wholly independent and that that independence is guaranteed during their 3.30 pm period of office. It seeks to do so in three ways, and I That process, as for any other public appointment, will deal with each in turn. gives the Minister extensive powers: as your Lordships The first of these is the appointment of the deputy will know, the Minister can appoint the panel that chairman. Under the 1986 Act, the deputy chairman selects the commissioners; he must be consulted at must be a High Court judge. In Scotland and in every stage; he can reject names; he can ask for the Northern Ireland, that judge is appointed by the head competition to be rerun; and he can even make an of the judiciary in those jurisdictions—the Lord President appointment of his own choice, without a competition, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. In or appoint someone whom the selection panel does England and Wales, for historic reasons, the appointment not think appointable, though he has to make disclosures is made by the Lord Chancellor. That was all very well in respect of that. Furthermore, the code does not bar with the old-style Lord Chancellor in 1986 when the the candidacy of a person who has had significant Act was passed. At that time, he was head of the political activity, though this must be disclosed and judiciary of England and Wales. There was, therefore, will be investigated by the appointment panel. If those nothing anomalous in him making that appointment, conflicts can be managed, it will not form a bar. I like he appointed all judges. However, that all changed respectfully ask the House to consider that such a method in 2005 with the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor. of appointment is no longer appropriate for the new The Lord Chancellor ceased to be a judge and head of automaticity process. the judiciary.He became, in essence, a political Minister. Amendment 11 seeks to put the appointment on a All allocation of judicial responsibilities passed to the clear statutory basis. The selection panel must contain Lord Chief Justice and appointments were made a deputy chairman—current practice envisages this, independently by the Judicial Appointments Commission. but it should be made statutory—and the other two For some reason—no doubt oversight—the position people who are to form the appointment panel should was not changed. Although the Lord Chancellor consults be appointed independently by the Speaker of the the Lord Chief Justice, the time has come when it House of Commons. The panel should determine the should now be made clear that the decision is that of process and should then select one name for each post. the Lord Chief Justice. We should bring this provision The Minister has a role: he can ask for reconsideration into line with constitutional principle. The appointment and even reject the name, providing he gives reasons, of a judge who chairs a tribunal which makes the final of course. determination of a series of sensitive issues should be The process that the amendment sets out is modelled in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice, just as in on the process for the appointment of judges, for, as I Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is no reason for said at the outset, the Boundary Commission will be England and Wales to be treated differently. akin to a judicial tribunal. As I understand it, the As I understand it, the objection is not grounded in argument against this part of the amendment is that constitutional principle but on the view that, as all the present system is entirely adequate, but I do not judges of the High Court go through a rigorous selection think that this takes into account the new and distinct process, they must all be qualified and therefore position that requires the commission’s independence appointable. It is, therefore, open to a political Minister to be put beyond doubt. Furthermore, it is argued that to select one of them. It could not possibly be disputed having a different process for the appointment of the that it would be the antithesis of justice if a political two commissioners might damage confidence in the Minister could select a judge to try a case, let alone public appointments system. The answer to that can one where there was a party-political consideration. In be put briefly: the fact that judges are appointed by a principle, the position of the Boundary Commission is special process does not call into question the public no different, but there is one further consideration. appointments system. It is a process designed for an There is a danger to the independence of the judiciary. office where the officeholder makes decisions to which A decision of the Boundary Commission is always there is no appeal, and which the other two branches open to attack on grounds that the chair, although a of Government must accept. This process is designed judge, had been selected by a political Minister because to follow that. In reality, the Boundary Commission is he had shown himself sympathetic to the Government, a tribunal that is no different to a judicial tribunal. or had some distant connection with them. We all The process for appointing judges has worked well; it know how the media can find those connections. We has not affected confidence in the public appointments should do all we can to avoid the risk of such an system, and there is no reason think that the proposed attack, because attacks are so damaging to the rule amendmentwouldaffectconfidenceinpublicappointments of law. in any other way. I turn to the second part of the amendment on the I turn to the third part of the amendment on the appointment of the other two commissioners. The Act term for which the appointments are to be made. The specifies that the other two members of the Boundary amendment does not specify the length of the term Commission are to be appointed by the Secretary of and, in light of the proceedings earlier in this debate, I State, but says nothing about the manner of appointment. am glad that it does not. All the 1986 Act does is to As I understand it—I pay tribute to Minister’s officials provide that the two members hold their appointments for their helpful assistance on this—the other two members under the terms and conditions determined by the 745 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 746
Secretary of State. My amendment seeks to provide Changing the appointments process to one more that the appointment be for a non-renewable term. akin to judicial appointments follows the same logic. There are two reasons for this, which can be explained It is not a criticism of the public appointments system briefly. First, as has been pointed out by Professors but a recognition that appointing members of the Robert Hazell and Alan Renwick of the Constitution Boundary Commissions must be seen to be in a special Unit of University College London, a vital safeguard and quasi-judicial category. They are crucial arbiters for independence is that the appointment is for a fixed, of the integrity of our electoral system. The introduction non-renewable term. Like judges, commissioners must of non-renewable terms of appointment merely brings have security of tenure for the whole period necessary these appointments to the Boundary Commissions for them to carry out their functions. They cannot be into line with other constitutional and political watchdogs put at risk of being subjected to pressure or undue and regulators. influence by the prospect of not being reappointed or As has been said, this is about reality and, above all, by being offered reappointment. As they have pointed perception. We are talking about small changes aimed out, there are numerous posts that are now made on at strengthening the real and perceived impartiality of non-renewable fixed terms: the Civil Service Commission, those who define the framework of our electoral system. the Commission for Public Appointments, HOLAC We are talking about small changes, but they are and many others. changes that might increase trust in elections, politics Amendment 11 simply seeks to import this principle and the way we are governed. I strongly support this into the terms of the appointment of the two members amendment. of the Boundary Commission. The only objection seems to be that having a renewable term will make it Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]: My Lords, I was easier to attract good candidates and then review their unable to take part in the Second Reading or the performance to ensure they are doing their job properly. Committee stage of the Bill, but I have read Hansard In my view, the second reason is plainly contrary to in full. The importance of the issue raised by this principle, and the first is untenable, given the new cycle amendment is such that I had to support the noble of the work of the Boundary Commission. Let me deal and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in this with that point: the move to an eight-year or 10-year debate. What struck me was that the Minister’s reply cycle for the Boundary Commission—I do not wish to in Committee was a stout defence of the status quo as commit myself to either at this stage, but I take it now regards the appointment of commissioners. It did not to be 10—means that the commission will have a period recognise the fundamental change to our democracy of intense activity for two to three years every 10 years. made by this Bill. The exclusion of any parliamentary Thus, appointing a person to the office for a single procedure to approve the recommendations of the term, probably for eight or 10 years, will better fit into commissioners is presumably designed to prevent any the new cycle, rather than the shorter-term appointment suggestion of gerrymandering. The political party in renewable for a further term. The longer term will not power, with a sufficient majority, could control the discourage the appointment as any candidate will know alterationof constituencyboundaries.Iwelcome,therefore, of the cycle and the period in which there will be intense the change. activity. When they are not active, they will have time to obtain the necessary skills and experience. Each of The fact, however,that the final shape of the boundaries these three ways set out in the amendment will ensure is determined by the commissioners’ recommendations that the Boundary Commission, in its new role, is fully in their report, without any parliamentary oversight independent and seen to be so. I beg to move. or scrutiny, means that they must be—and must be seen to be—completely impartial. I have attended Lord Janvrin (CB): I support the amendment in the Boundary Commission hearings where I have endeavoured name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas; I to put forward the case most favourable to my party—and do so because the impartiality and independence of representatives of other parties present did precisely the Boundary Commission assumes greater importance the same. The commissioners, who are not as familiar if automaticity of the implementation of the commission’s with the political geography of a constituency as are findings is accepted under this Bill. I readily accept the party hacks pleading their cases before them, must that the Government understand this, as the Minister consider the evidence of population changes and the pointed out so clearly in Committee. If that is so, it submissions made to them. In so doing they are obviously surely makes sense to consider ways to strengthen the acting in a judicial capacity, as the noble and learned impartiality and independence of the commission to Lord, Lord Thomas, has made clear. meet these new circumstances. The three proposals The boundary change that affected me most personally put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was in 1983, when I was the candidate in Wrexham in this amendment to achieve this are simple and and the sitting Labour Member of Parliament, Tom straightforward and he explained them comprehensively Ellis, joined the SDP. Naturally I stood down in his in moving the amendment. favour at the next election, and as it approached I The appointment of the deputy chairman by the thought I was out of the contest. However,the boundary head of the judiciary, rather than a political Minister, commissioners stepped in and created a new constituency is a reversion to the practice before 2005, when the called Clwyd, South-West. Since Tom was born and nature of the Lord Chancellor’s role changed. It brings bred in Rhosllanerchrugog, part of the new constituency, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland into he moved there, and I, born and bred in Wrexham, line.It would significantly reduce the scope for accusations fought Wrexham. Needless to say, we both lost. In of political interference, whether real or perceived, in Tom’s constituency, the previous Labour vote was the future. split: 13,000 went to the SDP and Labour’s candidate, 747 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 748
[LORD THOMAS OF GRESFORD] House of Lords. Many noble Lords will know that Denis Carter—the much-respected Chief Whip in the I am a fervent rugby supporter and participant; in Lords in 1997—came third, with 11,000. The Tories many ways it is probably more important to me than won with 14,000. A later Conservative candidate for my membership of this place. The near-neighbour of that constituency was an unlikely old Etonian by the the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, name of Boris Johnson. He lost. Nigel Owens, is not allowed to referee at the Millennium I hope that I may be forgiven for this anecdote: I Stadium except at a club match, because he might be mention it to illustrate how crucial the decisions of the accused of bias, if Wales were playing another country. Boundary Commission can be in the lives and careers Nobody believes that Nigel Owens would be biased, of individuals and the life of political parties. The but there is that risk. Equally, Wayne Barnes, who was noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, voted last year’s Referee of the Year, was not allowed has put forward a proposal that ensures the impartiality to referee the World Cup Final, for exactly the same of the Boundary Commissions. In Committee, the reason: England was in the final. Minister did not explain why there should be a distinction This amendment addresses an exactly parallel between England and Wales on the one hand, and situation. Two years ago I went to Zimbabwe to monitor Scotland and Northern Ireland on the other, in making the elections. We all know that elections, if they are appointments. Why should a political figure with his fixed, are fixed not on voting day but by the processes own constituency to nurse, the Lord Chancellor,appoint beforehand. Sad though I am, I looked at the size of the commissioners in England and Wales? The only the constituencies in Zimbabwe. Funnily enough, reason given by the Minister was that it has always they had not been reformed for years. The most been so. However, he knows that the nature of the anti-Government constituencies were in Harare and office has fundamentally changed, and by this Bill so Bulawayo, and they were the largest constituencies. too is the role of the commissioners: they have the If we Brits had said to the Zimbabweans, “You should final say. That is a clear and obvious distinction, and is deal with the question of boundary redistribution”, very different from the normal run of public appointments. the automatic response from the Zimbabwean Secondly, the amendment calls for an independent Government—what I would have said as a member of panel to consider the applications and to put forward that Government—would have been, “Well, you have to the Secretary of State not a choice but a single a political Minister making the appointments to your name, which may be rejected, but only on the single own commission”. That is why it is important that we ground that the candidate is unsuitable. Furthermore, bring the position back into line with Scotland and if the candidate is rejected, the Secretary of State must Northern Ireland. give his reasons, and such reasons could, if necessary, be scrutinised by way of judicial review, which would I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, test the legality and rationality of the decision. That is Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on the second part of his another safeguard against political bias. amendment. I have indicated that to him. He refers to Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, appointments by the Speaker. I discussed this with the proposes that the appointment should be for a single noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and he said that I was non-renewable term. That is entirely appropriate, given over-reacting to the previous Speaker. Lindsay Hoyle that the members of the panel have to make a quasi- has made untold improvements in that position, and judicial decision. That is why we give tenure, as other we are all very pleased that he has taken us back to a noble Lords have said, to our judges. The decision traditional Speakership. Long may he continue in those must be seen to be uninfluenced by the fear that it will efforts. I would not, however, want to put appointments upset the political interests of the ruling party, or by in the hands of the Speaker, because of what I have the hope of re-appointment. I wholly support this seen could happen in recent years. amendment. The third part of the amendment deals with one-off appointments.I had a view for several years—this 3.45 pm was touched on in Grand Committee—that when Lord Hayward (Con): My Lords, first I comment on you appoint somebody to a Boundary Commission the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of they sit there for years doing virtually nothing, and Gresford, to “party hacks”. I shall disregard that then they are under extreme pressure for a period description, given that I spent so many hours, days of time. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their and weeks at so many inquiries, initially, and then local government boundary reviews and parliamentary hearings, and I take his comment in the spirit in which boundary reviews handled by one body. Surely it I hope it was intended. would be better to do the same in England and Wales, This amendment is really divided, as the noble and so that these organisations would not lose the expertise learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, identified, acquired in handling one set of boundary reviews—it into three sections—and it is important that we treat would be cumulative, and they would take it to the them as such. First, there is the historical accident, as I next review. think it probably was, in 2005, when the circumstances I have made three different comments in relation changed. The amendment attempts to bring back the to the three different parts of the amendment tabled position in England and Wales to where it is in Scotland by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. They and Northern Ireland, of total impartiality. tackle the problem in very different ways, but I would The noble and learned Lord touched on the point have hoped that the Government could have accepted, that it has to be seen to be independent. Today I am in particular, the impartiality in the first part of the wearing the rugby tie of the House of Commons and amendment. 749 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 750
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) independent. This makes the selection and appointment (CB): The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has of impartial boundary commissioners, independent of withdrawn from the debate on this group, so I call the political influence, all the more important. next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of of Aberavon. Cwmgiedd, has, at this stage of the Bill, moved an amendment that incorporates both his own original Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I and entirely appropriate insistence that the Lord Chief support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Justice, not the Lord Chancellor, should make the Cwmgiedd, and I encourage him to press his amendment appointments, and some of the other suggestions that to a vote. I do not wish to repeat the observations the Constitution Committee referred to, which have I made in Committee in support of the noble and been mentioned, in particular, by the noble Lord, learned Lord, save to say that, first, as he has outlined, Lord Hayward. The Minister should listen carefully to the office of Lord Chancellor is much more political the noble Lord, who knows what he is talking about now that it is held in the Commons. Instead of a when it comes to boundary hearings. His insistence quasi-judicial figure who sat as a judge in the Supreme that we need to safeguard independence is entirely Court and usually had no further political aspirations, justified, and I hope that his disagreement with other we now have a highly political and mobile politician as aspects of the amendment will not deter him from Lord Chancellor in the Commons; these are not personal continuing to support the efforts of the noble and remarks. learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to achieve the kind of As one who campaigned for the Ministry of Justice independence that the noble Lord has recognised is to be headed by a Commons Minister, and welcomed important. that, because it is a spending department, I have no No assurances the Minister can give could possibly complaint. But a political Minister should not have satisfy us that we have guarded against the danger that his hands on the machinery of elections—or, indeed, lurks here. That is because we are talking about any anywhere near it. The office dealing with elections future Government, of whatever political party, who should be manifestly independent. have a majority in the House of Commons, and thus There is one point that I wish to repeat: it is a the prospect of using that majority to disrupt the parallel and wider argument. I noted the remarks of electoral process, or pervert it to their advantage, in the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, a few moments ago, ways that will always be defended on the most respectable and in Committee I gave my experience as Secretary of grounds, beneath which, however,will lie political motives State for Wales in appointing the chairman of the —motives of party advantage and protection. Welsh Local Government Boundary Commission. I What is extremely likely to happen is that, at some certainly was a political Minister, and headed my time in the future, a Government, recognising that party’s campaign in Wales for six years in my tenure as they can no longer block Boundary Commission Secretary of State. recommendations or delay them until after the next Local government boundaries are one of the building election, will say, “We’d better make sure we don’t get bricks of parliamentary constituency boundaries. On unwelcome recommendations that are disadvantageous the previous amendment, the Minister confirmed that. to us, and which we might think are wrong in principle. I once lost the eastern part of my constituency because We must stop that from happening by appointing to of a new county council boundary, and I had to be the Boundary Commission people who have got the compensated by the addition of a number of wards political message—people who understand the significance from the same county council area to the rest of my of ensuring that our views remain predominant in any constituency. My submission, therefore, is that not future Parliament.” These things happen; they are only should a judicial figure appoint the Boundary part of the reality of political life, and constitutional Commission, but the Government should also consider provisions are there to protect us from their malign doing likewise for the Local Government Boundary influence. Commission. Along with that, of course, goes perceived impartiality, Since the power of appointment might already have to which the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, referred. We gone over to the Government of Wales, it would too are in an era when the principle of getting one’s late to legislate for Wales. But the Government could revenge in first seems to apply in the United States. certainly legislate for England. Indeed, I believe that President Trump says, “If I win the election, it’s fine, they should do so. I shall be interested to hear the but if I lose, it’s because the election has been rigged.” Minister’s views. Local government boundaries are So he has already started his attack on the postal inextricably linked to parliamentary boundaries, and ballot provisions in American election procedure. That decisions should be politically distanced on both of is an illustration of the fact that the impartiality of the them. electoral process is easily traduced or complained about, and if there are aspects of it that, on sound Lord Beith (LD): My Lords, when the Constitution authority, can be shown to be at least weak in protecting Committee considered the Bill, we took the view that impartiality, they will be criticised and exploited, and the removal of Parliament’s power to block Boundary will be used as arguments to question the validity of Commission recommendations was constitutionally the democratic process, at least in some individual appropriate and therefore welcome. But we warned seats, if not in the election as a whole. that automatic implementation of Boundary Commission This is an important matter, and I am disappointed, recommendations would protect against undue political because I thought the Minister had realised that something influence only if the commission itself is genuinely could be done about it. There is still time for a Third 751 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 752
[LORD BEITH] Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, Reading amendment that would at least pick out as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, our Constitution some of the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Committee accepted the move from parliamentary sign- Lord Thomas. To fail to act on that is to compromise off to automaticity,but it stressed that this change would an otherwise sensible and constitutionally appropriate “only protect against undue political influence” change, by leaving this matter open to political if theBoundaryCommissionswere“genuinelyindependent”. pressures of a kind that cast doubt on the validity of As it said: elections. “This makes the selection and appointment of impartial Boundary Commissioners, independent of political influence, all the more Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]: My Lords, as the important.” noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, As we have heard, it is hard to see how an appointment has argued, the amendment reflects a constitutional by an elected politician—a member of the Cabinet—can principle. In an effective democracy, in which the look independent, especially, I am sad to say, when power of the Executive is limited both by the rule of this Government seek to appoint their own to run the law and by the scrutiny of Parliament, regulatory BBC, Ofcom, NHS Test and Trace or other major authorities independent of undue executive influence bodies. Sadly, because we are all here now, we have not play a vital role. Separation of powers between legislature, been able to watch Peter Riddell appear before the courts and Executive is central to constitutional democracy relevant committee in the House of Commons this —and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, they must afternoon, but I gather that he has interesting things be seen to be separate. to say about the expansion of appointments beyond We are all painfully aware of the baleful impact of the normal lines of restriction. As people have said, gerrymandering in American politics. The institution what looks bad is bad, even if it is not actually the of independent Boundary Commissions is there to case. However, as a good Welsh girl, I think that we ensure that political representation in the United Kingdom should always have the Welsh to judge our rugby matches, does not follow any distance down that path. The as we would then win every single match. change in the position of the Lord Chancellor that As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of took place in 2005 makes it entirely appropriate, therefore, Cwmgiedd, and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris that the Lord Chief Justice should now inherit that of Aberavon said, when the present system was set up, role in England. the appointments were overseen by the Lord Chancellor, Our current Government have recently demonstrated who at that stage was a Member of your Lordships’ worrying tendencies towards authoritarian populism. House and the head of the judiciary. The impartiality Their attacks on the Supreme Court and on judicial was guaranteed and outwith the purview of an elected review have uncomfortable echoes of the approaches politician. of the Polish and Hungarian Governments.The Electoral Given that the recommendations of a boundary Commission is now under sustained attack, including commission could affect even the seats of the Secretary from a co-chairman of the Conservative Party, for of State’s own party, then no matter how much, like attempting to enforce the rules on campaign spending Brutus, they were an “honourable man”, or even an and political advertising. Calls from some Conservatives honourable woman, it is really hard to see how the for its abolition suggest that they reject regulation of appearance of disinterest could be demonstrated. As electoral campaigning as such. the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said, it is perceived impartiality, and that is vital. The solution in this amendment is surely right, in that it would demonstrate 4 pm that, as the commissions now effectively make law, In addition, we have seen some recent calls in the with no parliamentary role, their decisions were patently Conservative press to throw over the idea that regulatory free from any political taint. As the noble and learned bodies should be independent of government. The Lord, Lord Thomas, said, now that their decisions argument is made that future appointments should cannot be appealed, they effectively make law with the come from people sympathetic to the Government’s same force as any tribunal. approach, as against the “liberal elite”, who are thought The second proposal—for non-renewable terms—is to dominate the BBC, Ofcom and many other regulatory equally important to ensure that there is no temptation bodies. to curry favour with the reappointing Minister, nor, I have been sorry on several occasions to hear the again, even an appearance of that. Our Constitution Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, using the language Committee, without endorsing the proposal, noted of right-wing populism to claim that this Government that the Commons committee had discussed ideas to represent “the people” against the elite. His political strengthen independence,such as by single,non-renewable life has been rooted in Richmond—a place that contains, terms. However, even more important than any one as he will know well, an unusually high proportion of thing, our Constitution Committee urged us to consider the liberal elite. I hope that he does not call them “what safeguards are required to ensure the independence “enemies of the people” or he must face difficulties and impartiality of the Boundary Commissions and their with many of his neighbours. recommendations.” This amendment is therefore not only valuable in Sadly—and, I think, inexplicably—the Government its own right but a precedent in maintaining the autonomy have refused to produce any change in response to that of regulatory bodies, free from executive influence and call. Fortunately, however, the noble and learned Lord, control. For both those reasons, I hope that the House Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has done so, and we are will give it its full support. happy to support that. 753 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 754
Lord True (Con): My Lords, there is a short period The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, seeks in the life of a Minister between being thanked by to provide that the Lord Chief Justice is responsible your Lordships for a response and disappointing your for these appointments in England and Wales to safeguard, Lordships in a response, so I have enjoyed the last as he puts it, the independence of the deputy chair 10 minutes or so. role. The Government do not consider this to be I have also enjoyed the last 40 minutes of this necessary, as the persons to be appointed are High debate, which of course touches on extremely important Court judges, I repeat, and the Lord Chief Justice is points. The issue between us is whether the current consulted over these appointments. I must say to the system is capable of delivering people who are of high noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that what people say calibre, impartial, able and suitable to perform this looks bad is not necessarily bad. I believe that the system key public responsibility. The simple contention of the has delivered high-calibre appointees. Government is that the present system is suitable for The second part of the amendment looks at the purpose. I do not accept the animadversions of those selection panel. The governance code has equally robust who say that our public appointments system is in any safeguards to ensure the political impartiality of members way corrupt, or indeed corruptible. Also, I have never appointed to the Boundary Commissions. Members said anything about this Government other than that who support the deputy chair are appointed by Ministers, they are secured on a strong mandate from the people. yes, having been assessed by an advisory assessment That is perfectly legitimate to point out, although it is panel. It is the job of the panel to assess which not relevant to the arguments before us.Those arguments, candidates are appointable, so that Ministers may put so ably and charmingly by the noble and learned make an informed and appropriate decision. I am Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, are about not the advised that it has never happened that a Minister has nature of the mandate but the nature in which any appointed someone not found appointable by an advisory Government carry out, and are enabled to carry out, assessment panel. In accordance with the governance their mandate. code, the panel will include a senior departmental official, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, an independent member and a board-level representative not only for raising these issues and tabling his amendment of the body concerned. In the case of the Boundary but for the meticulous research and work that he has Commission, that would, in practice, be the deputy undertaken, which he presented in Grand Committee. chair—I repeat again, a High Court judge. I also thank him for the opportunity to discuss, more At the application stage, all candidates are asked to than once, various ways in which one might address declare political activity of various kinds over the the conundrums that he has put forward. However, my previous five years—having made significant donations strong contention is that the statutory approach that and so on. Such activity will be taken into account in he suggests is not one that the Government can accept. the panel’s deliberations and, in the case of these I must politely resist it and reiterate the appropriateness particular appointments, such activity would likely be and robustness of our existing appointments system. seen as a conflict of interest. We cannot prejudge the The Government accept the importance of these work of future advisory assessment panels, but it seems posts but they argue that the processes are thorough, likely that recent, significant political activity would independent and fair, and that there is not room for present a degree of conflict that would be incompatible inappropriate influence. The Government believe that with their finding a candidate appointable. the processes that we currently have in place for the The Government’s contention is that the public recruitment of boundary commissioners are more than appointments system is fit for purpose. The noble and adequate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, says that he does not think that they are sufficient. Lord Janvrin, argued that this was insufficient, but I Therefore, I must remind your Lordships of some of put it to noble Lords that, to date, this system has the systems and safeguards that apply. secured dedicated and expert members for the Boundary Appointments to the Boundary Commissions are Commissions over decades, and the Government believe public appointments. The commissions are listed in it should remain in place. To create a bespoke system, the Public Appointments Order in Council, which provides in primary legislation, for Boundary Commission for a governance code on public appointments and for appointments, as the amendment in the name of the the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, sets out to do, to regulate the process. The detailed governance code could cast doubt, although he said it would not, on an andthecommissioner’soversightensurethatappointments independently regulated system that has ensured, and to the Boundary Commissions, and indeed to many does ensure, that talented individuals with the right hundreds of other bodies carrying out vital public skills and experience are appointed to many hundreds work, are made openly and fairly on merit. of bodies across government carrying out vital public In addition to requirements in the governance code, work. Are we to doubt those people appointed in this as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has way today? Are we to doubt those recently appointed acknowledged, the legislation requires the deputy chair under this system to be Boundary Commissioners for of each Boundary Commission to be a High Court Wales? judge. To have achieved such a senior judicial position, The noble and learned Lord’s amendment also the deputy chair will therefore have undergone an proposes that there should be a single, non-renewable intensive recruitment and vetting procedure: their term of office for deputy chairs and members of the suitability to provide impartial leadership of the highest Boundary Commissions as a way of avoiding any calibre will have been tested in many walks of life. All potential, as he puts it, for an appointee’s actions to be deputy chairs are drawn from this pool. influenced by a desire for reappointment. We do not 755 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 756
[LORD TRUE] First, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, put is so think it advisable to make this change, and there are powerfully, we are concerned to ensure that not only is specific difficulties. We consider that if an individual is the commission impartial but that it is perceived and to serve one term only—a single, non-renewable term—it seen to be impartial. With the change brought about would need to be, my brief says, for eight years to by automaticity, its role has changed so fundamentally ensure that they cover a boundary review, since, in that fundamental changes are needed to ensure that future, reviews will be held every eight years. I seem to there is perceived impartiality. recall that, a few minutes ago, your Lordships voted Secondly, as to the position of the Lord Chief for a review every 10 years. That would mean a single, Justice, it is very difficult to see any argument in non-renewable term of 10 years to ensure that a member principle—the Minister has advanced none—for why took part in a boundary review. We are not aware of a it is not brought into line with Scotland and Northern board appointment of such length, and it is likely that Ireland or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, put it, such a stretch of time would be off-putting to at least the position is restored to the appointment of the some worthy candidates. Our contention is that person by the head of the judiciary. It is important to appointments are currently based on a robust system. appreciate the kind of world in which we now live. The system would prevent partial candidates being Certainly, my own experience is that people will dig to appointed in the first place—or, indeed, reappointed. find connections, however spurious they may be. Some We do not consider there to be a risk of appointing may remember the connections that were dug up in candidates who would be partisan. relation to a decision on which I sat in 2017. No judge should be put in a position where his or her appointment 4.15 pm is called into question on the basis that they may have In conclusion, I pay tribute again to the experience some connection that has made them favourable to the and advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, political Minister, particularly a Minister whose own and I say to him that we have reflected on a number of constituency might well be affected by the Boundary the points he has made in conversations. His advice Commission review. has been of great benefit to the House today during Thirdly, it seems to me that this must be put in this debate. It has been helpful to take time to discuss statutory form. I have made no criticism of the current these issues in further detail with him, and he has had appointment process in relation to how the commission the opportunity to discuss them with my officials. currently works, but it has fundamentally changed. While the Government will resist this amendment if No assurances—as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, pointed he presses it today, I am grateful for the constructive out—can work because assurances do not bind future and courteous manner in which he has approached Governments and this is in a code not made under our discussions. I do not demur from the significance statute, merely by an Order in Council. of the issues he has raised. Notwithstanding that Fourthly, as to the term, there simply is no reason disappointing conclusion, in many ways, I hope I have why the tenure cannot move to being akin to other been able to give some assurance along the way to important constitutional watchdog posts. Both the your Lordships that the system we have in place is noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, strong and appropriate and deserves to stay in place. I and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the interesting urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his issue of bringing together the Local Government amendment. Boundary Commission in England and Wales and the parliamentary Boundary Commission. When looking The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) at this matter, there is much that can be said in favour (LD): I have received a request to ask a short question of such a move. However, that should in no way affect for elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. the basic constitutional principle that the appointment should be for a fixed, non-renewable term so that, in a Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, I have a very short case, the decisions that they make are not subject to a question for my noble friend, to whom I have listened review by Parliament, or by anyone else, and must be with great care and considerable sympathy. What can accepted. possibly be lost by putting the four constituent countries In the light of the Government’s position, I therefore of the United Kingdom on a similar footing? wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord True (Con): My Lords, the matter before the 4.21 pm House is whether the system for England and Wales is sufficient and effective. The contention I put to your Division conducted remotely on Amendment 11 Lordships’ House is that it is sufficient and effective. Contents 319; Not-Contents 224. My noble friend will know in any case that the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland have long demanded Amendment 11 agreed. different approaches. Division No. 3
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]: I thank all CONTENTS noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting debate and, in particular, I again thank the Minister Aberdare, L. Allan of Hallam, L. Addington, L. Allen of Kensington, L. for the courtesy he has shown me and for the time that Adebowale, L. Alli, L. his officials have given to looking at this matter. It seems Adonis, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. to me, however, that four points emerge. Alderdice, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. 757 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 758
Armstrong of Hill Top, B. D’Souza, B. Laming, L. Ricketts, L. Ashton of Upholland, B. Dubs, L. Lane-Fox of Soho, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Bach, L. Eames, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Bakewell of Hardington Eatwell, L. Layard, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Mandeville, B. Elder, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Rooker, L. Bakewell, B. Erroll, E. Lee of Trafford, L. Rosser, L. Barker, B. Falkner of Margravine, B. Lennie, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Levy, L. Rowlands, L. Beith, L. Featherstone, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Russell of Liverpool, L. Benjamin, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Liddle, L. Sandwich, E. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Foster of Bath, L. Lipsey, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Berkeley, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Sharkey, L. Best, L. Fox, L. Lisvane, L. Sheehan, B. Bhatia, L. Freyberg, L. Low of Dalston, L. Sherlock, B. Bichard, L. Gale, B. Ludford, B. Shipley, L. Birt, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Macdonald of River Glaven, Shutt of Greetland, L. German, L. Blackstone, B. L. Sikka, L. Giddens, L. Blower, B. Glasgow, E. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Simon, V. Blunkett, L. Glasman, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Singh of Wimbledon, L. Boateng, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. L. Smith of Basildon, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Golding, B. Mair, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. B. Goldsmith, L. Mallalieu, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Goudie, B. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Smith of Kelvin, L. Bowness, L. Grantchester, L. L. Smith of Newnham, B. Boycott, B. Greaves, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Snape, L. Bradley, L. Greenway, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Somerset, D. Bradshaw, L. Grender, B. Mawson, L. St John of Bletso, L. Bragg, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Maxton, L. Stair, E. Brinton, B. Grocott, L. McAvoy, L. Stephen, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hain, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Stern, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Hamwee, B. L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Hannay of Chiswick, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Heywood, L. Hanworth, V. McKenzie of Luton, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. McNally, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Storey, L. Bryan of Partick, B. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Strasburger, L. Bull, B. Mendelsohn, L. Haskel, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Burnett, L. Haworth, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Stunell, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. B. Suttie, B. Butler of Brockwell, L. Hayman, B. Mitchell, L. Taverne, L. Butler-Sloss, B. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Monks, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Morgan of Huyton, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Henig, B. Morris of Aberavon, L. Teverson, L. Carrington, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Carter of Coles, L. Hollick, L. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Cashman, L. Hollins, B. Murphy, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Chakrabarti, B. Hope of Craighead, L. Neuberger, B. Thornhill, B. Chidgey, L. Houghton of Richmond, L. Newby, L. Thornton, B. Clancarty, E. Howarth of Newport, L. Northover, B. Thurso, V. Clark of Calton, B. Hoyle, L. Nye, B. Tonge, B. Clark of Kilwinning, B. Humphreys, B. Oates, L. Tope, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Osamor, B. Touhig, L. Clement-Jones, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Paddick, L. Trevethin and Oaksey, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Hussain, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Triesman, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Pannick, L. Truscott, L. Colville of Culross, V. Hutton of Furness, L. Parminter, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Cork and Orrery, E. Inglewood, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Turnberg, L. Corston, B. Janke, B. Patel, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Coussins, B. Janvrin, L. Pinnock, B. Tyler, L. Cox, B. Jay of Ewelme, L. Pitkeathley, B. Uddin, B. Craig of Radley, L. Jolly, B. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Craigavon, V. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Prashar, B. Verjee, L. Crawley, B. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Prescott, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Crisp, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Primarolo, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Cromwell, L. Jones, L. Prosser, B. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Cunningham of Felling, L. Jordan, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Walmsley, B. Dannatt, L. Judd, L. Quin, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Judge, L. Radice, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Kakkar, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Deech, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Ramsbotham, L. Watts, L. Desai, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Randerson, B. Wellington, D. Devon, E. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Ravensdale, L. West of Spithead, L. Dholakia, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Razzall, L. Wheatcroft, B. Donaghy, B. Kidron, B. Redesdale, L. Wheeler, B. Donoughue, L. Kilclooney, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Whitaker, B. Doocey, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Whitty, L. Drake, B. Kramer, B. Rennard, L. Wigley, L. 759 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 760
Wilcox of Newport, B. Woolf, L. Mobarik, B. Scott of Bybrook, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Mone, B. Seccombe, B. Wills, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Montrose, D. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Winston, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Wood of Anfield, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Morris of Bolton, B. Sheikh, L. Morrissey, B. Shephard of Northwold, B. Morrow, L. NOT CONTENTS Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Moylan, L. Shields, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Moynihan, L. Shinkwin, L. Naseby, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Framlingham, L. Shrewsbury, E. Altmann, B. Freud, L. Neville-Jones, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. Smith of Hindhead, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Fullbrook, B. Stedman-Scott, B. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Gadhia, L. Newlove, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Sterling of Plaistow, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Strathclyde, L. Astor of Hever, L. Garnier, L. B. Noakes, B. Stroud, B. Austin of Dudley, L. Geddes, L. Sugg, B. Baker of Dorking, L. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Northbrook, L. Suri, L. Balfe, L. Glenarthur, L. Norton of Louth, L. Barran, B. Glendonbrook, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Barwell, L. Gold, L. Patten, L. Taylor of Warwick, L. Bates, L. Goldie, B. Penn, B. Tebbit, L. Berridge, B. Goodlad, L. Pickles, L. Trefgarne, L. Bertin, B. Goschen, V. Pidding, B. Trenchard, V. Bethell, L. Grabiner, L. Polak, L. Trimble, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Popat, L. True, L. Blackwell, L. Greenhalgh, L. Porter of Spalding, L. Tugendhat, L. Blencathra, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Powell of Bayswater, L. Ullswater, V. Bloomfield of Hinton Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Price, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Waldrist, B. Hague of Richmond, L. Rana, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Borwick, L. Hailsham, V. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Verma, B. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Ranger, L. Wakeham, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Haselhurst, L. Rawlings, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Hay of Ballyore, L. Reay, L. Walney, L. Brady, B. Helic, B. Redfern, B. Warsi, B. Bridgeman, V. Henley, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Wasserman, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. Risby, L. Wei, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Robathan, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Browning, B. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Rock, B. Whitby, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, L. Rose of Monewden, L. Wilcox, B. L. Hogan-Howe, L. Rotherwick, L. Willetts, L. Buscombe, B. Hooper, B. Saatchi, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Caine, L. Horam, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Wyld, B. Callanan, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Sarfraz, L. Young of Cookham, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Howard of Rising, L. Sassoon, L. Young of Graffham, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Howe, E. Sater, B. Younger of Leckie, V. Cathcart, E. Howell of Guildford, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. 4.34 pm Chadlington, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Chartres, L. Jopling, L. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Keen of Elie, L. (LD): My Lords, we now come to the group beginning Clarke of Nottingham, L. King of Bridgwater, L. with Amendment 12. I have to inform your Lordships Coe, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Colgrain, L. Lang of Monkton, L. that we have had three people scratch from this group, Colwyn, L. Lansley, L. the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Cormack, and Courtown, E. Leigh of Hurley, L. the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I remind noble Lords Crathorne, L. Lexden, L. that Members other than the mover and the Minister Cumberlege, B. Lilley, L. may speak only once, and that short questions of Davies of Gower, L. Lindsay, E. elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press De Mauley, L. Lingfield, L. Deben, L. Liverpool, E. this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should Deighton, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. make that clear in debate. Dobbs, L. Lothian, M. Duncan of Springbank, L. Lucas, L. Dundee, E. Lupton, L. Amendment 12 Dunlop, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Eaton, B. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Mancroft, L. 12: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— Eccles, V. Manzoor, B. “Electorate per constituency Empey, L. Marlesford, L. In rule 2(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (electorate per Evans of Bowes Park, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and constituency), for “95%” substitute “92.5%”.” Fairhead, B. Cookstown, L. Fall, B. McGregor-Smith, B. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, Farmer, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. technically I rise to move Amendment 12, in the name Fellowes of West Stafford, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Fink, L. McLoughlin, L. of my noble friend Lord Lennie and the noble Baroness, Finn, B. Meacher, B. Lady Finlay, but I must say that I will withdraw it at Fookes, B. Meyer, B. the end of this group. However, I will move, and shall 761 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 762 now speak to, Amendment 13, in the name of my This will be of particular help in rural areas or, noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott. It is on I have to say again, communities in Wales where the that amendment that we will seek to divide the House. mountains and valleys impose geographical constraints Everything that we heard in Committee made it which perhaps are not particularly well understood in clear that the change in the 2011 Act—setting such a SW1, or indeed some other conurbations. Amendment very low tolerance level within which the boundary 13 would make the margin 5,500 rather than 3,500 and commissioners could do their work—will mean that provide some helpful flexibility—if it is needed; it does communities, ward boundaries, rivers, lakes, mountains not have to be used—so that those who are holding and motorways will have to be crossed to engineer the pencil can draw boundaries that really do represent exactly the right mathematical numbers. Those final communities and which allow people to have a boundary moves—sometimes mere tweaks—to reach the community-based relationship with their Member of required numbers make even less sense when set against Parliament. I beg to move. the number of people not even on the electoral roll. Lord Tyler (LD) [V]: My Lords, our own amendment It is estimated that some 20% of eligible voters are in this group is Amendment 14 in my name and that of not registered, which is, on average, about 10,000 per my noble friend Lord Rennard, but I will refer also to constituency; the Government are obsessed with others in this group which offer slightly different solutions the last 3,000 or 4,000. I remind the Minister that to the fundamental problem with this Bill that all the this is a smaller number than when there were to be signatories agree is so apparent. As Members of your 600 constituencies under the 2011 Act. The average Lordships’ House will have observed, we have modified number per constituency was therefore larger, so the our suggested solution in the spirit of compromise 5% tolerance then gave a larger number of electors for appropriate to Report. Wehad previously recommended the margin in which the Boundary Commissions work, a basic quota variance of 8%, but we took careful note but the very welcome return to 650 Members reduces of the developing consensus in Grand Committee, and the average number per constituency and therefore we now endorse 7.5% as providing the essential and reduces the 5% either way within which the Boundary reasonable flexibility that so many Members are seeking Commissions can do their work. Therefore, the last and to which the noble Baroness has just referred. 3,000 or 4,000 the Government are so wedded to is From Second Reading right through our discussions, actually very small compared with the about 10,000 a clear majority of contributors have expressed concern per constituency who are not even on the electoral about the very narrow 5% tolerance currently in the roll. Indeed, perhaps if the Government could spend Bill. As has already been indicated, that concern is as much energy on getting those 10,000 on to the now echoed across the House of Commons. We must register, any talk of democratic equivalence and fair all hope that the Government are also determined to votes would have a little more resonance. reach a sensible consensus by compromising on this The resulting splitting of communities that 5% requires figure. They have nothing to lose by doing so. As the also flies in the face of the reality—as we heard in the forensic academic analysis by the late Professor Johnston debate on today’s first group of amendments—that and his colleagues has demonstrated so conclusively, MPs represent areas, not just individuals. Of course, the perceived electoral imbalance between Conservative areas do not vote, but it means that MPs can best and Labour constituencies would not be especially represent those individuals if they understand and adversely affected by this simple and flexible adjustment. have a good relationship with the organisations within What would be changed would be the widespread those constituencies. Therefore, breaking through, for disruption of so many constituency boundaries. Those example, a school’s catchment area—sometimes for newly elected Conservative MPs, especially from seats small numbers to get the percentage right—means hitherto not held by the party in the north and the that issues of education could pull in more than just Midlands, may now recognise the attraction of a more the MP in whose seat the school is located, because the measured approach in this forthcoming review. They narrowness of the margin does not allow for the may also be especially apprehensive about potential catchment area to be included in that seat. That will “blue on blue”contests. This was the core of the evidence sometimes happen at the borders of constituencies, presented to the Commons Bill Committee. but to make it happen for a mathematical formula We take very seriously the point just made by the seems particularly unhelpful. noble Baroness about the number of people who are It can also be argued that it is not good for currently eligible to be on the register but who are not accountability as it does not help an MP represent the there. We believe that in the months of the process of totality of an area. Communities have natural boundaries the review, this may be improved; in which case, of and sometimes they will have to be cut through, as I course, there might be quite considerable increases say, but we should minimise that by giving the Boundary in particular constituencies. It is also true that if the Commissions a bit more space to allow them to respond Government eventually pursue their intention of to local circumstances. increasing the franchise to those who have moved The very slight change to an extra 2.5% either way abroad, that too could mean a considerable difference would give the commissions an extra bit of leeway to during the actual process of the review. If, for example, respond to travel patterns, geographical community or anyone decides to move permanently from the London the needs of an area without having the knock-on or area to the Ancona area in the east of Italy and they ripple effects on neighbouring seats so that again, and wanted to retain their voting rights after 15 years, that sometimes for no good reason, a neighbouring community could make a major difference to one of the boroughs is impacted just because the numbers do not quite fit in London. That may be true of other areas and for in the first seat. other individuals as well. 763 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 764
[LORD TYLER] The common cause we all recognise in this group of Meanwhile there is common ground across your amendments is that the unacceptable level and regularity Lordships’ House that the insistence on the 5% variance of disruption, implicit in the current 5% straitjacket, straitjacket, imposed on the four Boundary Commissions, must be avoided. Here I must note my personal experience: will result in more changes with 650 constituencies the drastic change between my original Bodmin than were proposed with the previously proposed constituency and the subsequent North Cornwall 600 constituencies; then more regular changes for constituency was very confusing for residents and for more constituencies at more reviews; and there would all those who were involved in trying to represent their be more consequent knock-on changes even to adjoining interests. Indeed, I would say that that change was constituencies which are themselves within the limits. much more significant in trying to get good service to Incumbents who believed themselves to be safe would the electorate than the fact that by the time I retired, it suddenly find that they are far from it. There would had gone up to 87,000. also be more disruption of historic, geographically There has already been a lot of compromise on and socially cohesive communities. Finally, there would Report, and I accept that. The rest of us must now be more disconnection between MPs, councillors and the hope that the Minister will accept the strength of the public at more regular intervals than is either necessary case for greater flexibility that so many noble Lords or desirable. are advancing, and accept that that, too, would reach a good consensus for us all. 4.45 pm The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) I know from my personal involvement in the coalition (LD): The noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble discussions that these reasons were basically those Baroness, Lady Finlay, have withdrawn, so I call the that motivated the then Conservative Leader of our noble Lord, Lord Grocott. House to recommend to the Prime Minister that the variance should go up to 10%. We can, perhaps, take it Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I shall speak to that there is a strong argument for more flexibility. my noble friend’s amendment and I agree with every The question in this debate is therefore how we should word she said. I do not have a great deal to add. I also adjust this figure. Our amendment recommends a agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, normal 7.5% variance in the quota, but permits each said. That emphasises that we are not talking about an of the Boundary Commissions to explore the validity issue of principle in any of the amendments in the of 10% where exceptional circumstances demand it in group but one of degree. It is worth reminding ourselves each of the nations of the UK. This might include that there is widespread agreement across the House avoiding crossing the major administrative boundaries on most of contents of the Bill. That has been recognised of English counties and unitary authorities, for example, even on a day like today when there have inevitably been or greater problems of rurality and limited transport Divisions, as there always will be. We are all agreed links, or other special factors. The reference to Schedule 2 in our opposition to huge variations in the size of to the 1986 Act in our amendment is very specific constituencies and that we should aim for equality—not and gives clear guidance to each of the Boundary precise arithmetic equality but much greater equality. Commissions. As regards my background in fighting elections, if Of course, constituencies within the four nations anyone is qualified to speak on the issue of huge vary enormously. These factors may not be material in variations in constituency size, I can probably, without seeking to serve constituents in inner cities. However, too much vanity, claim that qualification. At one as I mentioned in Grand Committee, in my previous stage, I represented a seat with an electorate of 57,000 North Cornwall constituency before the boundaries and at another represented a seat with an electorate of were redrawn, to drive from an advice surgery at one 100,000. I therefore bow to no one in my belief that end to the next one at the other end could take there should be far greater equality in constituency 90 minutes in winter but up to 150 minutes at the height size, and that is agreed across the House. of the summer holiday season. We also all agree across the House—I include the As has been emphasised by all participants at all Government in this—that there is much more to it stages of the Bill, our prime concern should be for the than the simple question of arithmetic when determining effect on individual residents, groups and communities constituency boundaries. We know all the guidance in a distinct area rather than on their political given to the Boundary Commission but in the Bill the representatives or their local parties. It is for that Government acknowledge this issue by exempting certain reason that we prefer our formulation to that in constituencies from the general framework in which Amendments 12 and 13 on the one hand, or in boundaries must be drawn. There are five such Amendment18 on the other. The former pair seem to constituencies, whose inclusion I support but not for us to be a real improvement, but not to fully recognise the flimsy reason that the Government claim—that the special local circumstances to which I have referred. they are all in one category. That is true to the extent Some scattered rural areas, not least in mid and north that they are all islands or groups of islands but there Wales, would certainly benefit from more variation also is a great deal of difference between them. No than 7.5%. The latter amendment provides so much obvious similarities spring to mind between Anglesey variation, but in just one part of the UK, that again it and the Shetlands, or between the Isle of Wight and fails to accept the significance of the smaller number the Western Isles. Many more geographic issues need of potential constituencies with unusual requirements to be taken into account than the category of being while at the same time loading extra electorates on islands, which is the only one that the Government seem to others. to acknowledge, with all the frailties of that argument. 765 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 766
I agree with my noble friend’s amendment, which The only matter that I wish to emphasise is that seeks greater flexibility and, in particular, has the travel in south Wales is from north to south, down the important characteristic regarding Wales mentioned valleys, and infrequently across mountains from east by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my noble friend to west, mentioned by my noble friends Lord Grocott Lady Hayter. I do not hesitate to repeat what I said in and Lady Hayter. My constituency for 41 years bordered Committee. I was shocked at the impact of the boundary that of my noble friend Lord Hain to the west. I can review proposals that we are considering in the Bill on count on one hand the number of times that I went on representation in Wales. The House should walk on the political business to his constituency. Likewise, the other side on that issue with great care. Maesteg part of the Bridgend constituency to the east In conclusion, there is no great issue of principle met mine on the top of a mountain. I probably went to that divides the Government from those of us who feel that constituency less than half a dozen times, although that there should be greater flexibility. All that we are many constituents from there came to work in mine. asking is that they should change the rules in the Bill That demonstrates that the travel direction in Wales to allow a little more flexibility for the Boundary is north to south, not east to west, and that is the Commission, and Minister should offer more flexibility community interest. when he responds. The reduction in the number of Welsh seats now proposed would cause havoc in the make-up of south Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: My Lords, I very much agree Wales seats, be a massive reorganisation and break with previous speakers on this group of amendments up long-standing ties. The Brecon and Radnorshire and support Amendment 18, to which I have added constituency has been mentioned as one example where my name and, in the absence of my good friend, the there should be special consideration. Coming from a noble Lord, Lord Hain, would be happy to move it, family of sheep breeders, I enjoyed campaigning there were that to be appropriate, if the Government were and seeing the sheep of Breconshire. However,I travelled unwilling to move in that direction or to adopt an 40 or 50 miles there not looking for sheep but for amendment moving in that direction. voters—and towns, of which there are few and they Amendment 18 might be seen by some colleagues are far apart. I pray in aid what Sir Alfred Mond, as being the more extreme option within this group, founder of Mond Nickel and ICI, and the MP for the which seeks greater tolerance around the mean number old Carmarthenshire seat, once said. He later became of electors per constituency. That amendment applies the first Lord Melchett and his statue is in Pontardawe. only to Wales, and I appreciate the comments of the He said that Carmarthen is not a constituency but a noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, continent. The same could be said of Brecon and Lord Tyler and Lord Grocott. All referred to the Radnorshire, and other large seats. There should be challenging situation in rural Wales. It is therefore some flexibility and the number of seats in Wales should perfectly in order for noble Lords to support the smaller not stand at the figure now proposed. variations around the mean in England or Scotland, if they so choose, and I support their amendments seeking 5 pm greater flexibility there. However, the imposition of still further flexibility in Wales can be taken on board Lord Blencathra (Con): My Lords, it was a delight because it does not change the number of seats allocated to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, move the to Wales, merely the distribution within it. As has been amendment. I recall her saying in an earlier debate stated, this would allow greater flexibility in respecting that everything that could possibly be said had already natural communities, geographic sparsity and ease of been said. I suspect we shall hear the same in this travel. debate. It reminds me of a time 30 years ago when I Wales should have at least 36 parliamentary seats was a junior Whip in the Commons pushing through but that is not the issue at stake in Amendment 18. It hundreds of Lords amendments. I had a deal with the gives the Boundary Commission for Wales greater opposition Labour Party; colleagues were speaking flexibility, if it chooses to use it, to respond to the for one to two minutes each. Then the great MP, topography and communities of Wales. As the noble Sir Ivan Lawrence, got up and said, “Everything that Baroness, Lady Hayter, suggested, constraining them could possibly be said on this amendment has been into a straitjacket imposed by Westminster is not said, but not by those of us qualified to say it.” With helpful. I urge the Government to accept this amendment his having spoken for 20 minutes, the deal fell through or at least table an amendment of their own to meet and we were there until midnight. I hope that will not these pressing arguments. happen tonight. It was also a delight to listen to the noble and Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. He is a wee support my noble friend Lady Hayter in her amendment bit older than me, but I would love to have lived in that and have added my name to the important amendment golden era where constituents loved their MP, did not for Wales of my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble want any boundary changes, were committed to the Lord, Lord Wigley, Amendment 18. I encourage them community and must have been appalled at having to press it to a vote. I shall not repeat the case that they general elections where their MP could possibly be made in Committee. However,the figure of 35 Members lost to them. It was a wonderful era and I wish we had from Wales has been sacrosanct for decades in my it now. He mentioned there are many sheep in his long political career. Specifically, can the Minister say constituency.In my part of Cumbria, there were infinitely when that principle was breached in the past? Please more sheep than voters and my opponents used to give me the year. There may be one but it stands out as claim that it was where my majority came from. Therefore, an exception. I congratulate the noble Peers who have proposed 767 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 768
[LORD BLENCATHRA] hack—he was a brilliant political hack—tells me that these amendments and spoken in favour of them. the model constituency will be 73,000 electors. This Icommendthembecausetheydidsowithanextraordinary permits constituencies ranging from 69,350 to 76,650. degree of earnestness and a straight face. That is almost 7,000 electors to move about and it Anyone who has not participated in the boundary should take care of all claimed, so-called unique changes game might have been fooled for a moment communities which cannot be split, as noble Lords have into believing there was a great mass of constituents argued. who cared passionately about the exact boundaries of Amendments 12, 13 and 14 would increase the their constituencies and the necessity of retaining a range not to 7.5% but to 15%. Amendment 14 goes relationship with the same MP. Who are we kidding? even further—to suggest an extraordinary 20% range. Let us be honest: the vast majority of constituents If the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, have not a clue where their constituency boundaries Lord Tyler,were accepted, one could have a constituency are and could not care less. They care about the of 65,700 sitting next door to one of 80,300—a 15,000- politics of the MP and using their vote to change the elector variation. It was noticeable that all noble Lords Government, as we saw last year. Once an MP is from the Opposition who have spoken did not mention elected, constituents care about issues and someone to those figures. It is always: “A slight tweak here, a little take them up on their behalf. Boundaries are irrelevant. difference there, a small percentage change here and I only ever had one constituent who cared passionately there”. The figures are astronomical. I suggest that about the boundary and that was the late Earl of those figures are utterly unacceptable. They undermine Lonsdale, who was deeply upset that Willie Whitelaw, the principle of having constituencies of similar size as he then was, implemented the 1983 boundary report and electors having an equal vote. I say to my noble which put a bit of Lord Lonsdale’sbeloved Westmorland friend the Minister: do not play the Opposition’s into the Cumberland/Penrith constituency. Monopoly game; do not pass Go and collect 15% and All of us who have been MPs in a former life have 20% ranges; stick with the range in the Bill. played the boundary commission game, which is a bit like Monopoly but with electors in play rather than Lord Blunkett (Lab): My Lords, I think parliamentary money. We try to land a ward or a parish which gives language allows me to use the term, balderdash. In a us the voters we want and try to get rid of wards which stroke, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, dismisses the are unhelpful to our majority. Instead of playing with constituency link and the identity that people have in hotels and railway stations, we use rivers, roads and communities with one another,speaking to their Member mountain ranges. We would happily split Park Lane if of Parliament and expecting that Member to speak for it aided us and disadvantaged our opponents. The them. That is why dividing communities, which so Labour and Conservative parties would give away often happens with the narrow range, is not about the Park Lane to Lambeth if it helped them retain the seat Member of Parliament and whether people hold them or win the seat of Kensington and Chelsea. in contempt or could not give a damn about the We have all produced spurious arguments why our boundaries, but about the community of interest that constituency boundaries must or must not be changed people have in their area and the expectation of a voice and have cited ancient history, travel-to-work areas or to speak for them. strong community ties. While there may have been All of us know that political parties put forward the some truth in these facts, the motivation for advancing best possible case to the Boundary Commissions to them was all bogus. ensure they maximise their success in parliamentary elections and local elections. However, to dismiss the I recall in Grand Committee the noble Lord, notion of a small additional variation in the way that Lord Tyler, mentioning that the River Tamar could the noble Lord just did is to be contemptuous of the not be crossed because it was a boundary since pre-historic electorate, citizenship and identity. If we want equality times.I can imagine the Neanderthal Lib Dem predecessor in the numerics, as the Minister said in response to to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, a good party hack, Amendments 2 and 3, then let us have a national list arguing before a Palaeolithic boundary inspector that system—the noble Lord has actually made a good their caves in Devon were a distinct community and case for it. Let us have total equality in a crude form of different from those in Cornwall. proportionality: the political parties put up their list, The real motivation behind the representations made the electorate vote, and they get straight down the line by Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Members and the number of seats that the electorate have allocated their parties to the Boundary Commissions and the themselves. None of us wants that, do we? Even the inspectors is to carve up as many seats as possible to Liberal Democrats do not want a national list system, give the party more seats. There is nothing wrong or because they accept the importance of the community immoral about that, and in my experience the commission link and the identity that goes with it. has never been fooled by any of these bogus political The way in which we have started to debate this gets representations, no matter how hard or earnestly we tried. off the point, which is that the Government have What makes the work of the inquiry inspector accepted that there are five exceptions. At a stroke, more difficult is when there is a wide range of constituency they have accepted that it is important to recognise sizes, thus permitting political parties to mount a difference, identity and geography. Those who had range of suggestions for wards and districts to be previously pressed for a larger variation have accepted included or excluded. I support the 10% range in the that getting as close as possible to numeric values does Bill, from a low of 95% to a high of 105%. My noble matter—without employing a dreadful algorithm that friend Lord Hayward, who called himself a political could do the job for us, leaving us to pick up the mess 769 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 770 afterwards. Therefore, 5% to 7.5% gives a greater rules, of 5% either way or 10% overall. These amendments ability to the Boundary Commission and those working propose 7.5% or 15% overall variance and, as my for it to use common sense and ensure that people do noble friend Lord Blencathra explained, those figures not have a boat to get across the Mersey or, in the case are sizeable when it gets down to actual voters. In its of Iain Duncan Smith in the last proposal, to spend second part, the Lib Dem Amendment 14 talks of a three hours going around a reservoir. It is about 10% start-off and a 20% overall variance. This cannot identifying what really matters, which is common sense, be justified. However, it is as nothing to Amendment and the proposal of 7.5% in Amendment 13 does that. 18, which has a special case for Wales, proposed by the I will say one word on Wales. I said in the Grand noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and the Committee that I was deeply impressed with the case noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who that was made in relation to what the proposals would I believe is the only one who will be speaking to us. mean for Wales. It would matter in terms of the valley I should, perhaps, tell noble Lords that I have a identity; it matters greatly. People made the case that, fondness for Welsh politics since I acted as the agent although they had travelled well out of Wales, many for Plaid Cymru in my school’s mock election in 1959. people had not actually travelled between the two We did not win, but we came a respectable second adjoining valleys because of the nature of the geography. to the Conservatives, leaving the other parties far As I said in Grand Committee, my great-grandfather behind. I had not been to Wales at the time, and that was born on the edge of Brecon and Radnorshire, and may have stretched the political norms but no less I was impressed, again, by the way the description of than the girth that the noble Lords seek to encircle by the travelling time and the size of that constituency their amendment. I suggest to them that we have an affected the ability of the Member to do their job on opportunity to discuss exceptionality in a number of behalf of constituents. subsequent amendments. If we get back to constituents, identity, citizenship Meanwhile, I will go back to where I started and and the reason we have elections and the link represented remind noble Lords that the electoral quota is a starting by that crucial Member of Parliament with a voice point. The differential from that quota at the beginning for, speaking on behalf of and understanding their of a review means that any variation from the quota at community, as well as the role of Parliament, we the beginning can lead to very wide variations towards might just take a deep breath and say “When we start the end of the review period. The current rules are a arguing on the head of a pin, that is when we turn off sensible compromise for a practical fit between geography, the electorate for good.” community and constituency representation in Parliament. We should be very careful about departing from that Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]: My Lords, I am principle. entering the debate on this group of amendments and speaking to them because I am afraid I disagree very Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am not going to much with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I find his go back over all the arguments about 7.5%, 5%, 10% and emphasis on community and the sense in which that so on; they have been wonderfully rehearsed by noble plays a critical part in the function of a Member of Lords who are much more knowledgeable than I am. Parliament a somewhat flawed idea. I want to take this opportunity to make a general The truth is that I live in the house I was brought up point about the process in relation to parliamentary in; I have had three Members of Parliament and lived constituencies. in three different constituencies. My constituency has We go to great trouble, as noble Lords said earlier not changed, but other bits have been added on or this afternoon, to protect the effectiveness and neutrality taken away during my lifetime. They were never part of the Boundary Commission. It seems to me to be in of the community, which is, after all, in the fens and complete contradiction to that to allow the Government surrounded not by mountains but great unpopulated of the day, effectively, to decide matters that are greatly areas; they are no more part of a community than going to affect the electoral geography, such as the Welsh valley communities that may, perhaps, have number of years—as we debated yesterday—for which been connected to communities over the mountains. a Boundary Commission report should apply or, in However, it was fair, and it is fairness that my noble this case, the degree of variety that should be permitted friend Lord Blencathra managed to convey in his in their size. excellent speech. There is a huge difference in the way constituencies are distributed in this country, and this Across the Atlantic, we have a dire warning of what is unfair to the voter. It means that, if you start off happens when you let politicians decide for themselves with a variation with a wide spread, you end up with on the rules that will determine whether they are an enormous variation. I believe that the top 20% of elected. The danger of appearing to be partisan when constituencies total the same as, or more than, the doing it our way seems to me great, and more effort constituencies that make up the city of Sheffield. That should have been made by the Government and, I am cannot be right. sure, by others to achieve a consensus reform of parliamentary boundaries—we all agree there should 5.15 pm be one—rather than one that can be accused of being I think that noble Lords might well consider that partisan and that is, in any case, not being addressed these amendments are the elastic amendments; they with the seriousness that should apply. appear to be designed to stretch the starting point, I speak as someone who worked for the late Jim which we should emphasise, of an electoral quota Callaghan, who was for a long time an esteemed being considered by the Boundary Commission from Member of this House, as well as, briefly, an esteemed a variance between constituencies, under the current Prime Minister. In 1969, Jim Callaghan got his own 771 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 772
[LORD LIPSEY] band which the Government propose weakens that party to vote down a set of recommendations from the link between MP and local community. Honest and Boundary Commissions for purely partisan reasons. traditional Conservatives, those who still remember Lord Callaghan, being of a different mould from and revere Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli and many of the politicians who lead us today, had the Harold Macmillan, should join others in this House in decency in later years to admit that he had made a supporting the amendment. mistake and that he deeply regretted his actions. We are making a mistake in accepting a Bill so close to the one that was presented. It would have been very much Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]: My Lords, I speak briefly better if there had been a process of negotiation and against the amendments in this group. compromise, rather than an edict brought by a political As I said in my remarks on group 2, this Bill is majority. It will represent a further erosion of the about balance and fairness. It seeks to redress the esteem in which our Government and our Houses of inequality of constituencies. Fundamentally,the purpose Parliament are held. of boundary reviews is to ensure that constituency boundaries are of equal size and based on updated Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]: My Lords, I figures. In reviewing constituency boundaries, I believe cannot understand why the Government continue to that a tolerance range of 10% strikes the right balance, insist on this reduction in the variation of size between allowing the Boundary Commissions to propose constituencies. The original justification was the constituencies 5% larger or smaller than the quota. Conservatives’ complaint that the width of variation Any larger figure would simply mean that constituencies created a structural imbalance in favour of Labour. continue not to be properly equalised, perpetuating Others have pointed out that this arose from differences unfairness. I make these comments notwithstanding in levels of electoral registration, in turnout and in the the exceptions made for protected constituencies, and size of majorities. The last three elections showed that with the addition of Ynys Môn. this allegedly structural bias had disappeared. It must In Committee and again today, some noble Lords be inertia at Conservative Party headquarters that have expressed a shared concern about the need for explains why the Government are persisting with it. communitiestobekepttogetherwithinsingleconstituencies, As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said earlier, in about particular geographies being respected, and, our unwritten constitution the House of Commons is therefore, about greater flexibility being required in the supposed to a body that represents communities redrawing of boundaries. This understandable sentiment throughout the United Kingdom, not just an electoral has been balanced with the importance of ensuring college that votes for the Prime Minister. The first-past- that every elector’s vote carries the same weight; that the-post voting system rests upon the principle that every person has the same call on their local MP. The there is a close relationship between each MP and his tolerance of 10% strikes the right balance, ensuring an or her constituency, which means that each MP, and approach that allows appropriate flexibility for the each voter, needs to grasp which constituency they are Boundary Commissions to consider important local in and its relatively natural boundaries. Throw that factors such as geographical features and community out—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested ties, without introducing significant variability. Any that we have begun to do—and, as the noble Lord, greater tolerance for disparity between constituencies Lord Foulkes, argued, you have made the case for is totally inequitable. I ask noble Lords to consider proportional representation instead. The noble Lord, that the elected Chamber—those Members of Parliament Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said that this widening of who are directly affected by any boundary changes—has variation would be “unfair to the voter”. Let us have a agreed that the variance in seats of 10%, plus or minus wider discussion about what a fair voting system would 5%, strikes the right balance. I urge noble Lords not to be, if he wishes. This is nothing to with overall fairness support these amendments. for the voter. This Government are chipping away, bit by bit, at Lord Robathan (Con): My Lords, these amendments many of the assumptions and conventions which are about equity and fairness—or, rather, inequity and constitute our constitution. Last December’sConservative unfairness. manifesto pledged to establish a commission I represented the people of Blaby—now South “to look at the broader aspects of our constitution” Leicestershire—for 23 years and I can tell those who before the end of this year, which is now less than have never been Members of the House of Commons three months away. Since then, we have heard nothing that representing a constituency is a real privilege. about this, nor does there appear to have been any Polling revealed that some 25% of people in each consultations with other parties about the membership constituency know who their MP is. I was thrilled to and working of such a commission. I do not see how a be told that local polling said that nearly 50% of the constitutional commission could possibly gain legitimacy people of Blaby knew who I was. Whether that was if it emerged only from the Government, without any true, I cannot say; perhaps it was because they wanted wider process of consultation or consent. Can the to vote against me. However, I promise noble Lords Minister tell us if the manifesto pledge has now been that most people in this country are not bothered dropped, delayed for the indefinite future or is about about who their constituency MP is. They are bothered to be sprung on us without prior consultation? about his or her politics and they want to know who In the UK’s constitutional tradition, each MP that person is when they want some assistance: that is represents a place, a recognisable community.To reduce the truth. When my constituency lost a few wards, the variation among constituency sizes to the narrow people said, “I’m sorry you’re no longer our MP”, and 773 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 774 while they may have been sorry on a personal level, all future boundaries will be compared with anything frankly, they could not care very much. I agree with that has ever happened previously, when the boundary my noble friend Lord Blencathra: every Boundary commissioners worked to their old rules, if they are Commission review is plagued with party-political now given very limited flexibility. manoeuvring. I am afraid that I see that slightly in MPs on the House of Commons Political and these amendments too, although they do not always Constitutional Reform Select Committee looked at work quite as well as they might. the issue in the light of having seen the 2013 proposals. Consistency in politics is a great thing, as it is in life. There was cross-party agreement then that there must Of course, one can change one’s mind—circumstances be greater flexibility in the numerical quota for each change as a country evolves—but generally we should constituency than 5% either way. That cross-party stick to what we say, say what we believe and believe group of MPs examined the issues in detail and concluded what we say. We are discussing the electorate per that in order to avoid large numbers of anomalies in constituency. I had meant to table an amendment to drawing up new boundaries, and major disruption Clause 5, but with great efficiency I did not realise that with every review in future, a variation in constituency it had to be done so swiftly, so I did not get it down, electorates of up to 10% is really required. The but I will speak on the percentages instead. amendments now being considered are a compromise I stick with the Conservative manifesto upon which between that conclusion and the position of the I was elected in 2010, which wanted to reduce the size Government, who seek only a 5% variation. of the House of Commons to 600 MPs. There was no Amendment 13, the position of the Labour Party, party-political advantage in that, as far as I am aware. provides for a variation of 7.5%, which is exactly half It was also in the Conservative manifestos of 2015 and way between the position of the Commons Select 2017. I would love to know why it changed; perhaps Committee in 2015 and that of the Government now. the Minister can tell me. On 6 September 2010, when Amendment 14, in my name and that of my noble introducing the Parliamentary Voting System and friend Lord Tyler, provides for 7.5% variation, but Constituencies Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed also allows the Boundary Commission flexibility of out that the percentage difference—which we are 10% in exceptional cases. discussing—between Manchester Central and Glasgow A short while ago the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, North was 41%. In fact, that has got a lot worse. suggested that there was a political conspiracy in these Glasgow North has remained approximately the same, amendments, but the academic experts studying the but I looked it up today and Manchester Central has issues have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there gone up by about 5,000, so it is probably about 45%. is no party advantage at all in permitting greater The discrepancy has grown, and that cannot be right. variation. I draw noble Lords’ attention in particular On this occasion, I agree with Nick. to a Private Member’s Bill currently before the House 5.30 pm of Commons, which proposes a 7.5% variation, with 10-yearly reviews. The sponsors of the Bill are Mr Peter Mr Clegg said: Bone and Sir Christopher Chope.These two Conservative “We settled on 600 MPs, a relatively modest cut in House MPs can hardly be described as champions of liberal numbers of just less than 8%, because it saves money … and because we think it creates a House that is sufficiently large to democracy or as socialist conspirators. They may be hold the Government to account while enabling us all to do our accused of disloyalty to Boris Johnson, but I have jobs of representing our constituencies. It also creates a sensible checked, and there was nothing in the last Conservative average number of constituents—76,000, as I mentioned earlier—that Party manifesto about a 5% variation from the average we already know is manageable … That is why we feel 600 is electorate. about right.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 39.] The aim of roughly equal-sized constituencies is We are now talking about 76,000 as an average. I do one that we all share. There are international standards not quite see why that has change either, because in the that can be applied to the creation of constituencies of 2010 manifesto, of course, the Liberal Democrats, roughly equal size. The Organization for Security and called for 500 MPs elected by PR—and that is why Co-operation in Europe says that it was called the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—and on page 88 they said: “in a majority voting system, the size of the electorate should not … vary by more than approximately ten percent from constituency “We will reduce the number of MPs by 150” to constituency.” to 500. What has changed there? There are too many The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters Peers, I think we all agree with that, and perhaps we produced by the Council of Europe’sVenice Commission will all volunteer to go out the door today. There are states: too many Members of the House of Commons as “The maximum admissible departure from the distribution well. Perhaps we could look at starting with a bit of a … change: reducing the numbers in the House of Commons criterion should seldom exceed 10%”. and the numbers in the House of Lords as well. The additional variations proposed in these amendments are within these guidelines.Sadly,the time for deliberation Lord Rennard (LD): My Lords, in 2013 and 2018 about the consequences of allowing only a 5% variation plans for revisions to constituency boundaries were was extremely limited among MPs when they debated published. They did not find favour with MPs, the the issues. Government dare not even produce the 2018 report In Committee, the Members present heard the before Parliament for it to be considered, and these expert testimony of Dr David Rossiter. He explained plans were never implemented. The plans themselves how the Boundary Commissions must work within the clearly demonstrated how much more massively disruptive boundaries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, 775 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 776
[LORD RENNARD] seeing it top-down. A great deal has been said about very significantly, also within the nine recognised regions the disaster for local communities if their MP changes. of England. With the likely population changes over That can be exaggerated. The important thing is that the eight-year period between each review, there would the political system delivers good service from elected be changes to the quota of constituencies to be created representatives. in eight of these states or regions. Four of them would I remember being absolutely horrified when I lost gain a seat and see new constituencies created; four of my best polling district—it was part of East Sheen and them would lose a seat and see constituencies abolished. I thought it could not be moved out by a Local This would trigger major changes, in at least two-thirds Government Boundary Commission into another ward. of these states or regions, in constituency boundaries. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said, I The movement of local government wards, to am sure that nobody really noticed, for all my efforts redistribute those voters, would trigger large-scale changes over many years. I do not think we should exaggerate across the entire state or English region. With an the sense that it is a disaster for a community if its elected abolished seat, over 60,000 voters would have to be representative changes. redistributed. When added to neighbouring seats, nearly all of those would then be over quota. These surplus The other thing I would say is that 5% tolerance voters would then have to be redistributed to other either way is the existing position. It is not as if the seats, in turn sending many of them over quota, and Government have suddenly come out of the blue and so on. Similarly, with the newly created seats, around said we must do this. Prior to 2011 there was no 60,000 voters must come from somewhere. Taking standard, but the coalition Government set in train them from other existing constituencies will put the existing arrangements. those constituencies under the quota. The knock-on I thank those noble Lords who have put forward consequences of putting those voters elsewhere will amendments similar to those in Committee. The also stretch across the entire state or region. Unless we arguments were much the same and I fear the response change the rules, a small population shift in Kent will be much the same. Amendment 12 is for a 12.5% could, for example, require major changes not just difference, Amendment 13 is for a 15% tolerance, across Kent but in East Sussex, West Sussex and Amendment 14 is for a combination of 15% and 20%, Surrey and involve the creation of illogical seats that and Amendment 18 is for up to 30% in the case of cross those county boundaries. In every region or state Wales. As I have clarified throughout the passage of it will be the same. the Bill, the Government believe that the current tolerance Splitting local government wards may ameliorate range of 10%—which is set out in existing legislation some disruption, but for many reasons it is not generally and agreed cross-party—remains the right one. This possible to do that. ManyMPs have clearly not appreciated range allows the Boundary Commissions to propose the fact that a constituency within quota is not safe constituencies up to 5% larger or smaller than the from change. Moving one ward from a constituency to average UK constituency size. It is what we know as the next one will not be the end of the matter. The the electoral quota. upshot of all this is that there will be major changes to The Government are determined to ensure that all the boundaries of half or more constituencies every votes carry the same weight regardless of where an review. Only about one in five constituencies is likely elector resides. I have been surprised that so many to be unaffected by boundary changes. noble Lords are concerned at how equal the size of Earlier in the debate, the Minister praised those constituencies in this country might be. I can think of who have previously served the Boundary Commissions. many things about which your Lordships might get Let us look at what some of them have said. As the exercised, but the idea that, in a democracy, the size then secretary to the Boundary Commission for England of constituencies might be too equal seems an odd told the Commons Select Committee in 2015, thing to get so excited about. Maintaining the current “the smaller you make the tolerance level from the actual quota, 10% tolerance is critical to delivering the Government’s the harder it becomes to take into account properly the other 2019 manifesto pledge of retaining the status quo. It factors that are mentioned in the Act, such as not breaking local would be contradictory and counterproductive to wind ties, respecting local authority boundaries, and minimising change.” back the current reasonable and practical 10% range. It is clear that 5% is too small a variation. It means Throughout the passage of the Bill, and again that we will have many illogical constituencies that will today,we have heard heartfelt and enriching anecdotes—I ignore local ties, local authority boundaries, communities have enjoyed them—in efforts to emphasise the importance and basic geographic considerations. More importantly, of community ties, local government boundaries and perhaps, they will not last for very long because every physical geography.The Government and the Boundary time there is a review, there will again be massive Commissions do not overlook these factors of importance. disruption to the boundaries, with at least half the However, I repeat that the concept of equal votes—the constituencies having major boundary changes. That simple idea that each constituency weight should count is why we need to give the boundary commissioners a the same—is an equal, if not more powerful, factor. little more flexibility. The Boundary Commission retains other criteria, and this is the cornerstone of our democracy. The only Lord True (Con): My Lords, it has been another tool we have to ensure that equality—applying the long and interesting debate and I am grateful to all electoral quota on a universal basis without introducing noble Lords who have taken part. As some noble significant variability in constituency size—is to make Lords have said—I recall the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, the kind of provision in this Bill to sustain the current giving a notable speech—we have to be careful about position, while simultaneously allowing an appropriate 777 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 778 degree of flexibility to the Boundary Commissions so We should be careful about pushing the argument they can take account of some of the other important that somehow this is unfair to Wales. Boundary reviews factors your Lordships have raised. are not about losing or gaining constituencies. As I said at the outset, they are about ensuring that individual electors can feel that they make an equal contribution 5.45 pm to deciding who will form the UK Government. The Deviations of up to 30% from a central point, as Government want Wales, like every other part of the have been suggested in this House today, would United Kingdom, to be fairly represented. Wales has a cause an unacceptable disequilibrium. Deviations will solid system of local government. It has the Senedd indefensibly disrupt the equitable balance our current Cymru, with legislative powers over a range of policy 10% tolerance range has established. We will stick to areas. It has a strong voice in Westminster, including 10%. It quickly becomes apparent, as some noble through the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Lords have pointed out, that when the 10% tolerance Committee and voices on all Benches in the House of range is diverged from, the potential for disparity between Lords—as we have heard again today, they are some elector numbers in each seat becomes unacceptably of our most outstanding Members. high. Using the House of Commons Library calculations The Government are a passionate supporter of our —we all have different ones—a 15% range, as proposed United Kingdom. It is the most successful union of by Amendment 13, which we are told may be pressed nations in history and I reject the argument that a to a vote, would potentially allow one constituency to change in representation at Westminster undermines have 78,000 electors and its neighbour to have almost the union. The union is strengthened by equal votes. 11,000 fewer at 67,167. Some of the other amendments Wherever a vote is cast, it should have the same power would allow greater differences. As previously argued to decide who governs our country. in Committee and again today,my judgment is that there The Government are firmly committed to devolution are no admissible arguments for having constituencies and have devolved more powers to the constituent varying by up to 11,000 electors, or even 20,000 electors, nations. This Government’sWales Act 2017 strengthened as would be the consequence from other amendments. the powers of the Welsh Assembly, which is now the It is simply not just. Senedd/Welsh Parliament. In the additional layer The Boundary Commissions would be granted room of powerful devolved institutions, Wales is strongly to manoeuvre within a 20% range for certain cases represented. Currently, for each legislator, Wales has by the Liberal Democrat amendment. We are told 23,000 electors, compared to 50,000 for the UK as a that this would be in exceptional circumstances. I was whole. We should be extremely cautious of talking taken to task earlier for “exceptional circumstances”, down Wales and representing the idea that constituencies and up pops the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, with an should be equal across our union as somehow a conspiracy exceptional circumstance amendment within 90 minutes. against Wales. It is an advantage to democracy across If a 20% tolerance were applied across the country, it this kingdom. would mean that more than 80% of constituencies—all The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made another but around 100 of the 650—would be untouched in entertaining speech, taking us down memory lane. He the next review. That is at the opposite end of the scale mentioned Lord Lonsdale; I remember I had to wear a from the kind of mayhem that some of your Lordships yellow rosette when campaigning with Lord Whitelaw have been presenting to the House as resulting from in the north-west, I believe because of Lord Lonsdale—he what we propose.It would completely undermine attempts was probably more upset about losing the yellow than to update boundaries that are now approximately he was about anything to do with constituencies. 20 years out of date. Amendment 14 proposes that The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, asked about the that would apply only in certain districts in exceptional 2019 manifesto. I am afraid I cannot answer that. You circumstances. However, if the Boundary Commissions have only to look at my grey hairs to see that it is a were granted discretion to apply a greater tolerance in little while since anyone was foolish enough to ask me certain situations where they judge it to be needed, to help with a manifesto. surely their job of constructing constituencies may in I did not agree with the response of the noble Lord, fact become more difficult and the outcome of boundary Lord Blunkett, to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, reviews considerably less certain. passionate though it was. I always listen with tremendous It is not difficult to envisage that the Boundary respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is Commissions would quickly come under pressure to highly regarded in every corner of this House. The use the discretion allowed by the amendment from the system this Bill enables allows for common sense; it noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and when a commission used allows latitude to the Boundary Commissions. However, that discretion in one part of its territory, as the noble we must recognise that one of the fundamental reasons Lord, Lord Rennard, illustrated, a domino effect would the Boundary Commissions are as effective and respected ensue.It would be more than likely that other communities as they are is that they implement clear and unambiguous who perceived themselves as having cases just as viable rules. We have heard a lot about the attempts that would call for discretion also. political parties make to rig the system; usually, in my The Government cannot accept Amendment 18 experience, they fail. All the clever arguments we put relating to Wales. I was asked when the last time was up are seen through, normally very skilfully, by the that Wales had fewer than 35 seats: it was 1885. In that Boundary Commissions. When they act with clarity election the Conservatives, led by the Marquis of and transparency, steering clear of subjective judgments Salisbury, won 10 seats and the Liberals lost 33—so it and rankings, the scope for disagreement and challenge cannot have been all bad. will be limited. 779 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 780
[LORD TRUE] to meet their MP that the turnout ends up being much The Parliamentary Constituencies Bill was introduced lower. The number of people voting is very different in to ensure boundaries constructed in the early 2000s each seat. Weare trying to give the independent Boundary receive a greatly needed update and to guarantee that Commission a little more leeway to use its common every vote across the United Kingdom carries more sense—I am not saying that this would be for all equal weight—we are all agreed on that, as the noble constituencies—and not to have to split communities Lord, Lord Grocott, reminded us. Several other levels unnecessarily. of tolerance—including that in Amendment 13, which The noble Lord said twice, I think, that we were was twice rejected in the elected House—were proposed, trying to safeguard the current position by keeping the debated and rejected. That means the 10% tolerance 5%, but in fact it has never been used. It exists only on range in this Bill, the existing system retained by the paper. The 2011 Act brought it in. It is not the “current Government, has recently been reaffirmed on multiple position” other than on a piece of paper; it has not occasions by the elected Chamber. been used. Trying to pretend that this is retaining My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach made something is not true. As I said at the beginning, if the compelling point that if you start from a wide base 5% was right in 2011 for an average number with with a broad tolerance towards the natural evolution 600 seats in the House, almost by definition it cannot of constituencies to shrink and grow, you will have be the right number when we move to 650 seats. It may even greater disparity at the end of the boundary be dancing on the head of a pin, but sometimes review period, which your Lordships have said should allowing that pencil to go a bit more broadly will draw be 10 years. It is prudent to start from the sensible a better boundary. 10% proposition we have now. Retaining that is an I end on what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said. It important part of achieving our manifesto commitment would have been nice if we could have worked towards of equalised and updated constituencies. compromise in a cross-party way on this rather than I therefore urge your Lordships to resist the desire by edict. Then we would have reached something that to fix something that is not broken, however you look would be good for the whole of Parliament, rather at it, in each of these amendments and to withdraw them. than doing it this way. But this way we must do it. I will seek leave to withdraw Amendment 12 and then Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): I agree move Amendment 13 formally so that we can test the completely with the Minister that the union is most opinion of the House. On that basis, I beg leave to successful, and that we want to stay in it and keep it withdraw Amendment 12. strong. However, I do not agree with the rest of his Amendment 12 withdrawn. speech quite so much, particularly because one of the things about keeping the union strong is recognising the differences as well as the similarities. That particularly Amendment 13 affects Wales; not just because it is Welsh, but because Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town of its geography. 13: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— My noble friend Lord Hain, because he is working “Electorate per constituency in Grand Committee on the Trade Bill, was not able to participate and therefore could not speak to Amendment (1) Rule 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (electorate per constituency) is amended as follows. 18. On his behalf, I want to say that the reason this has been put is that half the Welsh population live in just (2) In paragraph (a), for “95%” substitute “92.5%”. 14% of the Welsh land mass. That is different from (3) In paragraph (b), for “105%” substitute “107.5%”.” virtually all of England. Only a small proportion of England is sparse, but 80% of Wales is. The geography Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): As I indicated, is different. For a Parliament to be able to respond to in moving Amendment 13, I wish to test the opinion a part of the nation that is so different by allowing of the House. greater flexibility about how it is represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom strengthens rather 6 pm than weakens the union. I am sorry we could not hear Division conducted remotely on Amendment 13 from my noble friend today; he had wonderful maps he could have referred to in order to show this. Contents 269; Not-Contents 235. As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, this is about more than just arithmetic. Just as he said, the exempted Amendment 13 agreed. constituencies show that. Geography is about more Division No. 4 than islands; it is about valleys, mountains and other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is wrong to CONTENTS say that this is about bogus arguments—I may not Addington, L. Ashton of Upholland, B. have called them “balderdash”, like my noble friend Adonis, L. Bakewell of Hardington Lord Blunkett, but I do not believe these arguments Alderdice, L. Mandeville, B. are bogus. It is about the strength of community Allan of Hallam, L. Barker, B. representation. It also depends on turnout, which is Allen of Kensington, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. important, and the greater the feeling of some sense Alli, L. Beith, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. Benjamin, B. of community. There is no point having absolutely Anderson of Swansea, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. numerically equal constituencies if we then find that Andrews, B. Berkeley of Knighton, L. some people have to travel so far, for example in Wales, Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Berkeley, L. 781 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 782
Birt, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Parminter, B. Stone of Blackheath, L. Blackstone, B. Henig, B. Patel of Bradford, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Blower, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Pendry, L. Storey, L. Blunkett, L. Hollick, L. Pinnock, B. Strasburger, L. Boateng, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Hoyle, L. Prashar, B. Stunell, L. B. Humphreys, B. Prescott, L. Suttie, B. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Primarolo, B. Taverne, L. Bradley, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Prosser, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Bradshaw, L. Hussain, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Brinton, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Quin, B. Teverson, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hutton of Furness, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Brown of Cambridge, B. Janke, B. Ramsbotham, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Randerson, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Razzall, L. Thornhill, B. Bryan of Partick, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Redesdale, L. Thornton, B. Burnett, L. Jones, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Thurso, V. Burt of Solihull, B. Jordan, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Tonge, B. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Judd, L. Rennard, L. Tope, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Ricketts, L. Touhig, L. Carter of Coles, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Trevethin and Oaksey, L. Cashman, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Triesman, L. Chakrabarti, B. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Truscott, L. Chidgey, L. Kilclooney, L. Rooker, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Clancarty, E. Knight of Weymouth, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Clark of Kilwinning, B. Kramer, B. Rowlands, L. Tyler, L. Clement-Jones, L. Krebs, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Uddin, B. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Lane-Fox of Soho, B. Russell of Liverpool, L. Verjee, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Sawyer, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Cork and Orrery, E. Layard, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Corston, B. Lea of Crondall, L. Scriven, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Cox, B. Lee of Trafford, L. Sharkey, L. Walmsley, B. Cunningham of Felling, L. Lennie, L. Sheehan, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Levy, L. Sherlock, B. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Shipley, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Desai, L. Liddle, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. Watts, L. Dholakia, L. Lipsey, L. Sikka, L. West of Spithead, L. Donaghy, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Simon, V. Wheeler, B. Donoughue, L. Loomba, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Whitaker, B. Doocey, B. Low of Dalston, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Whitty, L. Drake, B. Ludford, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Wigley, L. D’Souza, B. Macdonald of River Glaven, Smith of Newnham, B. Wilcox of Newport, B. Dubs, L. L. Snape, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Eatwell, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Soley, L. Wills, L. Elder, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Somerset, D. Winston, L. Evans of Watford, L. L. Stephen, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Mandelson, L. Stern of Brentford, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Featherstone, B. Mann, L. Stern, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Filkin, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Foster of Bath, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Maxton, L. NOT CONTENTS Fox, L. McAvoy, L. Freyberg, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and Aberdare, L. Brady, B. Gale, B. Cookstown, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Bridgeman, V. Garden of Frognal, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Bridges of Headley, L. German, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Brookeborough, V. Giddens, L. McNally, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Glasgow, E. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Goddard of Stockport, L. Mendelsohn, L. Astor of Hever, L. L. Golding, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Astor, V. Buscombe, B. Goldsmith, L. B. Balfe, L. Caine, L. Goudie, B. Mitchell, L. Barran, B. Caithness, E. Grantchester, L. Monks, L. Barwell, L. Callanan, L. Greaves, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Bates, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Grender, B. Morris of Aberavon, L. Berridge, B. Carrington of Fulham, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Bethell, L. Carrington, L. Grocott, L. Morrow, L. Blackwell, L. Cathcart, E. Hain, L. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Cavendish of Furness, L. Hamwee, B. Neuberger, B. B. Cavendish of Little Venice, B. Hanworth, V. Newby, L. Blencathra, L. Chadlington, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Northover, B. Bloomfield of Hinton Chalker of Wallasey, B. Harris of Richmond, B. Nye, B. Waldrist, B. Chartres, L. Haskel, L. Oates, L. Borwick, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Haughey, L. Osamor, B. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Choudrey, L. Haworth, L. Paddick, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Bowness, L. Coe, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Pannick, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Colgrain, L. 783 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 784
Colville of Culross, V. Laming, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Colwyn, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Shields, B. Vere of Norbiton, B. Cormack, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Shinkwin, L. Verma, B. Courtown, E. Lansley, L. Shrewsbury, E. Vinson, L. Couttie, B. Leigh of Hurley, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Wakeham, L. Craigavon, V. Lexden, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Crathorne, L. Lilley, L. Warsi, B. Cumberlege, B. Lindsay, E. Strathclyde, L. Stroud, B. Wasserman, L. Dannatt, L. Lingfield, L. Wei, L. Davies of Gower, L. Liverpool, E. Sugg, B. Suri, L. Wellington, D. De Mauley, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Deben, L. Lothian, M. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Thurlow, L. Whitby, L. Deech, B. Lucas, L. Willetts, L. Deighton, L. Lupton, L. Trefgarne, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Dobbs, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. True, L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Tugendhat, L. Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L. Dunlop, L. Mancroft, L. Ullswater, V. Young of Cookham, L. Eames, L. Manzoor, B. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Eaton, B. Marland, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Marlesford, L. Amendment 14 not moved. Eccles, V. Masham of Ilton, B. Erroll, E. Mawson, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. 6.12 pm Fairfax of Cameron, L. McGregor-Smith, B. Fairhead, B. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Sitting suspended. Falkner of Margravine, B. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Fall, B. Meacher, B. 6.32 pm Farmer, L. Meyer, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Mobarik, B. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab): We now Fink, L. Mone, B. come to the group consisting of Amendment 15. I Fookes, B. Montrose, D. remind noble Lords that Members other than the Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that Framlingham, L. Morris of Bolton, B. short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone Fraser of Corriegarth, L. Morrissey, B. Freud, L. Moylan, L. wishing to press this amendment to a Division should Fullbrook, B. Moynihan, L. make that clear in debate. Gadhia, L. Naseby, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Nash, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Neville-Jones, B. Clause 6: Taking account of local government Garnier, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. boundaries Geddes, L. Newlove, B. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Glenarthur, L. B. Amendment 15 Glendonbrook, L. Noakes, B. Moved by Lord Tyler Gold, L. Norton of Louth, L. Goldie, B. O’Shaughnessy, L. 15: Clause 6, page 5, line 2, at end insert— Goldsmith of Richmond Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. “( ) After rule 5(2) insert— Park, L. Patel, L. Goodlad, L. Patten, L. “(2A) Each constituency in any part of Cornwall must Grade of Yarmouth, L. Penn, B. be wholly in the unitary authority area of Cornwall Greenhalgh, L. Pickles, L. Council, and no other authority area, except for the Greenway, L. Pidding, B. Isles of Scilly.”” Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Popat, L. Member’s explanatory statement Hailsham, V. Powell of Bayswater, L. This amendment would ensure constituencies in Cornwall Hamilton of Epsom, L. Price, L. remain within the unitary authority area of Cornwall, with the Haselhurst, L. Rana, L. exception of the Isles of Scilly. Hayward, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Helic, B. Ranger, L. Henley, L. Rawlings, B. Lord Tyler (LD) [V]: My Lords, I wish to speak to Herbert of South Downs, L. Reay, L. Amendment 15 in my name. Again, I am delighted to Hodgson of Abinger, B. Redfern, B. have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Ribeiro, L. Aberystwyth, who has consistently endorsed my plea L. Ridley, V. that the especially distinct identity of Cornwall should Hogan-Howe, L. Robathan, L. Hogg, B. Rock, B. be recognised in this legislation. I am also pleased to Hooper, B. Rose of Monewden, L. have the support of my noble friend Lord Teverson, Howard of Lympne, L. Rotherwick, L. who has given great public service to Cornwall. Howard of Rising, L. Saatchi, L. Members will know that every single group leader Howe, E. Sanderson of Welton, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Sarfraz, L. on Cornwall Council has also endorsed my proposition Hunt of Wirral, L. Sassoon, L. since we discussed this matter last, in Grand Committee. Janvrin, L. Sater, B. As they have reminded us, Parliament has an obligation Jenkin of Kennington, B. Scott of Bybrook, B. to recognise the historic and cultural identity of Cornwall. Jopling, L. Seccombe, B. The 2014 inclusion in the Framework Convention for Kakkar, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Keen of Elie, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. the Protection of National Minorities spelt out that King of Bridgwater, L. Sheikh, L. recognition of the unique identity and integrity of Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Cornwall, and the need to protect the political integrity 785 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 786 of its territory. Uniquely, physical geography reinforces friend the Minister made this point very forcefully in that separate identity. If you try to follow the boundary Committee. I think he cited Suffolk as an example, between England and Wales, or England and Scotland, while acknowledging the distinctive nature of Cornwall. or even Northern Ireland and the Republic, you find There are two aspects that make Cornwall unique. yourself following the devil’s own job. Indeed, you can First, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, Cornwall is find yourself endlessly crossing invisible lines. On the the only county that borders just one other; it is thus other hand, if you try to cross the boundary into much easier to protect Cornwall’s unique position in Cornwall, you will get very wet. The constituency I any constituency review. served ran for miles along that natural boundary; the Secondly, and again uniquely, Cornwall has a distinct administrative separation is clear and logical. I would culture and language which mark it out. In 2014, this have found it unnecessarily bureaucratic and hugely status was recognised in the Framework Convention time consuming to have to deal with Truro and Exeter for the Protection of National Minorities.That distinctive council officials 100 miles apart, and my constituents character is underlined by the Cornish language and would inevitably have suffered had the boundary been culture. The use of the Cornish language supports the removed and a constituency crossed it. visitor economy in Cornwall and is being used increasingly As we all know, physical geography can determine in tourism. A Conservative Government should be in human geography, and never more so than in the the vanguard of protecting an indigenous language of history of the Cornish peninsular. I admit that I am these islands and indeed supporting the culture of strongly prejudiced. As I mentioned in Grand Committee, Cornwall. This amendment presents a real opportunity my ancestors arrived in north Cornwall around 1066. to do so; a real way of accomplishing that. Perhaps more significantly, I am directly descended I believe that in this legislation we currently protect from Bishop Jonathan Trelawny, on whose behalf the the coherence of islands in our parliamentary national song records that 20,000 Cornishmen threatened arrangements, which is something that I strongly support. to march on London to secure his release from King We do this in Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles, James II’s clutches. This reminder of the extent of Ynys Môn and the Isle of Wight. If it is right to protect Cornish self-awareness, this pride in our distinct history the integrity of specific islands in parliamentary terms, and determination to maintain the identity and integrity and I believe absolutely that it is, then it is right to of Cornwall is obviously very relevant for the Bill. protect Cornwall too. It is, after all, an island as well, Hence the support of Cornwall Council. but one that just happens to be joined to Devon. In Grand Committee,the Minister seemed sympathetic to our case, but then went off on a tangent about Devon and other English counties. I admit that the Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, it is a great pleasure wording of our amendment then may have helped to to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. While he was a create a misunderstanding. With the admirable assistance Minister in the Government, he did a great deal for of the Public Bills Office, we have tightened up the Cornwall and visited the county on many occasions. I amendment for this debate. It refers solely to the pay him great credit for that, as I do to my noble friend electoral integrity of Cornwall. Lord Tyler for all his work while he represented North Cornwall and formerly the Bodmin constituency. Iacknowledgethatthecombinationof 650constituencies and the 7.5% margin, which we have just voted for, on I came up from Cornwall this morning. It was either side of the expected base figure of around 72,000 pretty dark and dingy when I left, but one thing that electorswillprobablymeanthatbreakingoutof Cornwall’s you are absolutely clear about is when you cross the traditional boundary may not be necessary in this river Tamar. When I travel back to Cornwall, crossing review. However, it would surely be wholly preferable the Tamar is something that I take note of. It is not for the legislation to leave no shadow of doubt, any like crossing the boundary from Wiltshire into Hampshire, more than it does with the borders of England with Berkshire into greater London or whatever,it is completely Wales and Scotland. It could be helpful to create this different. It is not just a physical barrier in terms of a clarity for future boundary reviews. Who knows how river that creates the boundary almost but not quite to the electorates will vary in years to come? the north coast—hence Cornwall is a peninsula rather than an island—but a boundary that marks the difference One does not need to be a separatist to acknowledge between what is a Celtic culture in Cornwall and a the strength of this case. Indeed, I believe that the Saxon culture in Devon. That difference, I believe, is continuing unity of the United Kingdom depends on unique within what we refer to as England. accepting the lessons of diversity here, as with the other Celtic nations. I beg to move. The amendment also refers to the Isles of Scilly. Why should we include them alongside Cornwall when we are not doing that with Devon? It is simply being Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]: My Lords, pragmatic because the last time I looked, the Isles of it is a pleasure to speak to this amendment, so ably Scilly have some 2,000 electors and I do not think that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I thank my noble we would advocate a special parliamentary constituency friend the Minister for his characteristically courteous for them. and constructive approach in handling the Bill. This is an important amendment not just for Cornwall I strongly support the unity of Cornwall in but for the different cultures and traditions that we parliamentary terms, so that its constituencies are have within the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, solely within Cornwall. I appreciate that, as became Lord Bourne, said, the difference in Cornwall is not apparent in Grand Committee, the case for Cornwall just its language. It has been recognised under the is echoed in other parts of the country. My noble European Framework Convention for the Protection 787 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 788
[LORD TEVERSON] I do not want to belittle the thing, but the one thing of National Minorities which, I stress, is not an EU I would demur about is the suggestion that this measure but one from the Council of Europe of which Government do not care or have a concern about we are still a member. community.This Government have a profound concern Another difference between Cornwall and Devon is for community, and every fibre of my being, in the life one that people will be well aware of and is often I have led in local government, reinforces that sense celebrated: in Cornwall put jam on our scones first within me. I totally understand the passion, commitment and put Cornish clotted cream on top and, in Devon, and sense behind the amendment to protect constituencies it is the other way around. We see that not as just a in Cornwall. culinary difference, it is something where the Cornish I will not repeat the arguments that I made in culture marks itself out as being different. This amendment Committee. There is a problem, and there is a reason cannot be seen, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, why, in principle, it would potentially be difficult, in said in the last group, as having anything to do with that other communities might argue and ask why they political advantage. At the moment, Cornwall is had not had the same protection. I mentioned Suffolk represented—unfortunately in my belief—by Conservative and Norfolk. I do not equate Cornwall with any other Members of Parliament who have been properly elected. place—Cornwall is special—but, on the other hand, I That may or may not change, but this will make no remember a storm arising in a field in East Anglia difference to party advantage. I believe that this when I was a very small boy, and my grandmother, amendment is important to our national integrity and who came from a long line of Lowestoft fisherfolk, as is particularly important to the cultural history of we call them these days, took my hand in hers and Cornwall and that part of the south-west. said, “Don’t worry, a storm can never cross the water,” by which she meant the River Waveney. There are 6.45 pm places where boundaries are felt to be important. I Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, believe community arises and is not measured against we have heard a Cornish voice that is almost as loud, other people but within ourselves, within place and a although obviously not as musical, as the Welsh. Much range of things that make up who we are. of this makes perfect sense. Indeed, the issues raised I understand where this amendment is coming from, here may also be felt strongly in the Ridings of Yorkshire and I understand the argument from community. I or in the Black Country, even if they are not blessed hope and expect that the Boundary Commission will with the same formal recognition. recognise, with the latitude it has, the importance of The underlying problem is the Government’s refusal community—including the sense of being Cornish. to understand communities, be these Welsh valleys or TheGovernmentare,however,committedtoconstituencies Cornish heritage. That is something I have heard a lot as equally sized as possible, and that aspect of the about, as my late sister-in-law, Ruth Simpson, was the protection of constituencies, apart from with the islands, first Labour mayor of Penzance. I have also spent a is held to be important. long time in Cawsand, which was—I hope this does The Government certainly understand the point. not undermine the amendment—the old boundary My noble friend Lord Bourne was manifest in this between Cornwall and Devon, way beyond the bridge. when he was a Minister and the noble Lord, Lord That was a long time ago, but I certainly know the Teverson, was kind enough to say so, quite rightly. The strength of that Cornish voice. Government recognise the importance of Cornwall We hear these demands, but urge that we join and being Cornish. Indeed, last year we provided together—as the Welsh, the Cornish and other locales—to £200,000 of financial support, I believe, to fund a continue to impress on the Government that communities, range of Cornish language projects, as well as work to geography, nationhood, languages and the future of tackle barriers to systematic education provision around the Union matter, so that, even at this late stage, the the Cornish language. Although I cannot accept this Government might hear reason as the Bill returns to amendment, I assure the House that the distinctive the Commons, and accept a flexibility to enable all nature of Cornwall is understood. I am reinforced in these special areas to be recognised. feeling able to advise the House that we do not need For that reason, though I think the noble Lord will this amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord not press his amendment, I hope we keep together on Tyler, said, our expectation is exactly his expectation: the main argument that constituency boundaries we do not expect, given the 600 constituencies and the are too important to be decided merely numerically. tolerance suggested, that there should be a case or a They have enormous impact on the sense of fairness, need for the new constituencies to cross the Tamar. It representation and respect for national, regional or local appears likely that they will remain within those bounds history and for community. and, if I am allowed to express a personal view from the Dispatch Box, I hope that they will. I am sure that will be shared by many in the Government. Lord True (Con): My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this short debate. Its brevity I respect the views expressed here, and I understand does not detract in any way from the importance of them, but I do not believe, given the potential knock-on the points put forward. I am grateful to the noble effects, such as questions as to why other communities Lords who have spoken. I have discovered that, as far and places are not recognised, that we should put it in as jam and cream are concerned, I am a Cornish statute. I hope that, having heard those assurances— man, rather than Devonian—not that I am allowed to and I repeat the sense that the Government are well eat such things any more; you can ask my wife about that. aware of the importance of Cornishness and Cornish 789 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 790 sentiment—that the noble Lord, who has spoken so ably on behalf of that great county, will feel able to Amendment 16 withdraw the amendment. Moved by Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Tyler (LD) [V]: My Lords, I am very grateful 16: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause— to all Members who contributed to this short debate, “Improving completeness of electoral registers for purposes of particularly the Minister—and I will come back to boundary reviews etc. him in a moment. In the meantime, I hope that all (1) Within a year of this Act coming into force, the Secretary Members of your Lordships’ House recognise that the of State must lay before Parliament proposals for improving vote we undertook, less than an hour ago, to extend the completeness of electoral registers for purposes of boundary reviews. the tolerance either side of the quota norm to 7.5% actually makes it much easier for us to recognise (2) The proposals in subsection (1) may include requirements for either— Cornwall as a separate entity.That room for manoeuvre will, I think, as the Minister hinted just now, mean (a) the Department for Work and Pensions to provide every registration officer with the name, address, that there will not be another threat of a “Devon wall” date of birth and nationality of each individual in seat. However, I do not take anything for granted: it their district to whom they issue a National Insurance might be that we will not have, when the Bill finally number ahead of their 16th birthday, and for gets Royal Assent, that degree of flexibility. I just hope registration officers to add to the full electoral registers that we do. On the previous proposal for a seat that those electors who they are satisfied are eligible for would cross the Tamar—the so-called “Devon wall” inclusion; or threat—I am sorry to say that a number of Conservatives, (b) the Department for Work and Pensions to notify locally as well as nationally, just accepted it, which was individuals of the criteria for eligibility to vote and of the process for making an application to join the very regrettable. We should have had unanimity across register when they are issued with a new National the parties, as we now have in Cornwall Council, as is Insurance number.” represented by the letter it sent to us all. Member’s explanatory statement The vote that took place less than an hour ago has 16 and 17 year olds are added to electoral registers for the made the situation simpler, because it is very unlikely purposes of boundary reviews, but many of them are not known that that threat to the boundary will happen again, as, to the registration officers. The amendment would require the indeed, the Minister has now accepted. I know that Secretary of State to make proposals for improving the completeness some would want to try to make sure that the removal of electoral registers and suggests two possible ways in which the of that threat became permanent. However, I am issue of a National Insurance number could trigger the inclusion of 16 and 17 year olds. conscious, as someone who is keen to maintain the law and the constitution, that no Parliament can absolutely commit a successor, any more than a Government Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD): My Lords, I beg to can. To pass an amendment at this stage might not be move Amendment 16 as an important enhancement appropriate for the present review we are discussing of the Bill, which would improve the accuracy and and is unlikely to be necessary for a future review. Of completeness of the electoral registers for future reviews. course, that might not be a solid proposal if we get some fallback from our excellent vote of just a few The amendment has at its core the work of the minutes ago—but I think we can now be reasonably Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and confident that there will not be another “Devon wall” Administration Act, which I chaired and which reported seat in the immediate future. in July. We learned, in our extensive deliberations, that I take seriously what the Minister has said. He said though electoral registers are primarily prepared for in terms, “Cornwall is special”. I have underlined that use at elections for voting purposes, they have other and write it in heavy type. I know he feels strongly uses, such as enabling juries to be enlisted and providing about the boundary between Suffolk and Norfolk, proof of residence by credit agencies. Importantly, which I happen also to know, but it is nothing like as they are also used as a series of building blocks for firmly and clearly defined and delineated on the map constituencies and their boundaries. of Great Britain as is the boundary between England Sadly, registers are far from perfect, but it must and Cornwall. But I take seriously and respect what he be right to get them as accurate and complete as has said. We all want to respect communities better possible. The committee made a series of proposals and, par excellence, the community, history, integrity for improvement. The most glaring omission from and identity of Cornwall is special. In the meantime, registers is that 75% of young people known as I am happy to beg to withdraw my amendment. attainers—people aged 16 or 17 who may be added to the register so that they are able to vote when they attain the age of 18—are not registered. They are very Amendment 15 withdrawn. relevant to this Bill—hence the reason for this amendment. I am delighted that four Members subscribing to the The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab): We amendment are former members of the Select Committee now come to the group consisting of Amendment 16. and cover the four corners of the House of Lords. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the There is, too, precedence for this action, in that it mover and the Minister, may only speak once, and follows on from the work of the House three years that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. ago in its consideration of the Higher Education Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a division and Research Bill in 2017. The House approved an should make that clear in debate. amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, 791 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 792
[LORD SHUTT OF GREETLAND] are not and are therefore unable to vote. We could, and to enable higher education students to be easily registered, should, do better in securing a more complete register. through collaboration between the Office for Students The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who so ably chaired the and electoral registration officers. A Department for Select Committee on which I served—it was a pleasure Education guidance leaflet on facilitating registration to serve under him—has set out the compelling reasons shows that in one university, De Montfort in Leicester, why this is so important. of those students qualified to register, 98.5% provided The amendment asks the Government to produce details for registration. The amendment seeks to put proposals to improve the completeness of the register. all young people in the position of the De Montfort I can see no reason for that to be resisted unless, students, so that the present 25% registration rate despite what they have said repeatedly, the Government comes more into line with that of their elders. The do not want to improve the register’s completeness. Electoral Commission paper, Completeness in Great Beyond that, the amendment encourages the Government Britain, indicates that the highest rate for completeness to make improvements in one area of the electoral is for the over 65s, at 94%, whereas the lowest level is register that particularly needs improvement. that of attainers—the 16 to 17 year-olds—which has As the Electoral Commission and many others declined from 45% in 2015 to 25% in 2019. keep pointing out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has just demonstrated, the number of attainers on the 7 pm register has fallen significantly over the last few years. The amendment seeks to prescribe the Secretary of Between 2015 and 2018, the registration rate for eligible State to lay before Parliament proposals for improving 16 and 17 year-olds almost halved, and the introduction the completeness of electoral registers for the purpose of individual electoral registration, for various reasons, of boundary reviews. It would bring with it the bonus has been a significant driver of such decline. that a substantial number of young people who are Quite apart from the general imperative, which, entitled to vote would have the right to vote. Further, again, was much discussed in Committee, to ensure it suggests that this requirement could be met by the that the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies Department for Work and Pensions providing registration should be drawn on the basis of the most accurate and officers the details of individuals in their district to complete electoral register possible—the noble Lord, whom it had issued a national insurance number ahead Lord Shutt, has just reminded us of those arguments— of those individuals’ 16th birthday so that they could there is, I believe, another reason why the amendment be added to the register. Alternatively, the Department matters. Attainers are not the only group significantly for Work and Pensions would notify individuals of the underrepresented on the electoral register but they are criteria for voting and the process for making an important in one particular respect: Parliament makes application when they were issued with a new national the laws that shape the country that they inherit, so it insurance number. The former would lead the way in must be right to do everything possible to ensure that lifting registration for young people; the latter would they have every opportunity to shape Parliament. help but is less certain to be effective. I recognise that there may be libertarian concerns As we have heard, the Minister is desperate for near that registration should not be automatic but a matter precision in prescribing all boundaries to be within of choice for individuals.However,the measures suggested 5% of the average size, but the baseline and building in the amendment would be enabling; it is not a back blocks are in danger of being wildly imprecise if the door to compulsory voting. It would still be for the bulk of young people are omitted from the registers. individual to decide whether or not to vote,but individuals I thank the many noble Lords who supported the cannot make that choice if the process of registration amendment in Grand Committee, but the attempt has passed them by—and the data show that all too to embrace the totality of the Select Committee’s often, that process does pass attainers by. recommendations was too much to find favour with There may also be concerns about privacy. But as the responding Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott more and more services move online, the Government of Bybrook. However, I was pleased that the noble have developed some considerable expertise in securing Lord, Lord Hayward, while having reservations about the privacy of users. I support the amendment on the automatic registration in general, was clear that he basis that the Government would be able to address supportedassistanceorautomaticregistrationforattainers. any such concerns if and when they introduced any This is the opportunity to make that change. This is measures to increase the electoral registration of attainers. important: young people should be part of the building blocks for constituency boundaries. The amendment would require the Government to take steps to improve the completeness of the register, Earlier today, reference was made to unfairness to and would encourage them to do so, for the young voters. The Bill, unamended, is unfair to young people, people who will inherit this country from us. I therefore and I intend to test the opinion of the House. I beg to hope that it is an amendment that all sides of your move. Lordships’ House will support.
Lord Wills (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I want to say a few Lord Janvrin (CB): My Lords, I too—alongside the words in support of the amendment, to which I have noble Lord, Lord Wills, who has just spoken—was a put my name. member of the Select Committee on the Electoral In Committee, your Lordships heard a lot about Registration and Administration Act 2013 so ably the incompleteness of the electoral register and about chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. I have added the 8 million or more who are eligible to be on it but my name to this cross-party amendment, as I continue 793 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 794 to believe that the Government should address the our report, published in June. Like my colleagues, issue of the completeness of the electoral registers as I was struck by the extent to which we compare a matter of priority, and certainly in the context of unfavourably with some other major democracies. this Bill. This simple little amendment would help not As has been made clear, the amendment has evolved insignificantly to make our registers more complete. It since Committee, with its focus on completeness and is universally acknowledged, as we have heard in this on attainers. I want to make three brief points on debate, that not nearly enough of tomorrow’s voters Report. First, I entirely accept that the Government aged 16 and 17 are being brought on to the registers in recognise the importance of the issue of completeness, readiness to cast their votes when they become 18. I and that they are well aware of the missing millions, have always been keen to support an intensification of and of the evidence that we do not perform well by the ways in which electoral registration officers can international standards. In Committee, the Minister fulfil this part of their duties. As I have mentioned on said that they were not complacent, and that there was a number of occasions in this House, Northern Ireland work in hand to address some of the issues. If that is has set a fine example in this respect, giving EROs so, it would be a very small step for the Government to ready access to schools and colleges. agree to a deadline for bringing forward further proposals, Today’scross-party amendment would enable attainers particularly in the light of the committee’s recent to get on to the registers more readily than ever before. report. It would show a sense of urgency, which is It would bring them directly to the gateway of democracy. important. Two alternative routes are proposed. Under the first, Secondly, the focus in the amendment on doing attainers would be brought automatically on to the something about attainers is worth highlighting. Attainers register where EROs were satisfied of their eligibility. are in a different position, and this has always been Under the second, attainers would be notified about recognised, in that their names can be considered for the process for acquiring the precious right to vote. entry on the register before they attain the right to The first route would take attainers through the gateway vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, there is of democracy. The second would bring them to the significant evidence that registration rates for attainers threshold and leave them to decide for themselves have dropped markedly in recent years. Therefore, whether to cross it and secure for themselves participation there is real cause to focus on them. in our democracy.For those who believe that registration Thirdly, my reading of the amendment is that it is should be a matter of individual choice, the second compatible with the Government’sposition on automatic route will seem preferable. But within the Conservative registration. I understand the Minister’s position that, Party, there are many who regard registration as a in principle, registering to vote and voting are civic matter of duty that everyone should be obliged to duties. The amendment does not seek to challenge the fulfil, as my noble friend Lord Cormack has pointed Government’s view, in that it would be perfectly possible out in this House many times. to accept it while holding firm to that principle. I hope Finally, might I be permitted a brief historical that the Minister will be able to accept this modest comment? When election registers were introduced in amendment as a way of working towards fairer the 19th century, the political parties fought tooth and constituency boundaries based on better data. It may nail in the courts to get their supporters on to them be modest, but it is important in the wider context of and keep their opponents off. Today, the supporters of the integrity of our democratic process. this amendment from all parts of the House want to see the registers become as complete as possible. Is that not a cause for some rejoicing? Lord Lexden (Con): My Lords, I back this amendment with some vigour as the last of a cross-party group of colleagues who worked together in great harmony as Lord Rennard (LD): My Lords, in the debate on this members of the Select Committee established under Bill in the other place on 14 July, the Minister Chloe the genial chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt Smith spoke about of Greetland, to consider the impact on our electoral “what we are doing to ensure that the registers are as accurate and system of the Electoral Registration and Administration complete as possible” Act 2013. and said: I note in passing that, when the legislation that “Weshould encourage more people to register to vote.”—[Official became the 2013 Act was going through this House, I Report, Commons, 14/7/20; col. 1466.] pressed for the swift abolition of the 15-year limit on This amendment does nothing more than ask the the right of our fellow citizens overseas to vote in our Government to say how. It requires them to set out elections. Though that has been promised in three proposals for doing what they say they want to do in successive Conservative manifestos, seven years have relation to young people and makes suggestions. It passed without action. asks the Government to consider two different ways in It has to be said that other members of today’s which we could easily, and without cost, ensure that cross-party group behind this amendment worked much more young people are added to the electoral registers harder than I did on the recent Select Committee. by the time they are first entitled to vote. However, lazy though I was, I quickly came to share The Government say that the completeness of the their conviction that there was no more important electoral registers is back up to the levels that predated issue in electoral affairs today than the need to improve— the introduction of individual electoral registration. and improve substantially—the completeness of the However, as my noble friend Lord Shutt pointed out, electoral registers. It is a theme that runs throughout the Electoral Commission showed in 2019 that while 795 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 796
[LORD RENNARD] level of registration among attainers should be a matter 94% of over-65s are registered to vote, only 66% of 18 of concern, and without the change suggested by the to 19 year-olds are registered to vote. Those who will amendment there will be less representation of young attain the age of 18 in the next year or two are people. supposed to be included in the electoral registers for Automatic registration is sometimes opposed on the purposes of the Boundary Commissions. However, the basis that it is an individual’s responsibility to as the noble Lord, Lord Wills,pointed out, the registration ensure that they are on the electoral register. This rate for this group has fallen dramatically. According suggestion should not apply to 15 and 16 year-olds, to the Electoral Commission, only about 25% of attainers who have no prior experience of the electoral system. are currently registered, compared to about 45% in There is therefore a strong case that it should not be 2015. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for this House their responsibility to ensure that they are on the to insist that the Government lay proposals before register. This is a sensible arrangement to ensure that Parliament to implement their declared policy of young people are on the register and therefore will get improving the completeness of the electoral registers all the information required when voting takes place. and recognising the problem with young people in At present, the data is less likely to include the particular. names of young people than older people. This means that the register will be skewed towards older people 7.15 pm when it comes to voting, resulting in the views of Linking the registration process to the issuing of young people in the UK not being expressed in our national insurance numbers is an obvious way in which democracy. For that reason alone, the Minister should that can be done. If the Government were willing, the give the amendment great consideration. Making this Department for Work and Pensions could notify electoral easier, and in such a simple way, will go a long way registration officers that young people must be added towards having a much more accurate electoral register to the registers when they get their national insurance than we have at present. There has been agreement numbers. All their rights to be registered anonymously around the House tonight on the amendment. The and not be on the public register could be properly noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has said that he will call a protected. The Government have been reluctant to vote, and we on these Benches will support it. extend across Great Britain the model successfully used in Northern Ireland to register 16 and 17 year-olds Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con): My Lords, I am at school but accepted that students, when registering grateful to the noble Lords who tabled this amendment. for university, should be notified of the electoral It provides an opportunity for me to update the House registration process, thereby encouraging them to register, once again on what initiatives the Government are as the Government say they want. undertaking to improve the completeness and accuracy We need a system for registering young people that of the electoral registers, and to reiterate our arguments works. I can think of no better way to do this than by against introducing automatic voter registration. linking the process with the issuing of national insurance I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who sadly Lord Shutt, for his excellent chairmanship of the cannot be here this evening but is trusted by many Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Conservative candidates to advise on their campaigns, Committee and for its detailed report on how fit the said on this issue in Grand Committee that he supported electoral system is for today.I am glad that the committee either assisted or automatic registration for all those was able to publish the Government’s response to the about to attain the age of 18 and that they should be report yesterday, ahead of this debate, and I place on included in the electoral registers. Both options are record the Government’s thanks to all members of the possible with the amendment. He said that it was committee and its staff for the hard work they put into crucial to get people involved in the community and this important inquiry. the politics of society from an early age. The amendment The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord is about enabling that. We encourage young people to Shutt, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Janvrin, and think for themselves and vote accordingly, and I urge my noble friend Lord Lexden, would require the this House to do the same. Government to lay before Parliament proposals to improve the completeness of the registers. What is Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]: I thank all noble Lords meant by “completeness”is not defined in the amendment, who have taken part in this debate. nor indeed in the rest of the Bill. For the Electoral It has already been mentioned that the cross-party Commission, “completeness” measures whether those House of Lords Select Committee on the Electoral eligible to be registered are on the registers. An alternative Registration and Administration Act 2013, so ably definition might be whether the registers contain all chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, recommended those who want to be registered and are eligible to be a system of automatic voter registration for attainers. so. Nor does the amendment refer to the efforts to Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, ensure the accuracy of the electoral registers. The the number of young people registered has fallen Government believe that accuracy is just as important among 16 and 17 year-olds, as many noble Lords have as completeness. Inaccurate registers lead to voting mentioned. Given this low number, the amendment fraud and undermine public faith in the integrity of seems a simple solution that will ensure that attainers our democratic processes. are included on the register. That is now more important I am happy to be able to update noble Lords today as the Bill proposes to use the data on the register to on government efforts to ensure the completeness of draw the parliamentary constituencies. Such a low the electoral registers. I share with many in both 797 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 798
Houses the ambition that every eligible elector who working with their schools, as indeed were politicians, wants to be included should be included on the electoral both national and local. Indeed, the Government register. I have heard a lot from noble Lords about encourage EROs to double down on their already how this should be done. I do not think the outcome is impressive efforts and to continue to use schools to in argument; the discussion is on how we get there. reach out to pupils, particularly those who will be of The Government strongly believe that it must be for voting age within the next couple of years. the individual themselves to make the decision to I hope this provides noble Lords with sufficient engage with the democratic process, but government assurances that we are all trying to get to the same does have an important role in making the process as end; we need to be working together. The Government easy as possible to ensure that there are no barriers to are dedicated to improving the accuracy and completeness registration. That is why this Government have been of the electoral registers, while also maintaining electors’ working hard with electoral administrators to improve individual liberty to choose to register of their own accord. the accuracy and completeness of the registers through The amendment makes two suggestions as to what initiatives such as online registration and reform of the Government might include in the proposals it the annual canvass process. would be required to lay before Parliament to improve I will highlight just a few examples of our work in the completeness of the registers. The first would see a this area. The introduction of online registration has form of automatic registration introduced for attainers— made it simpler and faster for people to register to those who are too young to vote but who can register vote—it takes as little as five minutes. This improvement before they attain voting age—to ensure that they are benefits all electors, young and old, including groups registered to vote as soon as they become an adult. As that have traditionally experienced barriers to making I have explained to the House previously,the Government an application to register. Millions now apply to register are opposed to automatic registration for reasons of in the run-up to elections so that they can have their both principle and practicality—and it does not matter say; it was considerably more difficult to do this in the what age the potential elector is. In terms of principle, past. Working with partners, the Government have we believe that registering to vote and voting are civic developed a range of resources to promote democratic duties. It therefore follows that people should not have engagement and voter registration, all of which are these duties done for them or be compelled to do available on GOV.UK, and which are aimed at electoral them. In addition, treating attainers differently would registration officers, civil society groups, teachers and lead to a lack of equity in the electoral registration others. system, and transferring responsibility for registering We are also in the process of implementing changes people to vote on to the Government would constitute to the annual canvass of all residential properties in a fundamental shift in how the registration system Great Britain which will improve its overall efficiency currently works. considerably. This includes local and national data There is also the principle of individual responsibility, matching, including that held by DWP, to allow EROs which is whywe introduced individual electoral registration to focus their attention on properties that are likely to in 2014. Automatic registration is not compatible with require additions to the register. This will allow electoral the idea that it is each eligible citizen’s own responsibility registration officers to focus their efforts on hard-to-reach to register to vote. An approach based on individual groups—and that includes young people—and will responsibility also leads to the outcomes we all want play an important role in helping to maintain register to see. After the introduction of individual electoral accuracy and completeness. This is the first year of the registration, the registers for the 2017 and 2019 general reformed canvass, and anecdotal reports so far suggest elections were the largest ever. There is also some that administrators have found the process much evidence from overseas to suggest that those who less bureaucratic and time consuming. No longer do register themselves are more likely to vote. Individual administrators have to waste their limited resources electoral registration has worked. confirming that people have not moved. The Government’s online registration service does We are also analysing the impact of the new student exactly this: supporting citizens who want to register electoral registration condition. Indeed, all noble Lords by making the registration process easier than ever. who have spoken today have mentioned the issue of Satisfaction with the register to vote website is consistently attainers. This provision came into force in 2018 and above 90%, and it is regularly developed and improved. requires that higher education providers in England comply with ERO requests for data. Providers are also 7.30 pm encouraged to co-operate and work effectively with Turning to the practicalities, we have many concerns local authorities to promote electoral registration among about automatic registration. I will briefly—I promise— their student populations. We need to give such projects outline just five of them. First, it is almost certain that time to bed in, and the Government time to see the an automatic registration system would lead to a outcomes they are looking for. single, centralised database of electors. We are opposed The strategy has also included providing ministerial to this on grounds of the significant security and and Office for Students guidance to promote higher privacy implications of holding that much personal education providers and EROs collaborating innovatively data in one place, as well as the significant cost such a to suit local needs. We have no plans to extend the system would imply.Secondly, any system automatically approach to schools. However, we remain supportive registering citizens who, for example, are applying for of the existing engagement between EROs and schools a driving licence, a passport or universal credit could in their local areas. I know from my own experience in present accessibility challenges to those citizens who local government the extent to which EROs were do not use any of those services. 799 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 800
[BARONESS SCOTT OF BYBROOK] 7.35 pm Thirdly, there is currently no public service whose application procedures capture all the data required to Division conducted remotely on Amendment 16 determine eligibility to vote—name, address, age, nationality and immigration status. This means that Contents 293; Not-Contents 215. any so-called automatic system would still require significant human intervention. Fourthly, electors have Amendment 16 agreed. faith in our current registration system. The results of an Electoral Commission survey on the 2019 general Division No. 5 election found that a net 78% of those surveyed were satisfied with our registration system. Of the net 10% who CONTENTS were dissatisfied, 9% said they should be automatically Aberdare, L. Cork and Orrery, E. registered to vote and 1% said it should be compulsory. Addington, L. Corston, B. Fifthly and finally, as the House has heard from Adebowale, L. Coussins, B. Adonis, L. Cox, B. noble Lords this afternoon, we should also take note Allan of Hallam, L. Craig of Radley, L. of the experience of other jurisdictions that have Allen of Kensington, L. Crawley, B. introduced automatic registration. Registrations may Alli, L. Crisp, L. have increased, but so have concerns about errors and Alton of Liverpool, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. inaccuracies. IER improved the accuracy of our registers Amos, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Desai, L. by removing redundant and ghost entries and requiring Andrews, B. Dholakia, L. that an applicant’s identity is verified before they can Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Donaghy, B. be added to the register. Automatic registration could Ashton of Upholland, B. Doocey, B. lead to unsolicited poll cards being sent to house- Bach, L. Drake, B. holds, especially in areas with high turnover—student Bakewell of Hardington Dubs, L. accommodation and private rented accommodation— Mandeville, B. Eatwell, L. Bakewell, B. Evans of Watford, L. opening the door to greater personation, postal and Barker, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. proxy vote fraud. The Government are not prepared Bassam of Brighton, L. Featherstone, B. to undo all this good work by introducing errors and Beith, L. Filkin, L. inaccuracies through the back door, as automatic Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Foster of Bath, L. registration would surely do. Let us not forget that Berkeley, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Best, L. Fox, L. inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud. Bichard, L. Freyberg, L. This is not an area where the Government are Billingham, B. Gale, B. resting on their laurels. As I said before, I think we are Birt, L. Geidt, L. all trying to get to the same place but in a different Blower, B. German, L. Blunkett, L. Giddens, L. way.I want to assure noble Lords that we are undertaking Boateng, L. Glasgow, E. considerable action to improve the completeness and Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Glasman, L. accuracy of electoral registers, and great progress has B. Goddard of Stockport, L. been made. I therefore thank the noble Lord for his Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Golding, B. amendment. I hope I have gone some way to reassuring Bradley, L. Goudie, B. Bradshaw, L. Grabiner, L. him of the Government’s intentions for improving the Brinton, B. Grantchester, L. completeness of the registers and invite him to withdraw. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Greaves, L. Brookeborough, V. Grender, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) Brown of Eaton-under- Grocott, L. (Lab): My Lords, I have received no request to speak Heywood, L. Hain, L. after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. Browne of Belmont, L. Hamwee, B. Browne of Ladyton, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Hanworth, V. Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD): My Lords, I thank Bryan of Partick, B. Harris of Haringey, L. Burnett, L. Harris of Richmond, B. the noble Lords who spoke in favour of this amendment, Burt of Solihull, B. Haskel, L. which is everybody bar the Minister. It is important Butler of Brockwell, L. Haughey, L. that this is an all-party affair and that registration is Butler-Sloss, B. Haworth, L. seen as beyond party. I am very disappointed in the Cameron of Dillington, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. Minister’sresponse,but not surprised. I do not understand Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. how registration is a voluntary act, yet you can be Campbell-Savours, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Carrington, L. Hendy, L. fined if you do not register. That is a very strange form Carter of Coles, L. Henig, B. of volunteering. Cashman, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. The Minister has said a great deal about what the Chakrabarti, B. Hollick, L. Government are doing. We heard about it in Committee Chandos, V. Hope of Craighead, L. Chartres, L. Howarth of Newport, L. and it is all commendable stuff. However, she has not Chidgey, L. Hoyle, L. said, for example, how it can be that in 2015 45% of Clancarty, E. Hughes of Stretford, B. attainers were on the registers and it is now down Clark of Kilwinning, B. Humphreys, B. to 25%. That seems to me failure; it is not success. Clark of Windermere, L. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Clement-Jones, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. I do not think this is good enough. It is not good Cohen of Pimlico, B. Hussain, L. enough for our young people, so I would like to test Collins of Highbury, L. Hussein-Ece, B. the opinion of the House. Colville of Culross, V. Hutton of Furness, L. 801 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 802
Inglewood, L. Prashar, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Janke, B. Prescott, L. Watts, L. Wills, L. Janvrin, L. Primarolo, B. Wellington, D. Wilson of Dinton, L. Jay of Ewelme, L. Prosser, B. Wheatcroft, B. Winston, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Wheeler, B. Wood of Anfield, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Quin, B. Whitty, L. Worthington, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Wigley, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Jones, L. Ramsbotham, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Young of Old Scone, B. Judd, L. Randerson, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Ravensdale, L. NOT CONTENTS Kennedy of Southwark, L. Razzall, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Redesdale, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Fairhead, B. Kilclooney, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Altmann, B. Fall, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Rennard, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Farmer, L. Kramer, B. Richards of Herstmonceux, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Fink, L. Krebs, L. Ricketts, L. Arran, E. Fookes, B. Lane-Fox of Soho, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Astor of Hever, L. Framlingham, L. Layard, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Baker of Dorking, L. Fraser of Corriegarth, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Rooker, L. Balfe, L. Freud, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Rosser, L. Barran, B. Fullbrook, B. Lennie, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Bates, L. Gadhia, L. Levy, L. Rowlands, L. Berridge, B. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Bertin, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Liddle, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Blackwell, L. Garnier, L. Lipsey, L. Sawyer, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Geddes, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. B. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Low of Dalston, L. Scriven, L. Blencathra, L. Glenarthur, L. Ludford, B. Sharkey, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Glendonbrook, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, Sheehan, B. Waldrist, B. Gold, L. L. Sherlock, B. Borwick, L. Goldie, B. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Shipley, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Goldsmith of Richmond Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Shutt of Greetland, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Park, L. L. Sikka, L. Bowness, L. Goodlad, L. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Simon, V. Brabazon of Tara, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. L. Smith of Basildon, B. Brady, B. Greenway, L. Mair, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Bridgeman, V. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Mallalieu, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Bridges of Headley, L. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Mandelson, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Brougham and Vaux, L. Hague of Richmond, L. Mann, L. Snape, L. Browning, B. Hailsham, V. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Somerset, D. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Haselhurst, L. L. Stair, E. L. Hayward, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Stern of Brentford, L. Buscombe, B. Helic, B. Mawson, L. Stern, B. Caine, L. Henley, L. Maxton, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Caithness, E. Herbert of South Downs, L. McAvoy, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Callanan, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. McCrea of Magherafelt and Stone of Blackheath, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Hogan-Howe, L. Cookstown, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Hogg, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Strasburger, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Hooper, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. Stunell, L. Cathcart, E. Howard of Lympne, L. McNally, L. Suttie, B. Cavendish of Furness, L. Howard of Rising, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Taverne, L. Chadlington, L. Howe, E. Mendelsohn, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Hunt of Wirral, L. B. Teverson, L. Choudrey, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Mitchell, L. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Coe, L. Jopling, L. Monks, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Colgrain, L. Kakkar, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Colwyn, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Thornhill, B. Courtown, E. Laming, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Thurso, V. Couttie, B. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Morrow, L. Tonge, B. Craigavon, V. Lang of Monkton, L. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Tope, L. Crathorne, L. Lansley, L. Murphy, B. Touhig, L. Cumberlege, B. Leigh of Hurley, L. Newby, L. Triesman, L. Dannatt, L. Lilley, L. Northover, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Davies of Gower, L. Lindsay, E. Nye, B. Turnberg, L. De Mauley, L. Lingfield, L. Oates, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Deben, L. Liverpool, E. O’Loan, B. Tyler, L. Deech, B. Livingston of Parkhead, L. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Uddin, B. Deighton, L. Lucas, L. Osamor, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Dobbs, L. Lupton, L. Paddick, L. Verjee, L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Dundee, E. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Parminter, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Dunlop, L. Mancroft, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Eaton, B. Manzoor, B. Pendry, L. Walmsley, B. Eccles of Moulton, B. Marland, L. Pinnock, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Eccles, V. Maude of Horsham, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Empey, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. 803 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 804
McGregor-Smith, B. Rock, B. absolutely overwhelming case was made in Committee McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Rotherwick, L. for this amendment exempting Brecon and Radnorshire McIntosh of Pickering, B. Sanderson of Welton, B. from the 5% leeway allowed, but it has not got anywhere. McLoughlin, L. Sarfraz, L. Meacher, B. Sater, B. The noble Lord, Lord True, was gracious enough to Meyer, B. Scott of Bybrook, B. find time to discuss it with me one on one, though he Mobarik, B. Seccombe, B. did not give me any hope. I am sad to say that Ministers Montrose, D. Selkirk of Douglas, L. in the other place were not so prepared to have a Morris of Bolton, B. Sheikh, L. meeting with Fay Jones, the Conservative MP for the Morrissey, B. Shields, B. Moylan, L. Shinkwin, L. seat, and I regret that. Moynihan, L. Shrewsbury, E. Anyway, one has to know when one’s goose is Nash, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. cooked, so I accept that this will not happen, though Neville-Jones, B. Stedman-Scott, B. the people of Brecon and Radnorshire will resent the Neville-Rolfe, B. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Newlove, B. Strathclyde, L. way the Government have been pursuing what they will Nicholson of Winterbourne, Stroud, B. regard as their war on Wales. B. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Noakes, B. Sugg, B. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) Northbrook, L. Suri, L. Norton of Louth, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. (Lab): My Lords, my apologies—I was momentarily O’Shaughnessy, L. Tebbit, L. distracted. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, had Pannick, L. Trefgarne, L. come to the end of his speech. He had certainly Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. True, L. stopped speaking. Did I not hear him? Patel, L. Tugendhat, L. Patten, L. Ullswater, V. Penn, B. Vere of Norbiton, B. Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]: I have stopped. No word issues Pickles, L. Verma, B. from my mouth. Pidding, B. Vinson, L. Polak, L. Wakeham, L. Popat, L. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) Porter of Spalding, L. Warsi, B. (Lab): I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, could Powell of Bayswater, L. Wasserman, L. repeat what he just said. I am afraid I was unable to Rana, L. Wei, L. hear him. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Ranger, L. Whitby, L. Rawlings, B. Willetts, L. Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]: No words are issuing from Reay, L. Williams of Trafford, B. my mouth. I have finished; I have stopped; I am ended. Redfern, B. Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Wyld, B. Ribeiro, L. Young of Cookham, L. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) Ridley, V. Young of Graffham, L. (Lab): Could the noble Lord confirm whether he intends Robathan, L. Younger of Leckie, V. to move his amendment?
7.48 pm Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]: I intend to withdraw it after the Minister’s reply. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that Members The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) other than the mover and the Minister may speak only (Lab): My Lords, I think—I think—I was right the once and that short questions of elucidation are first time and the amendment has been proposed. discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: My Lords, I am delighted to in debate. support the noble Lord on this amendment and to introduce my own amendment, which is linked to it. The noble Lord spoke with passion on this matter in Clause 7: Protected constituencies Committee and his commitment to Brecon and Radnorshire inspires us all. We all have our memories of the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency. It has Amendment 17 been represented by three different parties over my Moved by Lord Lipsey political lifetime. I remember going to Patagonia in 1965 with Tudor Watkins, who was then the Labour 17: Clause 7, page 5, line 22, at end insert— Member of Parliament. I served with Caerwyn Roderick, “(d) a constituency named Brecon and Radnorshire who took over subsequently, and we had Richard with identical boundaries to those of the existing Brecon and Radnorshire constituency” Livsey, of course, who was a colleague in this Chamber of many noble Lords. We also had Jonathan Evans as Member’s explanatory statement a Conservative MP.All three parties—Labour, Liberal This amendment creates an additional protected constituency Democrat and Conservative—had their own roots in to make this seat geographically manageable. the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency and they all had representatives of calibre. It would be a tragedy Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]: My Lords, we have had a if a constituency such as this, with its rural nature, long, hard afternoon and tummies are rumbling, so was lost just to get the sums right over the whole of I genuinely will not detain the House for long. An the UK. 805 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 806
My amendment links the constituency of However,experience has shown that MPs who represent Montgomeryshire into this equation. Montgomeryshire larger constituencies face a number of practical issues. is also a rural county—a scattered rural county. I An example is whether they should establish more declare an interest as my father and all his forebears than one constituency office—one in the north and came from Montgomeryshire. My wife, Elinor, was one in the south of their area—so that constituents born in Llanidloes and both her parents had all their have access to them. How many staff do they need in roots in Montgomeryshire. It is a mellow county that order to run more than one office? Also, how do they does not look to the craggy wildness of Gwynedd to deal with the media that question their expenses? The the north-west or to the industrial belt of Clwyd to the expenses of an MP in the largest constituency by area north-east. It is a county in its own right and should in the UK are often compared adversely with those of remain as such. I believe that the way to handle this an MP in the smallest and most compact constituency. issue is to define the county of Powys as having two I hope that the Government will help to prevent this integral seats in the House of Commons. By deciding sort of unfair criticism in the future. that those two seats stand, you define to the north—the I finish by reiterating one other point I made north-west and the north-east—an area that has a in Committee. With a reduced voice from Wales in character of its own and can be adjusted to have the Westminster now, I hope that the Senedd will take the appropriate number of representatives in the rural decision to increase the number of Members that the west and in the industrial east; likewise to the south in electorate of Wales can elect to be their voice in the industrial belt running through south-west Wales. Cardiff. During the past few months, the Senedd has I believe that getting Brecon and Radnorshire and shown the people of Wales that it can use its powers Montgomeryshire right—getting the county of Powys effectively, and now it must give itself the tools to do right—in the Bill gives the opportunity for the so even more effectively. commissioners to do justice to the rest of Wales. That is why I am delighted to support the noble Lord’s amendment and to put forward my own. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has withdrawn from the debate and so I call the noble Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]: My Lords, I wish to Baroness, Lady Randerson. speak briefly to both amendments in this group. In Committee,I spoke to the noble Lord’ssimilar amendment BaronessRanderson(LD):MyLords,theseamendments to add Brecon and Radnorshire to the list of protected draw attention yet again to the problems caused by any constituencies in Wales, and I would like to expand on attempt to impose strict uniformity on constituencies the comments I made then. I am very familiar with based on a simple number count. I am particularly both the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency and drawn to Amendment 19 as it recognises Powys as a the Montgomeryshire constituency, having campaigned county. The integrity of council boundaries has been and canvassed in both over many years. I can perfectly the subject of much support in debates on this Bill. My understand the motives behind these amendments and noble friend Lord Tyler raised similar issues in his the desire to protect these constituencies’ borders. Amendment 15 which emphasises the territorial integrity Both are in beautiful, rural mid Wales and have a long of Cornwall and its distinct identity, which is clearly history, Brecon and Radnorshire having existed since fostered by its geographical remoteness. 1918 and Montgomeryshire since an incredible 1542. It is understandable that electors feel a close affinity with their constituency and that a significant community 8 pm cohesion has developed over many years. I feel that these debates have been too MP-centric; Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire hold we should concentrate more on the needs and interests a special place in the hearts and minds of Liberal of constituents. Let me briefly explain what I mean. I Democrats too, and we are proud of the way in which was very proud to be Assembly Member for Cardiff our MPs, Richard Livsey, Roger Williams and Jane Central for 12 years. That is the smallest Welsh Dodds in Brecon and Radnorshire, and Clement Davies, constituency, in geographical terms. Out of rush hour, Emlyn Hooson and Alex Carlile in Montgomeryshire I could drive from one end of my constituency to the worked on behalf of their constituencies and communities other in 15 minutes, and I could walk it in an hour. My over the years. constituents identified as Cardiffians, however, rather But now, of course, regrettably, all the constituencies than as Cardiff Central residents. in Wales are facing upheaval and a new reality as a I always said I had the best bits: Cardiff Castle; result of the Government’sdecisions in this Bill. However St David’s Hall; the magnificent Cathays Park; a whole much we would like to stay within the comfort blanket phalanx of university institutions, such as Cardiff of our present constituencies, we have to accept that University—for which I declare an interest as chancellor we cannot lose eight MPs and expect constituency —Cardiff Metropolitan University, the Royal Welsh boundaries to remain the same. I am content with the College of Music and Drama, the University of South decision that Ynys Môn will become a protected island Wales, the University of Wales headquarters, the Open constituency,but while that makes sense, creating another University headquarters in Wales; and, probably most protected constituency will have an adverse impact on importantly of all, the Principality Stadium. The point all the other new constituencies across Wales. We must I am making is that all my constituents would be have a fair system that is applicable to all constituencies familiar with all those places. When they went to a and we must now have the confidence to allow the Welsh pantomime at Christmas, it was at the New Theatre. Boundary Commission to work within that system. They shopped at the same Marks and Sparks. On a 807 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 808
[BARONESS RANDERSON] the English border. We had to go west over another sunny summer’s day almost all of them, it seemed, mountain on a single track road, fortunately this time would walk around Roath Park. My point is that they tarmacked, to reach Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, once had a community of interest and experience. intheDenbighconstituency,butnowinMontgomeryshire. However,my experience as an AM was in stark contrast There, we were in the Tanat Valley. The River Tanat to Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. runs into the Severn, again far to the east over the Both are large rural constituencies and, importantly, English border. together they make up the county of Powys. If you There was another range to surmount to arrive in add their electorates together you get a giant 105,000, the valley of the River Vyrnwy and yet another range which would clearly be beyond the allowed variation between us and the Severn valley around Newtown. to create one constituency. Their geographical size To get from where we started in Clwyd South to the makes community of interest a more difficult issue. It nearest point of Montgomeryshire by an ordinary takes almost two hours to drive the 72 miles from double track road, would have been a 30-mile trip Ystradgynlais, in the south of Brecon and Radnorshire, through Oswestry in England and a 60-mile trip to to Llaithddu at the other end of that constituency, so, Newtown. The geography of Wales is such that the clearly, local people do not all use the same park. main rivers run from west to east. The Severn traverses Montgomeryshire is in much the same vein—similarly Montgomeryshire to Shrewsbury and the Wye crosses large. But what they do have in common is the provision Brecon and Radnor to Hereford. Between these two of similar council services and a strong rural Powys major river valleys there are mountains, through which identity, and that should be preserved. there is a single winding road, the A483. This was termed The Government have already accepted the principle the deadliest in Wales two years ago, with 4.3 fatalities that some constituencies— islands, for example—have per 10,000 inhabitants. To the west, over the waterfront, such distinctive features that they cannot be shoehorned the rivers run the opposite direction, east to west, into into the Government’s balance-sheet approach to the Cardigan Bay in the constituency of Ceredigion. It is a electorate. I welcome the inclusion of Ynys Môn in long way to Aberystwyth, and I hope the Boundary this list, but it is certainly not the same as the Isle of Commission does not start adding or subtracting Wight. For example, there is a road bridge across to populations over there. Ynys Môn, which makes a big difference to your awareness of it as an island. I would say that what is One cannot alter geography by Act of Parliament. good for Ynys Môn is also good for Powys.I acknowledge Each valley contains individual communities where the issues this raises, but deep rurality and sparse even the language changes and the accents vary. The population are surely important characteristics that noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, should be taken into account. I urge the Government, Lord Morris, made the same point in the debate on even at this point, to consider this issue in relation to the fifth group today. This is where the concept of these two constituencies. strict quotas falls down. The Government suggested and will no doubt cling to the 5% variant either way. Fortunately, we have now voted to extend it, and I Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]: My Lords, I trust Government will not seek to reverse our decision. must declare an interest, in that my grandfather was The Minister said he wanted Wales to be fairly represented from Llanfihangel-yng-Ngwynfa in the deepest rural and that really does not depend upon meeting quotas part of Montgomeryshire. The boundary commissioners of voters. proposed in 2016 to link north Montgomeryshire with South Clwyd. I suspect that that proposal may be once Each of these two constituencies has approximately more on the table following this Bill—it looks all right 55,000 voters, and each has huge and difficult terrain. on a map. If the tie between MP and constituent is to mean Earlier this year, when I was recuperating from anything, it is senseless to carve up these communities. illness, I persuaded my wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Over such a wide and diverse area where the geography Walmsley, to drive me over the Berwyn mountains separates communities, it is not surprising the problems from the valley of the River Dee. We took the mountain for an MP are various, diverse, and unique. I agree road from Glyndyfrdwy, in Denbighshire and in the with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, speaking earlier South Clwyd constituency.Unfortunately,I had forgotten today, that there should be a community link, a common that the tarmac runs out at the bwlch—the top—and interest, so that an MP can speak for that community, that the track thereafter was unfit for motor vehicles. one hopes with a single voice. Naturally, I insisted on going on. It was a hair-raising However, I must consider what effect the permanent experience for the noble Baroness. We bottomed out maintenance of an untouchable pair of constituencies on the fissured and deeply rutted track a few “expletives would have on adjoining constituencies to the north, deleted” times. The only vehicle we met belonged to west and south. In the end, I fear an even worse some Midlander holidaymakers bumping along, who melange may be the result. In the debate on group 5, had lost their way blindly following the satnav and my noble friend Lord Rennard made a passionate plea were 10 miles adrift. for flexibility, and I entirely agree. It is for that reason When we got down the other side of the mountain only that I fear I cannot support either amendment, and the noble Baroness had calmed a little, we were in but I hope that the Boundary Commissioners, when the Ceiriog Valley in a different county, the county of they meet, take into account the special problems Wrexham. However, we were still in the Clwyd South of the county of Powys, act flexibly and come up constituency.The River Ceiriog runs along a high-sided with something more sensible than the proposals valley into the River Dee some 20 miles to the east at of 2016. 809 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[8 OCTOBER 2020] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 810
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I thank all those —as, indeed, was the earlier amendment on Cornwall. who have spoken to these amendments. It has been a I resisted the amendment on Cornwall for the same very good gathering of Welsh Peers—when we speak reasons. about Wales, we know what we are talking about from I will add briefly some comments on the two our experience of travelling around Wales. My noble amendments. This evening noble Lords again repeated friend Lord Lipsey has always made a very good case arguments that were put in Grand Committee relating for keeping Brecon and Radnorshire as a protected to the challenges associated with the size of large rural constituency; likewise Amendment 19 in the name of constituencies. We heard again tonight from the noble the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Baroness, Lady Randerson, what the noble Lord, These two constituencies cover a large geographic Lord Hain, said in Grand Committee: it takes two area of Wales, with Brecon and Radnorshire being the hours to drive from one end of Brecon and Radnorshire largest constituency by area in Wales or England, with to the other. The noble Lord said, I think, that the a population of around 69,000 and an electorate of Prime Minister could drive across his constituency in 53,000—we are talking about very big areas. Today, 10 minutes. I wonder if that is still the case, judging by even with all the new technology, the MP needs to be the appalling delays being inflicted by Mayor Sadiq seen and the constituents need access to their Member Khan on drivers in London currently. of Parliament. It is already difficult for the MPs to serve their constituencies, because of their size. A 8.15 pm larger geographical constituency would only increase that difficulty, not only for the MPs but for the political Be that as it may, I recognise that rural constituencies parties that have to organise for elections and communicate present challenges. However, as my noble friend Lord with the electorate. How much more difficult will this Blencathra said in Committee, these can be overcome, be if the boundaries are extended? particularly in an age of technological change. I respect We will continue to press on the Government that the love for these communities that has been expressed the geography and communities of Wales should be in the House tonight, and I understand the factors regarded as important considerations when looking at involved. Living in a large rural area is certainly different constituency boundaries. I hope the Government will from living in a crowded city, and not only in terms of listen to reason as the Bill returns to the Commons travel and transport. Is that, however, a reason to give and add some flexibility,to enable these large geographical one voter greater influence than another in choosing constituencies to be recognised, the main argument the Government? If it is, then we could not stop just at being that constituency boundaries are too important Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. Five to be decided just on numbers. Such changes have an constituencies in Scotland are between one and a half enormous impact on fairness, representation, and respect and four times the size of Brecon and Radnorshire. for local history, the people and the communities My noble friend Lord Blencathra also reminded us concerned. In Wales, the Welsh language is very important that his former constituency in the Lake District was as well. I think a good case has been made and I trust larger than Brecon and Radnorshire, with comparably the Minister will take note of the arguments we have difficult terrain to contend with. put tonight. By protecting Brecon and Radnorshire, and Montgomeryshire, we would implicitly be inviting a demand to protect Ross, Skye and Lochaber; Caithness, Lord True (Con): My Lords, again I am very grateful Sutherland and Easter Ross; Argyll and Bute; Inverness, to all noble Lords who have spoken. First, I say to the Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey; and Dumfriesshire, noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that I am sorry if he felt Clydesdale and Tweeddale—just to mention constituencies disobliged by anybody. To him and to any other noble in Scotland. That would seriously affect our overall Lord who wishes to discuss an amendment to a piece aim of voter equality. of legislation, I say that as long as I am at this Dispatch Box, my door is open to any noble Lord of I take the point about islands—as I drive across any party who wishes to discuss a matter before the the Menai bridge I feel that I am entering an island. House. I was glad of the opportunity to talk to him. It The current protected constituencies share common is unfortunate, from his point of view and that of characteristics: they are exclusively islands with sizeable other noble Lords who have spoken, that amiable surface areas and electorates. Brecon and Radnorshire conversation does not always lead to identity of view. and Mongomeryshire, like Cornwall, do not share these characteristics. I will not, at this late hour, repeat to the House the fundamental arguments as to why the Government are I will not repeat the arguments about Welsh opposed to additional protected constituencies; I point representation and the Union. I made those—I hope out merely that had it been the policy of the Government with some force—in relation to an earlier group, but I to entertain protected constituencies beyond the islands underline that we believe that Wales’s representation is we have discussed—and the Government did show strong and the Union is best served by equality of flexibility in relation to Wales, with the decision on representation in this United Kingdom Parliament. Ynys Môn—and had the Government been open to The Government are committed to delivering equal protect a particular constituency, I have no doubt that and updated constituencies so that UK electors can be your Lordships would have been detained by not two confident that their votes are of equal strength. Each or three but 40 or 50 amendments claiming due protection additional protected constituency affects the underlying for different parts of our United Kingdom. Saying principle of equally sized constituencies, whether it that is not to disparage in any way the passion, knowledge is 5%—the Government will respectfully reflect on and commitment with which this amendment was argued what the House has said about that—or a higher number. 811 Parliamentary Constituencies Bill[LORDS] Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 812
[LORD TRUE] no longer bound by the rule of six. For all his courtesy, The Boundary Commissions have substantial flexibility however, I am afraid I will not be able to invite the in the existing system and the responsibility to look at Minister. All that needs to be said on this subject has a number of the factors raised this evening. been said, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my For these reasons and those I addressed in relation amendment. toCornwall—anequallylovedpartof ourUnitedKingdom —the Government will resist the amendment, and I Amendment 17 withdrawn. hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw it. Amendments 18 and 19 not moved. Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I think that the friends of Brecon and Radnorshire should have a good party when coronavirus has departed and we are House adjourned at 8.19 pm. GC 205 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 206
Grand Committee amendments and addresses devolution issues relating to the Bill, specifically in regard to Wales. I share many Thursday 8 October 2020 of the misgivings expressed by the noble Baronesses, The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding. Lady Humphreys and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in the debate on Tuesday. Trade Bill The fact that the devolution dimension raises its Committee (4th Day) head time and time again as we consider Bills in the post-Brexit context should surely make noble Lords 2.35 pm step back for a moment and ask why this keeps coming Relevant document: 15th Report from the Constitution up to challenge us in this Chamber. The devolved Committee Governments of Wales and Scotland have been The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) operational for over 20 years, and although issues have (LD): My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will arisen from time to time relating to respective powers, now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting we are now witnessing a fundamental change in attitude social distancing, others are participating remotely, and, if this is not handled wisely at Westminster, it but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask could all end in tears. Members in the Room to wear a face covering except The truth, of course, is that stepping back from the when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to EU means that powers which, over two, three or wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch sometimes four decades,have been exercised at a European points before and after use. If the capacity of the level will henceforward be undertaken within the UK. committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements A majority of the powers returning from Brussels to are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. the UK on devolved issues such as agriculture, If there is a Division in the House, as we have just had, employment, regional policy and roads will be passed the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. immediately to the devolved Administrations for their A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been exercise in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have respectively; they will be exercised at Westminster for lists of Members who have put their names down to England. But there are some responsibilities which the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking relate, directly or indirectly, to devolved powers which on each group. I will call Members to speak in the the Government have deemed ones to be exercised for order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene the whole of the UK from Westminster. spontaneously; the chair calls each speaker; and There may well be arguments for doing so in some interventions during speeches or “Before the noble limited matters where that is sensible but, if and when Lord sits down” are not permitted. that is the case, and bearing in mind that we are During the debate on each group I will invite Members, dealing with portfolio matters which have hitherto including Members in the Grand Committee Room, been the responsibility of the devolved Governments, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the with implications within the devolved nations, clearly Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will the onus should be on the UK Government to make call Members to speak in order of request and call the the case and not to drive their policy through purely Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding by dint of political clout. and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment In particular, there must be agreed mechanisms for for separate debate. A Member intending to move resolving issues where there is disagreement between formally an amendment already debated should have Westminster and one or more of the devolved given notice in the debate. Governments, since existing mechanisms have lost Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. their credibility. In opening the debate on these When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said: Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that “We urgently need a means of settling disagreements, one that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It commands confidence and trust”.—[Official Report, 6/10/20; takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice col. GC 201.] says “Not content” an amendment is negatived and if The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlighted how a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a the Bill, as currently worded, would impinge on Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an devolved powers such as food standards, animal health amendment expected to be agreed to, they should and environmental standards. The noble Baroness, make this clear when speaking on the group. We will Lady Humphreys, drew attention to the call of the now begin the resumed debate on Amendment 26. Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles, for a Clause 2: Implementation of international trade “new form of joint governance” agreements for Britain’s internal market. Debate on Amendment 26 resumed. Only yesterday, the Welsh Government demanded an explanation from the UK Government after it was Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: My Lords, I support leaked that Ministers at Westminster had deliberately Amendment 26, which was moved by the noble Lord, decided to withhold key information from the devolved Lord Stevenson, on Tuesday and to which I have my Administrations on matters relating to a worst-case name. I will also speak to Amendment 27, which scenario for food—a devolved matter. The Committee carries my name, and have put forward Amendment 99, might like to know that the information concealed which, as it turns out, overlaps with these other arises from the UK’s document on transitional period GC 207 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 208
[LORD WIGLEY] It is not too late, but it is getting that way, and I ask the planning assumptions, which includes orders that the Minister to treat this issue with the seriousness that it information should not be shared publicly with the deserves. devolved Administrations at this stage. This is quite outrageous, and it is little wonder that Ministers in 2.45 pm Cardiff and Edinburgh are hopping mad. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26 and 99, to which I have What screams out at us is the need to establish appended my name, and echo many of the concerns jointly a dispute-resolution mechanism that carries that have been expressed by previous speakers. I am the confidence of the devolved Governments and delighted to have received a briefing from the Law Parliaments. If we do not do this, then time after time Society of Scotland; as a non-practising advocate, I we are going to face the same recriminations here at obviously heed what it says. It is an apolitical organisation Westminster and the same frustrations in Cardiff, that speaks for many of the practitioners in Scotland, Edinburgh and Belfast. Such a mechanism might have and I would like to share with the Committee this elements of a federal or confederal approach, and this afternoon some of its concerns, which have been echoed might be an anathema to some noble colleagues in this by previous speakers. Committee and in our House. The alternative, however, The society points out that the Scottish Government is to tell the devolved Governments that power devolved have highlighted a number of tensions between the is power retained, and that the choice they have is devolved Administrations. We have just heard about either to swallow hard and accept that England has the Welsh Assembly in an eloquent speech by the noble the numbers and that the devolved Governments must Lord, Lord Wigley, who spoke to Amendment 99. We lump it, or to go down the road to independence and also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of ending the United Kingdom. That is the choice that Balmacara, when he moved Amendment 26. There is a might have to be made. If so, it is a choice that very clear tension emerging between the devolved legislators at Westminster will have to face, as much as Administrations, Assemblies and Parliaments over the those in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. power reserved to the Government at Westminster, We hear voices in Northern Ireland demanding, as who are now negotiating trade agreements for the a direct consequence of Brexit, a reunification poll whole of the United Kingdom. within the next five years. In Scotland, a majority in In the legislative consent memorandum lodged by the polls now support independence. In Wales—and the Scottish Government in the Scottish Parliament this might well come as a surprise to colleagues in this on 18 August this year, the Scottish Government Committee—the support level for independence has recommended that Parliament agree to the Bill. But reached an unprecedented 34%. That is not a majority— they pointed in particular to these amendments and yet—but it is enjoying a momentum that has never Clause 2, which lies at the heart of these amendments, previously been witnessed in my country. providing a power for both the UK and Scottish In all three nations, this is a direct result of the Ministers within devolved competence to make regulations botched manner in which Westminster have mishandled to implement qualifying international trade agreements. the consequences of Brexit and failed to work in I will ask the Minister to answer a very simple question, partnership on devolved issues such as healthcare. to go to avoiding this attention on this occasion. It is This frustration is felt not only by nationalists in the important that regulations are put in place in advance three devolved nations but equally by the Labour of the completion date of 31 December this year. Can leadership in Cardiff, as was expressed graphically by the Minister confirm that these regulations will be in Mark Drakeford last week, and indeed by Unionists place and that there will be information-awareness in Belfast. In the context of this Bill, there is now an campaigns for the general public, citizens and businesses, opportunity to send a message to all three devolved as well as professions in the UK, both north of the legislatures: that Westminster does indeed accept that border and west of the border and at Westminster, so there is an issue here that has not been properly that the terms of these agreements and their implications resolved and there is a willingness to address this issue are known? rather than let it fester yet again into one where the For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, three devolved legislatures refuse to agree the necessary gave, it is extremely important to know that there will consent orders. be a mechanism in the event that this tension, to which I referred earlier, leads to disagreements, and what This is avoidable: it will not be resolved here today, that mechanism will be. It is also important that the but if the Government were committed to bringing common frameworks are made more public: it is not forward on Report their own amendment based on the acceptable that they are currently shrouded in mystery. principles that underpin this bank of amendments, So I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity they might help open a new, happier phase in the to put a date on when these regulations will be in relationships between the nations of these islands. If place, tell us what the dispute-resolution mechanism the Government do not do this, or if the other place will be and confirm that there will be an information were to overturn any amendment agreed by this House, campaign north and south of the border in this regard. Westminster would be making the same mistake that it has so sadly made in the past. As we approach the Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]: My Lords, it is always a centenary of Irish independence, it might be salutary pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and to contemplate the serial blunders of Westminster the noble Baroness,Lady McIntosh, both of whom always Governments in their handling of Ireland, and the way speak with such passion and conviction, particularly they are now heading in relation to Scotland and Wales. on these matters. This group of amendments, including GC 209 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 210
Amendments 61and 62, to which I have added my Turning to the future role of the Joint Ministerial name, is about establishing the principle of the need Committee—covered in Amendments 50 and 76—it for consultation and consent with the devolved authorities should be noted in passing that, despite his new title of and legislatures, and about laying down some markers Minister for the Union, the Prime Minister has not yet for how we can establish open and effective methods presided over a plenary session of the JMC, as far as I for dispute resolution in our unwritten constitution. am aware. The JMC has until now been a consultative As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, more rather than a decision-making body but, given the likely than 20 years on since the various devolution settlements increase in tensions, surely it makes sense to increase were agreed, the stresses and strains of our uncodified both the frequency of meetings and their capacity for system are in danger of being tested to breaking point decision-making. as a result of Brexit. Future United Kingdom trade As Professor Nicola McEwen said in her evidence deals risk highlighting these stresses and strains yet to the Lords Constitution Committee a couple of further, which is why it is so important to test the weeks ago, the JMC on EU negotiations is currently Government’s responses to many of these issues as we the best-functioning of the JMCs, but is likely to cease debate these amendments this afternoon. to exist at the end of transition period and, as yet, Twenty years ago, when the devolution settlements there are no clear indications of how it will be replaced. were being devised, there were fewer party-political stresses Can the Minister say whether there are plans to ensure on the system, as Labour was in power—in coalition that the JMC meets more frequently? What plans are or otherwise—in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Westminster. there to replace the JMC on European negotiations Clearly, now that we have an SNP Government in from 1 January next year? Does the Minister agree Edinburgh, a Labour-led Administration in Wales and that it is increasingly vital to have regular meetings of a re-established power-sharing Executive in Belfast, as the JMC, so that we can have greater consultation and well as a fairly nationalist Conservative Government co-ordination? Can he also say whether thought has in Westminster, our mechanisms of consent and trust been given to establishing additional sub-committees are being tested to the limit. within the JMC framework to discuss such issues as international trade and international relations? I should perhaps declare an interest as a Scot with an Irish passport currently living in the county of No doubt the Minister will say in his reply that all Kent. Those of us who are not nationalists have a sorts of assurances on consent and consultation have collective interest in ensuring that we find ways to already been given, but, for those kinds of assurances make our future constitutional settlement and trading to carry weight, there has to be a significant level of relationships work effectively throughout the whole trust. Tragically, that trust has been eroded throughout United Kingdom. I therefore hope that the Minister the whole Brexit experience, which has led to the very agrees that providing the necessary information to the real need for the amendments we are discussing, and devolved legislatures to allow scrutiny of any future the need to put mechanisms for both consultation and trade agreement—as set down in Amendment 62—is consent in the Bill. the very least that can be expected and is surely in everyone’s best interests. Providing the text at least two Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My months before the agreement and inviting comment Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the three noble Lords from the devolved legislatures would provide the kind who have opened our session and to express my broad of buy-in and involvement that will assist in developing agreement with the direction of everything they said. coherence in policy-making across the United Kingdom. I have attached my name to Amendment 31 in the We should remember that this should always be a name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I do not two-way flow of information. The UK’s devolved intend to go through each amendment in this group legislatures are often in a stronger position to understand one by one, except perhaps to note that Amendment the impact of new trade deals on local businesses and 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, communities. Obviously, this is particularly true in the and Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Lord, case of Northern Ireland, where the impact on SMEs Lord Bruce, seem to be the strongest and to address could be very significant, not least because of the the key issues. But all the amendments address issues complex supply lines. Does the Minister acknowledge of concern and at least seek to prevent what we could that free trade agreements will have a direct impact on describe as a dictatorship from Westminster. the effectiveness and scope of devolved policy-making On the broad picture of what is happening with this and legislation? Does he also accept that consent group of amendments, as we have said again and again mechanisms with the devolved Governments are vital during our discussions on the Bill, trade is now understood to maintaining the coherence of our United Kingdom? to be a far more complex matter than it was thought to I will turn now to a very specific FTA: that of Japan. be decades ago when your Lordships’House and the other Can the Minister say to what degree the Northern place last considered it. Occasionally we hear from a small Ireland Executive and Assembly were kept informed rearguard, saying that trade has nothing to do with the during the negotiations, given the very particular set environment or labour standards or considerations of circumstances faced by Northern Ireland resulting beyond the narrowly neoliberal economic —indeed, from the Northern Ireland protocol? Does he accept that such issues should not be raised at all here. But the analysis of a Stormont official who said the week that argument is clearly well past its sell-by date. before last: Carbon emissions from the products we consider “Some Japanese goods sold in Britain as part of a new trade trading have an impact on us all, as does the environmental agreement may not be available in Northern Ireland due to the destruction associated with them. If we think about Brexit deal”? the origins of the current pandemic, we see that the GC 211 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 212
[BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE] 3 pm destruction of nature anywhere in the world has an impact Amendment 61 deals with the need for the devolved on us all. The impact is also very directly onshore. If Administrations to agree to any trade deal that the we think about the exposure of the situation of the Government might be contemplating or seeking to garment industry in England, particularly in Leicester, approve. This is necessary because there is a fear of the nature of trade and the failure of regulation—indeed, a Westminster power grab from the devolved the failure to have the will to regulate—are part of that Administrations. Amendment 62 provides for a necessary story.And, of course, bringing junk products in produces level of scrutiny and consultation with the devolved waste that must be dealt with. Administrations. Of course, the very clear issues of That brings me to devolution. The aim of devolution the Internal Market Bill—which seems in some ways —the direction of travel—is to allow nations to to supersede the common frameworks—intersect with choose their own routes and, for example, set higher all of this. The Bill causes fractures and difficulties for environmental, labour and food standards, as we have our intricate set of political relationships. Because of sadly seen happen for England. We will look at that a the slight level of volatility, these need to be nurtured great deal more when we come to the Internal Market and developed and not undermined in any particular Bill, but in this context we are talking about foreign way. There is a fear that Northern Ireland will be trade. Whatever Westminster might seek to inflict on excluded from UK free trade agreements. It is important England in the form of free trade zones or the destruction to minimise this risk—hence the need for agreement, of standards by bringing in inferior,damaging, disastrous consent and scrutiny by the devolved Administrations. products, the whole point of devolution is that nations I understand that the Government have said that can make their own democratic choices in systems far Northern Ireland will benefit from access to its new more democratic than in Westminster, and not see free trade agreements. On the one hand, this makes them undermined by an influx of low-standard foreign sense because Northern Ireland is in the UK customs goods or services. They must be able to say no to these territory. However, this is not straightforward, because goods and services in their trade. In these amendments, the EU customs code will be applied in Northern we seek to ensure that that possibility is there. It is a Ireland, as will its standards for the production of democratic essential. food. So will the Minister specify that Northern Ireland Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]: My will not be excluded from free trade agreements? Will Lords, I refer Members to my entry in the register of the Government accept both these amendments to interests. It is a pleasure to follow the preceding noble ensure that this level of consent, scrutiny and adherence, Lords, who have made particular cases in respect of to ensure that we are included in free trade agreements, several amendments. I will address Amendment 61 in is placed in statute by the Bill? I—and the other noble my name—to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie Lords who have signed these amendments—believe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that this is vitally important. have added their names—and Amendment 62 in the In conclusion, it is important that Northern Ireland name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to which I and does not sit outside these free trade agreements, which the noble Baronesses have added our names. could undermine our very economic basis. There is Before I explain the need for proper consent and also the issue of where these free trade agreements scrutiny arrangements with the devolved Administrations, intersect with the Northern Ireland protocol. We do it is important to note that those two amendments not want any borders in the Irish Sea and we do not deal specifically with Northern Ireland. Although there want any borders on the island of Ireland that could have been devolved settlements in the regions of the interfere with our delicate political arrangements, our United Kingdom over the past 20 years, we in Northern trading relationships and our very economic base, at Ireland have been subjected to in-and-out periods of this particular time of the pandemic. devolution. We have sometimes had periods of direct rule, although the last time the Northern Ireland Baroness Altmann (Con): My Lords, I have added Executive and Assembly were not sitting and we did my name to Amendments 61 and 62, spoken to so not have the other infrastructure associated with the excellently just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie Good Friday agreement, basically Westminster made of Downpatrick. It is a pleasure to follow other noble some decisions, but it was not a form of direct rule Lords. These amendments are also supported by the because amendments to the then Northern Ireland noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Executive Bill addressed those particular issues. Lord Hain. I also support the general aims of the Because of the sensitivities of dealing with the devolved other amendments in this group. arrangements in Northern Ireland, and because of This Bill is particularly concerned with non-tariff their intricate nature, it is important that the relationships trade barriers. Nowadays, regulatory barriers to trade that were manifest in the Good Friday agreement— are often the most crucial parts of free trade agreements. relationships between unionists and nationalists in the When introducing this Bill, my noble friend talked north, between the north and south of Ireland and about strengthening and protecting the devolved between Ireland and Britain—are nurtured and not Administrations. I wholeheartedly agree with these set aside or fractured in any way. Yesterday, the good sentiments, and that is indeed what these amendments bishops of the Catholic Church in Ireland stressed the aim to achieve. importance of underscoring that shared space. Their As other noble Lords have said, the Westminster fear was that Covid, Brexit, all these trading arrangements, Government have the reserved power to negotiate and the Trade Bill and the Internal Market Bill could sign international trade agreements. However, while fracture those relationships in a very unnecessary way. standards for manufactured goods may also be reserved, GC 213 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 214 powers over implementation of regulations in areas to focus on the appalling record which this current such as agriculture and food products are matters for Administration have in their approach to the elected, the devolved Administrations. In order to be able to devolvedGovernmentsandlegislaturesof Wales,Northern implement newly negotiated free trade agreements, the Ireland and Scotland. Government surely have a direct interest in including The United Kingdom is currently engaged in what the devolved Administrations, as these amendments are without doubt the most crucial trade negotiations seek to introduce into the Bill. Failing to do so could of the last 50 years: the negotiations about our future clearly put the union at risk. trading arrangements with the EU, our largest trading Of course, the Westminster Government could partner. But, unlike most such negotiations, these are ultimately get around refusals by devolved nations to not about securing additional benefits for our businesses implement the agreed terms of an FTA by coercion. from a liberalisation of trade: no, the stakes are even But, if free trade agreements result in battles between higher, because these negotiations are about preventing London and the devolved Parliaments—with Scotland, the introduction of new barriers to trade which all Wales or Northern Ireland taking the English Government have the potential, even if an agreement is reached, to to court over terms of a trade agreement to which they cripple our manufacturing industry, with a loss of jobs had not agreed—it is likely that our ability to strike in sectors which are particularly important—for example, further deals would be called into question. Surely there to Wales,aerospace and automotive—leaving the devolved would be a far greater likelihood of success in future if Governments with their responsibility for economic the devolved Governments were involved at an early development to pick up the pieces. stage. I urge my noble friend to take note of how The negotiations with the EU will also directly Canada operated when negotiating the CETA deal. It impact on issues wholly within devolved competence, included its provincial Governments in its negotiations, such as health and education, since a failure to negotiate which ensured that any commitments they made were mutual recognition of our medicines licensing regime, more credible and more easily accepted across Canada. for example, will lead to increased costs and delays in As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, said, the accessing new treatments, while the failure to secure UK is a “family of nations”. Absolutely. In the modern continued participation in the Erasmus+ programme era, a family is considered to function best when all its will impoverish the educational experience of thousands members are involved in decision-making, rather than of young people in Wales and indeed across the United the dictatorial senior parent ordering everybody to Kingdom. obey their wishes and do what they are told. This causes What opportunity have the devolved institutions particular strife when, for example, another family had to influence, let alone shape, these negotiations? member is promised control over certain decisions Mike Russell, the Scottish Government’s Constitution which affect their daily life and well-being, but then Minister, pointed out in June that finds that they were misled. Westminster must surely accept the need to include the devolved Governments “we had virtually no involvement in producing” in areas of such significance. Respecting their needs at the negotiating guidelines or legal text published by an early stage and including them as soon as possible the Government, will ultimately result in better agreements. “and indeed only saw the legal texts—with no possibility of Can my noble friend explain the Government’s changing them—24 hours before they were published.” thinking in resisting these amendments? Specifically, Jeremy Miles, the Minister for European Transition in in relation to Amendments 61 and 62, reserved powers the Welsh Government, has talked about the over international trade are limited by two constraints. “absence of meaningful Ministerial engagement, where UK Ministers I have already mentioned that the implementation of discuss and seek to agree with us not just their formal starting trade agreements for agri and food is devolved. The position but the approach they expect to take as the negotiations second is the Northern Ireland protocol. According evolve.” to this protocol, EU regulations on goods—whether The Joint Ministerial Committee on European manufactured or agricultural—are supposed to continue negotiations, whose terms of reference are to “seek to apply in Northern Ireland for the duration of the agreement” on the approach to the negotiations, did protocol. Annexe 2 includes the whole EU acquis for not meet at a key time for preparing for these negotiations product standards. If the EU amends these rules, between 28 January and 21 May of this year. On top Northern Ireland is supposed to change, too. of this frankly insulting approach, the Government We will come back to the position of Northern have now published their internal market Bill, which Ireland in a later group, but I hope my noble friend not only threatens to break international law—and is will consider these amendments carefully—or his own proclaimed as doing so—but is an outrageous and wording to achieve these aims when we reach Report. outright attack on the very basis of the devolved settlements in this country. That is why there is a great Lord Hain (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I echo the words in deal of concern in all the devolved Administrations. particular of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley,and the noble In this context, it is surely for us, above all in your Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, Lordships’ House, to stand up for the rule of law and spoke eloquently about the situation in Wales and the the rights of political institutions that were put in place noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about Northern Ireland. over 20 years ago to protect and promote the interests Amendments 61 and 62 are also in the names of the of those parts of the United Kingdom, each with a noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie, Lady Altmann and distinct identity and social and economic needs, which Lady Suttie. I also support Amendment 57, tabled by had been marginalised by the preceding majoritarian my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I want political system. That is why my amendments and others GC 215 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 216
[LORD HAIN] Formal consultation and consent can bring three which I shall support, such as Amendments 26 and 50, main benefits: first, it protects the interests and represents seek to entrench the role of the devolved Governments the industries of all the UK when it comes to negotiations, and legislatures in future trade negotiations that will not just those of England; secondly, it makes sure that inevitably shape, and potentially restrain their freedom the potential impact of such free trade agreements to exercise, their powers in respect of issues such as across the whole of the UK are understood in detail; food standards and environmental regulation, which and, thirdly, it enhances the democratic legitimacy of sit squarely within their competence. the free trade agreements. Failure to include the devolved The devolved institutions are, quite rightly, obliged Governments at all will lead to conflict both in terms to implement international agreements which are entered of local interests and the impact of these free trade into by the UK Government, even where the matters agreements, and in terms of sub-national and national involved are otherwise under their control. It cannot government within the UK. These will only bring be right that they are bound in this way without economic, social and political harm to the union. having any rights to influence the outcome of the The inclusion of the devolved Governments is made negotiations that result in such obligations being imposed all the more crucial by the United Kingdom Internal on them. Market Bill. This would, through the principle of mutual Underlying these constitutional issues is the kind of recognition, create a situation in which any good that state the UK wants to be: either one run by diktat meets relevant regulatory requirements relating to sale from the centre, as Boris Johnson’s Ministers are doing in the part of the UK that it is produced in or imported over trade negotiations with the European Union and into can be sold in any other part of the UK without in this Bill—and especially in the internal market having to adhere to the relevant regulatory requirements Bill—or one run on the principle of democratic consent in that other part. and mutual respect for all the Governments: the UK’s If Scotland and Wales are excluded from having an and those of the devolved Administrations. input into these trade talks, along with Northern But there are practical policy issues at stake as well, Ireland, they will face the double whammy of not and here are my main concerns. Trade deals today, being able to protect their markets from imports they perhaps with the exception of a future UK-EU one, if see as potentially harmful to domestic industries, as there is one at all, extend into a wide range of social well as their domestic legislation on product and food provision and domestic policy issues, such as workers’ standards being rendered null and void because it will rights, environmental protection and safety, product apply only to locally produced goods. There is literally and food safety regulations, and procurement. As a nothing the devolved Administrations could do to result, trade deals are often politically contentious: the protect their local interests and concerns—something more comprehensive they are, the more they are likely that has been to the health and benefit of the UK for to be seen as leading to a loss of regulatory autonomy the past 20 years of devolution. and democratic accountability. As such, it is wrong to These amendments are the “bare bones”when it comes see free trade agreements as purely “business”or “trade” to ensuring that a free trade agreement will be in the concerns: they reach right to the core of responsible interests of the UK as a whole. They mean that Scotland, government and public welfare.Many of the areas covered Wales and Northern Ireland will see the details of a free by free trade agreements—for example, agriculture, the trade agreement in advance and will be able to scrutinise environment, forestry,health and economic development it, and that their consent will be required. These —are within the competence of the devolved amendments should be seen as ensuring the balance Administrations. and health of the union, not as undermining it. 3.15 pm Although there is relatively good communication Not everybody wins from trade liberalisation. Opening between civil servants in Whitehall and the devolved domestic markets to foreign competition can have Administrations on progress and issues raised in the adverse effects on some domestic industries. These UK’s negotiation of free trade agreements, it is no industries might be more prevalent in some parts of guarantee against serious mistakes or dangerous decisions. the UK compared with others—Welsh lamb farmers, We have to show trust in the elected representatives, for example, or Scottish distillers. It is not unknown democratic legislatures and responsible Executives in for trade agreements to be used by Governments to each part of the UK. To need their consent for a free circumvent domestic opposition and push through trade agreement that could have such a direct impact regulatory reforms—so-called “policy laundering”. on their economy, policies and regulatory effectiveness is surely a reasonable expectation of any pro-union The devolved Governments have been explicit in UK Government, as this Government purport to be. their requests for formal consultation and engagement from the UK Government on future free trade agreements. I understand why this Government may be wary The Department for International Trade itself stated about calling for a consent power from devolved that Governments, which might be implied by Amendment “we intend to continue this collaborative approach”— 61, in my name and those of my noble friends, on the outcome of trade negotiations, because, under the current with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland— system, this would enable any one of the devolved “as we develop the UK’s future trade policy.” nations to perpetually block a trade agreement: for Admittedly, the DIT has been better at engaging with example, the Scottish nationalists could simply refuse the devolved Administrations than the Ministers currently to endorse a trade agreement that would benefit the negotiating with Brussels. rest of the country, leading to deadlock. GC 217 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 218
But Amendment 61 does not explicitly call for a to him in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, consent power. It requires the consent of the devolved also noted the lack of any response to them, as he Governments, ideally—as my noble friend Lord Wigley recalled when he was speaking in this debate yesterday. mentioned and the Welsh Government advocated— Very kindly and without hesitation, the noble Lord, through a Council of Ministers model, with a form of Lord Grimstone, invited me to write to him instead, qualified majority voting in place of the current joint and gave me his email address. That is how this letter management committee, which has been dysfunctional to me came about, and I am most grateful to him for and, frankly, worse than useless. This model would the generous way he responded to my inquiry. require the UK Government—since it represents England, While I do not agree with everything it says, this letter with its disproportionately large population and share has provided far and away the best and most thorough of GDP—to secure the agreement of at least one explanation that I have received for the Government’s devolved Administration before overriding any devolved approach to amendments asking for consent to be Administration that wanted to exercise a veto. obtained from the devolved Administrations to be put While many federal countries have arrangements in the Bill, and why they have almost always been refused. that give the lower tier of government some control Although I greatly regret the refusal, it at least shows over international negotiations, none, except Belgium, that the Government are thinking about the issue. gives individual substate territories a veto. Labour Welsh Ministers and our party’s Front Bench have been clear I am sure that we will have to return to this in the in the past that they would not support the SNP and different and much more controversial context of the Scottish Government’s contention that each devolved United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, on which a Administration should have an absolute veto over storm is brewing with the devolved Administrations each trade agreement. My noble friend Lord Stevenson’s about UK market access provisions, which is every bit Amendment 57 requires devolved Administration consent, as powerful as that for Part 5 of the Bill. But the context although admittedly in a context where Parliament here is different: this Bill is concerned with international would have proper oversight over trade policy negotiations, agreements for which, although implementation is which is certainly not the case under the Bill. devolved, the UK Government are ultimately responsible internationally. Both the Scottish and Welsh Ministers Therefore, I hope that the Minister, in responding, have recommended that their legislatures give their will support the principles behind our two Amendments 61 consent to the Bill, so we are in much calmer territory, and 62 and, if he has any technical objections rather but I wish to support these amendments and to than objections in principle, will come back at Report explain why. with government amendments that we can all support. I start by taking up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made at the outset of his speech. Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]: My Lords, it is a Referring to the Sewel convention, he said that the pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I find question of whether it should or could apply to delegated myself in agreement with much of what he said. I legislation is still open. The time has come for us to speak to Amendments 26 and 27 in this group. As we put that to bed, once and for all. It should now be have heard, they both address the same point about recognised on all sides that the principle of the convention engagement with the devolved Administrations when extends to delegated legislation by UK government a Minister of the Crown is exercising the powers Ministers in the same way as it does to legislation by conferred by this clause. I am grateful to them for the UK Parliament. In view of the importance of the raising this subject, which I raised at Second Reading. matter, perhaps I can be allowed to say why that is so. I As I think the Minister will recognise, how devolution have the following reasons. is addressed in the Bill is most important and has to be handled wisely, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, so First, there is no doubt that, if he had been asked rightly said. about this at the time, Lord Sewel would have said that Of the two amendments before us, I prefer that in his remark applied to the use of delegated powers too. the name of my noble kinsman Lord Stevenson of It did not occur to any of the noble Lords who were Balmacara. That is because the context for this discussion there 20 years ago to ask him about this, because the is the making of orders by delegated legislation, which idea that delegated powers might be used in this area is the privilege of Ministers, not of legislatures. Obtaining was nothing like as obvious as it is now. Today, we all the consent of the relevant Minister in the devolved appreciate that Brexit could not be made to work Administrations, rather than of their legislatures, seems across so manyareas without resort to delegated legislation the better and easier route in this context. But that is a on a scale far removed from what we were used to that side issue; the issue of principle matters. I agree with long ago. That is why the issue has been raised time and endorse the points that the noble Lords proposing and again during this process. these amendments made in support of them. Secondly, the convention, as first formulated by I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—recorded more formally in a memorandum Lord Grimstone, for the very helpful reply he gave to a of understanding and put into statutory language by letter that I wrote to him, after Second Reading. This Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016—refers to legislation came about because I happened to be in the Chamber by the Parliament of the United Kingdom only. But and took part in the debate personally, so I was able to we are dealing here with a convention, a political take advantage of the opportunity, which noble Lords statement, and not black-letter law. What really matters participating virtually do not have, of catching a moment is the principle that lies behind it. There is no logical with the Minister afterwards. I asked him why, as was reason whatever for not applying the Sewel principle the case, he had not answered the questions that I put to delegated legislation too. GC 219 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 220
[LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD] Implementation, which Clause 2 is about, is devolved. Thirdly,we need look only to what happens in practice. It is a matter entirely for the devolved Administrations, There is a very high level of engagement, at official not UK Government Ministers or the UK Parliament. level at least, between the devolved Administrations It is devolution itself that is being undermined with across the board and the UK Government. There is no this reasoning, not the principle that international suggestion there that the fact that delegated legislation trade is a reserved matter. There is more than a hint here may be in prospect, rather than primary legislation of the very worst of parents that the noble Baroness, made in this Parliament, makes any difference. Lady Humphreys, was talking about so well in her Finally, there is the noble Lord’s letter. It contains speech yesterday: the devolved Administrations must an express commitment that the UK Government will be kept in order and, like little children, cannot be not normally legislate using the Bill’s powers—these trusted to behave themselves. are delegated powers—in areas of devolved competence Let us be clear. The idea that the UK Government without consent of the relevant devolved Administration, can tell the devolved Administrations what to do and and never without consulting them first. There it is: what not to do to ensure compliance when implementing Sewel applies here too. It applies across the board. these agreements finds no support whatever in the To cement this into our practice, so that we can wording of that paragraph. It is entirely at odds with refer to it whenever it is needed, we should give this the devolution settlements. It for the devolved commitment a name. I would call it the Sewel principle. Administrations to make their own democratic choices, It is striking, and to the Government’s great credit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that nowhere in the letter is it suggested that we are said. I support these amendments. limited nowadays by the precise wording of the convention. It is the Sewel principle that is being The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) applied now. Although the memorandum and statute (LD): The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has are silent on the point, they do not exclude this approach withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of so, please, let us say farewell to any idea that the Bennachie. question of whether it applies to delegated legislation is still open. Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]: My Lords, it is a As for the reasons given in the letter for the Bill not great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, providing that UK government Ministers must seek Lord Hope. The strength of argument he has put behind the consent of the devolved Administrations, I will these amendments and the analysis that he always make a few points. First, it is said that to do that brings to bear are very forceful. I am grateful to all would discourage consensual intergovernmental working those who have spoken in this debate, because the and incentivise bringing disagreements to the courts. Minister should be clear that they have articulated not Reference is made to the case of the UK Withdrawal only a very clear strength of feeling but a really strong from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill force of argument behind all these amendments and in the Supreme Court as an example of the lengthy the need to maintain the devolution settlement. Of litigation that may result. I simply do not follow that course, all these amendments have devolution at the argument. Surely the best and most secure way to heart. How it is handled by the UK Government avoid disagreements is to proceed by consent. That is requires a huge sensitivity which, as a number of noble what these amendments seek to achieve. They are all Lords have pointed out, has not always been displayed. about settling disagreements, as the noble Lord, I shall speak specifically to my Amendments 27 Lord Wigley, said. and 76, and to Amendment 30, which I have signed. I 3.30 pm am grateful to my noble friends Lady Humphreys and As for the Supreme Court’s continuity Bill case, the Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for situation was entirely different. That case dealt with signing Amendment 27, and to the noble Baroness, the Scottish Parliament’sresponse to the UK’swithdrawal Lady Bennett, who certainly indicated some support Bill, to which it had refused consent. If it tells us for Amendment 76. anything about what we have here, it is that if you Far-reaching decisions under the Agriculture Bill, proceed without agreement, there may be trouble. That the Trade Bill and the forthcoming Internal Market is what these amendments, if passed, would avoid. Bill put the devolution settlements and the integrity of Then it is said that to put the commitment in the the United Kingdom under immense strain. This has Bill risks undermining the principle enshrined in the been stressed by pretty well every speaker in this devolution statutes that international trade is a reserved debate. It has come about because the umbrella of the matter and that, as a matter of international law, the European Union, which set the framework, is being UK Government are ultimately responsible for ensuring removed, so powers that revert to the UK have to take compliance with our obligations, even in devolved areas. account of the devolution that took place while we Yes, the devolution statutes state that international were in the EU. Some of the powers are fully devolved relations are reserved matters: see, for instance, and come to the devolved Administrations. Some are paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. reserved. All this requires that the powers that come But look at the wording of paragraph 7(2), which states: back to the regions are not overridden. Those that are “Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve … (a) observing and reserved, are reserved. That is clear. Those that are implementing international relations … (b) assisting Ministers of hybrid are clearly open to debate. But what is emerging the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph is that some that are theoretically devolved are being applies.” clawed back by the Government’s interpretation of It could not be plainer. what is reserved. GC 221 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 222
These amendments seek to test the Government’s matter of detail. The principle is that the voice of good faith and ensure that decisions that may radically Scotland should be taken into account, and the same alter the terms of trade for companies, the public would apply on comparable issues in Wales and Northern sector or individuals within any or all of the devolved Ireland. Of course, England needs devolution, and if Administrations are taken in a fair and objective way. the Government could find a democratic wayof consulting Amendment 27 requires the Government to secure the the English regions, it could add a valuable balance. consent of the devolved legislatures to any regulations But the fact that that has not been done should not be under the Bill, and proposed new subsection (6B) used as an excuse to say that the devolved Administrations suggests that if two of the three devolved legislatures cannot expect to have their views given the weight that do not consent, the regulation should not proceed. these amendments are trying to secure. Effectively, this is an exploratory amendment to see to Ministerial insensitivity and indifference are, frankly, what extent the UK Government respect the settlements turbocharging nationalism and separatism. Next year’s and wish to achieve unanimity—or at least, as the elections will be hard fought between the extremes of noble Lord, Lord Hain, suggested, qualified majority what to me is a fantasy independence agenda and a support. I think most of us accept that it would be UK Government cavalier about their claim to be unreasonable to allow one devolved Administration to unionist, and another crisis may engulf us all. I therefore have a veto, but it is equally unreasonable to allow the urge the Government to wake up, think and engage, one devolved Administration which is also the UK and at least to adopt the spirit of these amendments Government to have a veto over the three devolved and show respect to the devolution settlement and an Administrations, which is what the Government are understanding of how to secure a positive way of proposing in the Bill. working. Amendment 78 seeks to embed the role of the Joint Dispute resolution will be required. The Government Ministerial Committee, which has been underregarded should accept that, ideally,we would like to see government to date. It has brokered the agreement on common amendments which take the spirit of the amendments frameworks, which will be subject to this House’s new that have been debated today and put it on the face of committee, of which I am a member. However, it has the Bill. That would ensure that any disputes are not been the vehicle for negotiation and compromise properly handled in an objective, fair and independent that some had hoped for. It was envisaged by many way, and that it is not just a matter of the assurance of that it would be the vehicle by which consensus could a Government who, in the Bill, are saying that ultimately, be secured. The amendment requires it to meet prior in the event of disagreement within or across the devolved to concluding a free trade agreement and to secure the Administrations, the UK Government, representing consent of the devolved Administrations. the English devolved Administration and the UK, will What we are talking about in practice here is that override the wishes of the devolved Administrations. trade agreements are treaties and treaties are reserved. If the Government seek to do that, they will put a Under the EU, our devolved Administrations could huge explosive under the continuing functioning of not, at least before we left, make common cause with the United Kingdom. subnational Parliaments and Governments across the It is important that the strength of feeling and the other 27 member states. We are all familiar with the strength of argument that these amendments have role of Belgium’s provincial Parliaments in ratifying demonstrated to the Government require a clear vision EU treaties, and nobody in these amendments is seeking from government, and for it to be put on the face of to give any of the devolved Administrations in the UK the Bill before it is enacted. a comparable power—but once the power lies with Westminster and Whitehall, there is no Europe-wide Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, as I constituency to pursue. There is no consensus to be respond to this continuing debate today, I welcome the built up across like-minded legislatures elsewhere, other opportunity to discuss the important issue of the than the three devolved Administrations, which have devolved Administrations’ role in international trade different priorities but common values and common and to demonstrate the significant strides that the concerns. Department for International Trade has taken on this If the Government chose to conclude an agreement matter since the passage of the Trade Bill 2017-19. I that lowered food standards, perhaps compromising have listened to the arguments, and the essence of this Scotland’s prime beef sector, it would surely be essential debate has been a discussion on the balance between that this was agreed by the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, devolved and reserved, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I challenge the Minister to say under what circumstances said, its link to the test of good faith. There are bound the Government could justify that without securing to be differing views on what that balance should be. such consent. If public procurement was amended to During the passage of the previous Trade Bill, the allow elements of the health service to be available for UK Government conducted a significant programme foreign investment, or for previously non-approved of engagement with the devolved Administrations and drugs to be allowed, or financial regulations to be your Lordships’ House to ensure that the Bill delivered lowered or changed in ways that were detrimental to for all parts of the UK, including regular meetings Scotland’s important financial services sector, should with devolved Ministers and attending the devolved the people of Scotland and their representatives not legislative committees. As a result of this engagement, be consulted in a meaningful way? the UK Government made a number of amendments I take on board the point made by the noble and and commitments to address the devolved learned Lord, Lord Hope, about whether it should be Administrations’concerns. This led the Welsh Parliament Ministers or legislatures—but, as he said, that is a to consent to the relevant clauses of that Bill. We are GC 223 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 224
[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE] 3.45 pm conducting a similar programme of engagement for To answer a question raised by the noble Baroness, this Bill and have included all the amendments and Lady Humphrey, on Tuesday, any regulations made restated all our commitments that we made to the under the Clause 2 power by the devolved Administrations devolved Administrations. As a result, the Welsh will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will be Government have once again recommended consent scrutinised by the devolved legislatures in accordance to the clauses that were contained in the previous Bill. with their normal procedures. The devolved Administrations and legislatures have also put in place However, we have also gone further on this Bill and arrangements for the scrutiny of EU exit statutory have made an additional amendment to remove a instruments made in devolved areas by UK government restriction on the devolved Administrations’ use of the Ministers. For example, the Scottish Government and powers in the Bill which the Scottish Government the Scottish Parliament have a protocol on the scrutiny previously objected to. As a consequence, I am pleased of Scottish Ministers’ decision to consent to UK that the Scottish Government have now also recommended government secondary legislation on devolved matters. consent to the Bill, and—to be helpful to the noble In their memorandum recommending consent to the Baroness, Lady Ritchie—we are working very hard to Bill, the Scottish Government stated that the Bill’s ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive also feel powers would fall under this protocol and that this able to do so. That the Welsh and Scottish Governments will provide their Parliament with the opportunity have already recommended consent demonstrates that to scrutinise this legislation. The other devolved the Bill is already drafted in a way that respects the Administrations and legislatures are of course able to devolution settlements. Indeed, in its report on the establish similar arrangements. Bill, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House welcomed the progress that we have made on These working arrangements are well tested from this matter and made no recommendations for changes being used for other EU exit SIs such as those made to devolution aspects of the Bill, which it might otherwise under the EU withdrawal Act, so the devolved have done. Administrations and legislatures know exactly what procedures will fulfil our commitments in practice. On Amendments 26, 27, 31 and 99, as many noble That reassurance has enabled the Welsh and Scottish Lords have highlighted already, international trade is Governments to recommend consent to the Bill, which a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. I alluded to earlier. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, However, Amendments 26, 27, 31 and 99 would go rightly noted at Second Reading and today, in line further by placing our commitments on the face of the with the noble Baroness, Lady Humphrey, on Tuesday, Bill. I am afraid that I cannot support these amendments, that the implementation of international obligations and I will explain my reasons why. in devolved areas is a devolved matter. We absolutely recognise the devolved Administrations’ competence First, placing these commitments in statute risks in this area, which is why the Bill confers powers on legally undermining the important principle which them so that they are able to implement our continuity Parliament enshrined in the devolution statutes: namely, agreements where they touch on devolved matters. that international trade is a reserved matter. While in practice the Government work closely with the devolved As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also Administrations on international trade policy, it is noted at Second Reading, these are concurrent important that its legal status as a reserved matter is powers that also allow the UK Government to legislate preserved. The proper functioning of reserved powers in devolved areas. We have sought to put in place is as vital to the devolution settlements as that of concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how devolved powers. transitioned agreements are implemented, allowing Secondly, it would discourage consensual each devolved Administration to implement the intergovernmental working and incentivise bringing agreements independently in some cases, but also allowing disagreements to the courts rather than resolving them the UK Government to legislate on a UK-wide basis through political means. As the recent continuity Bill where it makes practical sense to do so. Supreme Court case demonstrated, litigation of this kind can be lengthy and complicated, undermining the We understand that those powers should be used fundamental purpose of this Bill, which is, I remind appropriately, which is why the Government have noble Lords, to maximise certainty and continuity of committed that we will not normally use the concurrent trading arrangements. powers to legislate within devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration, and Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the never without consulting them first, as the noble and noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, noted, the Sewel learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. We have also put in convention, which our commitment is modelled on, place a five-year sunset provision on the concurrent has served this country well. That convention is not powers in Clause 2, which can be extended for legally binding, so the noble Lord must agree that it is further periods only with the agreement of both Houses not necessary for a commitment to be enforced in of Parliament. We recognise that this would also statute for it to provide reassurance to the devolved extend the devolved Administrations’ and the UK Administrations and to your Lordships’ House. Government’s ability to use the powers in devolved We have already begun to fulfil some of the areas, and have therefore committed to the devolved commitments we made to the devolved Administrations Administrations that we will consult them before extending during the passage of the previous Bill. For example, the sunset. in relation to trade remedies, we have begun notifying GC 225 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 226 the devolved Administrations of the transition reviews to ensure that there is delivery for every part of the undertaken by the Trade Remedies Investigations UK. We have seen the result of that in the recent Directorate, which will be carrying out the functions agreement with Japan. of the Trade Remedies Authority until it is established For example, the department listened to calls from by the Bill. This has allowed the devolved Administrations the devolved Administrations about the importance of to consider becoming a contributor to these investigations geographical indications, and the agreement therefore and to submit information to the review. creates the potential of new protection for more iconic In answer to a question raised by my noble friend goods from the devolved nations, such as Welsh lamb Lady McIntosh, who asked how the UK Government and Scotch beef.I know that the noble Lords,Lord Wigley are working with the devolved Administrations to and Lord Purvis, have on previous occasions emphasised prepare for the end of the transition period, our work the importance of geographical indications, and I on trade remedies demonstrates that the UK Government hope that this shows that the views of this House are are ensuring that all parts of the UK are ready for the also being reflected in our agreements. We will continue end of the transition period. The Department for to work closely with the devolved Administrations on International Trade has also been working closely our agreements with Australia, New Zealand and the with the devolved Administrations to ensure continuity United States to ensure that their views are also reflected of trade for the whole of the UK for the end of this in those agreements. period. The Bill is an essential part of those preparations, It is not just the UK Government who think that and we have already begun to discuss with the devolved these arrangements provide the devolved Administrations Administrations what regulations may be required in with a significant voice in our trade policy. Before I their areas to implement the continuity agreements make my concluding remarks—and this may interest which are within the scope of the Bill. the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—I will refute the comments I cannot support Amendments 61 and 62 for similar made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on our relationship reasons to those which I have just discussed. As mentioned, with the devolved Administrations. In evidence to the international trade is a reserved matter under the Welsh Parliament, the Welsh Government’s Minister devolution settlements, and it is ultimately for the UK for International Relations, the noble Baroness, Parliament to scrutinise the Government’streaty making. Lady Morgan, said of their involvement in our trade The negotiation of international treaties is also a negotiations: prerogative power of the UK Government. This rule is “We’ve not only fed in, but we’ve actually seen the results of us not only the result of centuries of constitutional practice feeding in, and so I think we’ve got to pay respect to the UK but serves an important function: it enables the UK to Government in this space, and I’m really pleased to see that that is speak clearly, with a single voice, as a unitary actor happening.” under international law. These amendments would, To answer a point raised by the noble Baroness, therefore,not only undermine the important constitutional Lady Suttie, who spoke about trust, much work is principle that international trade is a reserved matter being done and I believe that the trust is not in doubt. but also weaken the UK’s negotiating positions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, put it, we On Amendments 50 and 76, as the Minister of are a family of nations. State for Trade Policy said in the other place, we share I have some final questions to answer. The noble the principle behind these amendments and absolutely Lord, Lord Wigley, raised a point about failing to recognise that, as modern FTAs cover areas of devolved work in partnership with the devolved Administrations. competence, the devolved Administrations have a However, the establishment of the new forum for trade legitimate interest in our agreements. However, the and the statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, arrangement that the amendments propose is already which I have just read out, show that the UK Government in place. Noble Lords may recall that, during the have been working in partnership, I believe effectively, passage of the previous Trade Bill, the previous with all the devolved Administrations. International Trade Secretary committed to establishing a new ministerial forum for trade with the devolved The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked what Administrations. I am pleased to tell your Lordships involvement the Northern Ireland Executive had in that this forum is now well established. It had its our recent success on the Japan FTA. Let me say that inaugural meeting in January and has met twice since all devolved Administrations receive the same level of then to discuss key areas, such as our objectives for the engagement, and the noble Baroness should know US and Japan free trade agreements. that we engaged regularly and meaningfully with the Northern Ireland Executive on that deal. I am pleased The forum is chaired by the Minister of State for to be able to reassure her on that. Trade Policy, who has built strong working relationships with all of his counterparts in the devolved The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked whether Administrations. In addition to this formal engagement, Northern Ireland will be included in our trade agreements. the Minister also has bilateral and ad hoc engagement I can say to her that, in regular meetings with the with his counterparts to reflect the sometimes fast-paced Northern Ireland Executive’s Minister for the Economy, nature of trade negotiations. The department has also Diane Dodds, my colleagues, including the Minister of established regular engagement at official level on the State for Trade Policy,have reaffirmed the UK’sguarantee technical detail of our trade policy, overseen by the in its Command Paper on the implementation of the six-weekly senior officials group. This engagement is protocol, established in May, that it will negotiate and not merely consultation but genuine co-operation between deliver trade deals on behalf of all parts of the UK, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations including Northern Ireland. GC 227 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 228
[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE] As I have said already, and as others have said The UK Government have worked hard to ensure before me, this issue will not go away. We need to test that the devolved Administrations’ views are reflected what the issues raised today have got to say against in this Bill—I hope that I have put that strong argument what the Minister, who spoke before me, said. I thought to this Committee today—and we have made a number that he was slightly complacent—I hope that he will of amendments and commitments to address their not mind me saying that—as I think that there are concerns. I hope that this provides more than enough issues here that will not be resolved simply by assertion reassurance to noble Lords, and I ask that the amendment from a ministerial position. We may well need to pick be withdrawn. up and identify further legislation that is required. This is a very fragile situation that we are in at the Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, moment. I urge the Minister to take careful note of I thank all speakers, both today and on Tuesday, for a what has been said today and to make sure that what very good debate. I think that everyone who has has been said today is circulated widely so that the participated will agree that there has been a huge sensibilities raised in this debate are not lost. I am sure degree of agreement around the issues and, in some that we will return to this at later stages, but in the cases, on the way in which they might be resolved. I meantime I would like to withdraw Amendment 26. agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who said that it was interesting that these issues seem Amendment 26 withdrawn. to come back time and time again and do not go away. Amendment 27 not moved. That gives rise to the suggestion that this issue is relevant not just in relation to this legislation but on a The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness wider scale, and we should be aware of that. McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): We now come to the One of the two strands around which this debate group beginning with Amendment 28. I remind noble has been constructed is the Sewel convention—or, as Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister we might want to call it, in the words of my noble and should email the clerk during the debate. learned kinsman Lord Hope, the Sewel principle, since part of it is already in statute—and whether we need Amendment 28 to think harder about the process under which consent Moved by Lord Purvis of Tweed is obtained, both through consultation and through direct negotiation, with whom it is obtained, since 28: Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out “five” and insert “three” there is a suggestion that the focus should perhaps be Member’s explanatory statement This amendment reinserts a Government amendment made to on Ministers rather than on institutions, and how that the Trade Bill in 2018. It proposes to reduce, from five years to plays back into the eventual organisation that we hope three, the time period during which (a) EU FTAs can be rolled to see around trade in this country. That leads into over and (b) previously rolled over FTAs can be reamended. questions about structure, about the JMC and the special agreements that need to be made in that and Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, this is perhaps about how we resolve disagreements, should there be the shortest group that we have had on the Bill so far. any. There is no debate, I think, on whether the UK Not only will Members of the Committee be relieved Parliament has the final say on questions of international about that, but I think it reflects a high level of agreements. But, as several speakers, including the consensus among the parties that it would be beneficial noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, these to restore one of the elements of the Bill that was agreements will live only if they are implemented stripped out when this Bill was brought to us in this properly,and implementation is clearly a shared obligation new Session. It was very interesting to listen closely to between the UK Government and the devolved the Minister’s response on the previous group, where Administrations. he highlighted some of the changes that the Government Four points came through very strongly on this, volunteered on the previous Bill to assuage concerns and I hope that we will carry these forward. First, that had been raised over scrutiny. Well, I hope that he there is a genuine need to protect the union and to will not be offended when I say that this is one that respect and strengthen the devolution settlement. Several should go back in. If he is on a roll—or perhaps the noble Lords stressed that, and I shall come back to Minister of State will be responding to this group—I that. Irrespective of how we go about things and how hope he will be equally open to some of the changes. successful we are in the day-to-day work, we will need 4 pm to have a fall-back disputes mechanism that is based I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, on the process of consultation and getting consent but Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Kramer in has a structure in place for the resolution of disputes moving Amendment 28. In so doing, I want to recall that is not, as people have pointed out, heavily weighted what the Trade Minister, George Hollingbery, said in towards the largest member in the room, which is the moving Amendments 44 to 47 in the Commons, reducing UK Government—acting both for the UK and as an from five years to three years the length of the period for agent for England, which is of course the most numerous which the implementing power can be used for these part of the country. So we need trust and we need agreements. It was part of a suite of amendments that dispute resolution that commands proper confidence. we seek to restore in the Bill. In moving his amendments, We also need to work together to ensure that all parts the Minister told Jonathan Djangoly MP: of this work together, not just on the creation of “I hope that my hon. Friend … agrees that these amendments conditions under which agreements can be struck but address the spirit of the issues he was seeking clarity on and on the way in which they can be implemented satisfactorily provide enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.”—[Official Report, to ensure that there are no disagreements on that. Commons, 17/7/18; col. 266.] GC 229 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 230
By definition, therefore, as this was part of a package agreement within that same Parliament. I do not think which has been significantly watered down, the reductions that is appropriate. I think that towards the end of a now reduce parliamentary scrutiny. These cross-party Parliament it is a right judgment for that Parliament amendments seek to restore that enhanced level of to consider. The reality of the five-year power is that scrutiny to which the then Minister referred. no one Parliament would be able to discuss the agreement Any reader of these proceedings may be scratching that it has ratified, how it is operating and whether it their head about why it is necessary for opposition needs to be updated. A three-year power would be Members to restore government amendments to the appropriate. I think that is one reason why the previous previous Bill to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, because Minister agreed to make the changes. I hope that the the Government have removed them. It is therefore Government will reflect on that and restore the three-year justifiable to question why they have done it and what period, and I beg to move. their motives are. Did they feel that enhanced parliamentary scrutiny was necessary when they had a Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): In principle, small majority in the House of Commons but now, I have some sympathy with the amendments. My with a large majority, such a concept of parliamentary concern goes to the heart of the ministerial discretion scrutiny is no longer necessary? I can only suspect that in appointing and reappointing members of the Trade this is the case, as the substance of the issue and the Remedies Authority. I am attracted to a period of two concerns about the longevity of this major order-making terms of five years and I would be interested to know power have not changed from the previous Bill to the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in reducing this—so whyhave the Government changed their position? it to three years. A maximum of two terms of five years would seem more appropriate. In probing my I very much hope that the Minister’s speaking notes noble friend’s thinking in this regard, I am obviously do not include the fact that the lion’s share of these wedded to the idea of parliamentary scrutiny and agreements have already been made, so there is no would be interested to know whether he does not necessity to bring back the earlier sunset clause. That share my concern that there might be too much ministerial is hardly a convincing argument, as the number of discretion in appointing and reappointing members, continuity agreements made between the end of the which goes to the heart of the independence of their previous Bill and the introduction of this one is marginally terms of tenure. I will wind up by saying that I think different. While agreement today with Ukraine is welcome, that five years is more appropriate—unless I could in fact some, such as with Kenya and East Africa, have understand better why three years and a maximum of fallen away. As I said on Tuesday, of the 38 agreements six years was put forward on this occasion. the Government were seeking—I remind the Committee that the Government sought to get them all signed in Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]: My Lords, I will be March 2019—20 have been agreed and 18 are yet to be exceedingly brief. My noble friend Lord Purvis of agreed. Tweed has made the case and I am not able to better it. There is also the fact that they are not all the same. I just want to raise an underlying principle. I suspect It would be easy to think that all the continuity that every Member of this House is very cautious of agreements are of the same category and age. Well, any power that enables the Government by regulation they are not. Some are first generation, before 2006; to change primary legislation of any kind. Where it is some are second generation, which widened the scope necessary to provide that power, there should generally to intellectual property, competition and customs be a principle that the time period is as short as co-operation; some are deep and comprehensive free possible and that power is as limited as possible. trade areas and others are economic partnership Otherwise, we begin to compromise the whole concept agreements. So some of them are already in effect out of primary legislation and the purpose and meaning of date from the time that we will start to operate with of parliamentary legislation. them. It is inevitable that there will be a need to update Three years is surely a perfectly adequate time to be some of them, and the EU will do the same. able to make any implementing changes necessary as continuity agreements are negotiated and signed. The In fact, the process is under way for the EU to underlying principle is one that the House needs to update and renew those third-party agreements. What pay attention to. Setting precedents allowing an entire response will we have to a third country when its Parliament to pass during which period powers are agreement with the EU, that we have rolled over, is given to a Government to override primary legislation being updated by the EU? Do we keep pace with through regulation, even if it is in a constrained standards and commitments updated by the EU, or environment, is a principle that we must absolutely seek to be aligned with the US, as the Minister alluded challenge. to on ISDS on Tuesday? Five years is too long before Parliament can take a view on whether it is right to The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness update, amend or adjust some of those agreements, or McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): The next speaker is the whether it is appropriate to commence discussions on noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I will call him once more; if a successor agreement. he does not appear, we will move on. No. I call the I hope that the Minister will take stock of this short noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. debate and reflect on the fact that a three-year period, which could be extended, is more appropriate than Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, five years. I will close on a reflection on the five-year Labour supports the amendments in this group. As we period. It would mean that no Parliament which ratifies heard, Amendment 28 seeks to reinsert a government an agreement would then be able to take a view on that amendment made to the previous Trade Bill, which GC 231 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 232
[LORD BASSAM OF BRIGHTON] to know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would reduce from five years to three years the period acknowledged, we have now signed 21. The United during which the EU FTAs can be rolled over and in Kingdom and Ukraine have signed a political, free which previously rolled-over FTAs can be reamended. trade and strategic partnership agreement, which will Amendment 29 would reinsert another government help to further strengthen the partnership and serves amendment from last year. If the Government decide as a foundation for a deeper strategic political and to extend the period in which to make regulations trading relationship between the UK and Ukraine. under Clause 2, any such period should not be more Trade between the UK and Ukraine was worth £1.5 billion than three years. in 2019 and we are committed to protecting and In commentary, I must say that I am surprised that growing that trade. Signing this agreement will no these sunset provisions are not already included. As doubt help us to do that. the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, explained, the Government We have now signed 21 continuity agreements and themselves made the changes last time round. Only expect to make positive progress with remaining continuity last year, they committed to reducing from five years agreements before the end of the transition period. to three years the length of the period in which the Indeed, before this Bill completes its passage through implementation power can be used. My argument is your Lordships’ House, perhaps I will no longer have simple. Let us put these amendments back in the Bill, to say 21 but can come back with a higher number. I so that the Minister can demonstrate the same faith in am pleased that these agreements have given Parliament the department and in the Government as previous more certainty as to the practical effects of the Ministers did to complete these rollover agreements in Government’s continuity programme. a timely fashion. What has changed? Why do we face the prospect of 4.15 pm not having these rollover periods? What is the problem I stress that our intention for this power is largely to with having the sunset clause as it is? If it was right last ensure the ongoing technical operability of signed time, surely it must be right this time. I am drawn to agreements into the future. I humbly suggest to the sharing the suspicion of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that primary legislation that the advent of a larger majority has made the is not the right vehicle for this. The Clause 2 power is Government think that they do not need these provisions, required to ensure continuity of existing relationships but that cannot be right either. When this was discussed and to allow us to implement obligations arising the last time round, the Government said that the from continuity agreements over time and in all period would be renewable by agreement in both circumstances. Houses of Parliament and that they were committed It may help noble Lords if I give some examples of to engaging the devolved Administrations in that decision- where we see that the power might be needed. In the making process in advance. I hope that those points case of a transitioned mutual recognition agreement, still stand and I look forward to the Minister confirming we might need to change secondary legislation to that they do, as that seems a sensible way forward, update the names of awarding bodies in third countries, which I am sure would find agreement on all sides of so that UK businesses can continue to trade freely and the House. safely overseas, or we may need to update lists of entities subject to procurement obligations in order to The Minister of State, Department for Business, reflect machinery of government changes. Noble Lords Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for will be aware—I have said this previously—of the International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con): regularity with which Governments of all persuasions My Lords, I will now address Amendments 28, 29, are inclined to reorganise the work of government 30 and 32, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis departments.I will not refer to the shuffling of deckchairs, of Tweed and Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the but this needs to be reflected in the relevant regulations noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The amendments would in order to remain compliant with agreements. reduce the sunset period from five to three years and As I said, the matter has been carefully considered reduce the period by which it can be extended also by my department. Evidence suggests that a five-year from five to three years. sunset period is proportionate for a programme of this I am afraid that I have to say to the noble Lords, nature and strikes the right balance between maintaining Lord Purvis and Lord Bassam, and to other noble our agreements efficiently and providing accountability Lords that, after careful consideration, we believe that to Parliament. the current sunset provisions in the Bill strike the right We of course understand the need for parliamentary balance between allowing flexibility for negotiators, scrutiny and we understand that there are concerns the ability to keep agreements operable and providing about the breadth of the power, which is why we have Parliament with appropriate constraints and scrutiny. introduced provisions including the draft affirmative As I have said to noble Lords previously, the procedure for any regulations made under Clause 2. Government and I are very aware that at the time of These changes will be scrutinised. We have committed the 2017-19 Trade Bill there was uncertainty and to voluntary publication of parliamentary reports concern from Parliament as to the nature of the alongside signed agreements and a requirement that Government’s continuity programme. That is why the the sunset period can be extended only with the consent Government brought forward a number of amendments of both Houses. I humbly remind your Lordships that to the 2017-19 Bill. Noble Lords might be rather the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee bored of hearing me repeat the fact that we have now gave this legislation a clean bill of health when it signed 20 continuity agreements, so they will be pleased scrutinised it recently. GC 233 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 234
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked order-making powers. Wewill come to the TRA elements about the terms of office for the Trade Remedies later on, but she raises good questions that we will Authority members. If I may, I will address that point discuss under the TRA aspect. carefully when we come to that group later in Committee. My noble friend Lady Kramer made a strong point. Given this strong record on scrutiny of continuity agreements and the essential nature of the use of the 4.22 pm power over the sunset clause, I invite noble Lords not to press these amendments. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness 4.27 pm McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My final sentence, Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. almost literally, is to agree with my noble friend Lady Kramer. She was indicating that if the purpose Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, of these powers is to implement agreements, then I was delighted to hear from the Minister that a new three years is an appropriate amount of time for us to trade agreement has entered the books. Could he know if there have been any major difficulties, and confirm that the same arrangements that apply to the whether a new agreement should be made. Japan agreement will apply to that agreement in respect We will of course reflect on what the Minister has of the ability of the International Trade Committee said. No doubt as we discuss the next group, which and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee includes Amendment 36, the Minister will have a to have view of the documentation and to make a response with regard to the duty for the Government response to Parliament, should they wish to do so? to report “any significant differences”between proposed agreements and those that existed with the European Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): I thank the Union. I am pretty certain that he will, given our noble Lord for that question. The arrangements that discussion during the adjournment for the Division. I we have put in place in discussion with the committees look forward to hearing that but, for the moment, I for the Japan free trade agreement relate to the fact will reflect on what he has said and beg leave to that we described it as an enhanced continuity agreement, withdraw the amendment in my name. which is why we have been putting it through enhanced scrutiny compared to other free trade agreements. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness This latest agreement, the Ukraine free trade agreement, McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): It is open to the Minister will be scrutinised in the same way as other continuity to respond to the question earlier, should he wish to agreements were previously scrutinised. do so. If he does not, is it your Lordships’ pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, I am grateful for that response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, Amendment 28 withdrawn. because I think the Minister—and I hate to say this to him—is wrong. Parliament will not have the ability to Amendments 29 to 34 not moved. scrutinise continuity agreements going forward that it did last time, because the Government have removed the reporting to Parliament on differences. Clause 2 agreed. The Minister has just outlined the Ukraine agreement. I was happy to mention it and pleased to hear the The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Minister refer to it. If that helps continuity in our McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, we now come trade, I support it strongly, but what the Minister to the group beginning with Amendment 35. I remind described as the title of the Ukraine agreement is not noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the what we had. As I mentioned before, there were four Minister should email the clerk during the debate. different criteria or four different categories. We had a deep and comprehensive free trade area with Ukraine, and it does not sound as if we are replicating that. In Amendment 35 the past, we had the fact that the Government were Moved by Lord Purvis of Tweed bringing forward reports to show any differences between the two. I am not sure if it is in order for the Minister 35: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— to reply to this, having summed up—I do not think it “Parliamentary approval of trade agreements is—but I am sure I will return to this further on. It (1) Negotiations towards a free trade agreement may not might even be on the next group. There are potentially commence until the Secretary of State has laid draft considerable differences and, under the Bill’s proposals, negotiating objectives in respect of that agreement before both Houses of Parliament, and a motion endorsing we would see that they are considerably weaker. I hope draft negotiating objectives has been approved by a resolution that the Minister might be able to reflect on that of both Houses of Parliament. during the course of Committee. (2) Prior to the draft negotiating objectives being laid, the I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Secretary of State must have— Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and can clarify to her that (a) consulted each devolved authority on the content these amendments relate to the sunset clause of the of the draft negotiating objectives, and GC 235 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 236
(b) produced a sustainability impact assessment informs the Parliament of any proposed agreements. I including, but not limited to, an assessment of the accept that that is the case here. The second element is impact on food safety, health, the environment and thattheCommission“automaticallysends”thenegotiating animal welfare. directives to the Parliament; that does not happen (3) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a here. The Council then free trade agreement to which this section applies unless a draft of the agreement in the terms in which it was to “adopts a decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations.” be presented for signature by parties to the agreement On the negotiating stage, it says: has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of “When the Commission plans to table negotiating proposals both Houses of Parliament. with its counterparts, it … informs the European Parliament (4) Before either House of Parliament may be asked to about them”. approve by resolution the text of a proposed free trade agreement, the Secretary of State must— That would not happen here, under the Government’s proposals. The Commission (a) consult each devolved authority on the text of the proposed agreement, and “also informs the European Parliament at every stage of the talks about the latest developments.” (b) laybefore both Houses a report assessing the compliance of the text of the proposed agreement with any The European Parliament may make resolutions about standards laid down by primary or subordinate the trade negotiations, based on those discussions legislation in the United Kingdom including, but with the Commission. Those resolutions are positions not limited to, legislation governing or prescribing which the committee could take on whether the talks standards on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare. should proceed to the next stage. That is not happening here, but it happened under our previous continuity (5) In this section— agreements. “devolved authority” has the meaning given in section 4(1) of this Act, and At the next stage, the Commission sends final texts “free trade agreement” means any agreement which to the Parliament. When the Government announced is— that we had reached agreement with Japan, the Minister (a) within the definition given in section 4(1) of this repeated the Statement by the Secretary of State. He Act, and told me and others in the House then that we should (b) an agreement between the United Kingdom and wait and see for the published text, which is very one or more partners that includes components that different from what our MEPs were able to have. At facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual the finalising stage, the document says: property.” “The Commission sends the Council and Parliament the text Member’s explanatory statement of the agreement”, The new Clause ensures parliamentary approval is required of when it is ready for signature. That will not happen the Government’s negotiating objectives prior to negotiations here either. Finally, the Council agrees the text for the commencing towards a free trade agreement; and requires parliamentary approval of free trade agreements before the UK signing; in effect, that is the equivalent of a Government becomes a signatory to any agreements. signing using the royal prerogative. I reached the conclusion that the Minister was right: this scrutiny Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, this group and accountability by elected parliamentarians was follows on naturally from the previous group and indeed comprehensive. relates to parliamentary approval of agreements. In This amendment, as with others in the group, is in moving Amendment 35, I will also speak to the others effect a continuity amendment. It seeks to roll over the in the group. provisions that UK parliamentarians had in the making I was pleased on Tuesday last week to hear the of FTAs, which they should also have going forward. I Minister allay the concerns of the noble Baroness, see no merit in disruption to parliamentary accountability. Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about the lack of I see less merit in Northern Ireland parliamentarians parliamentary accountability in continuity agreements. being disenfranchised twice: first, as they have no He said: MEPs to have a vote on trading regulations covering “I reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the agreements the single market, which this home nation will continue that this amendment seeks to exclude have been subject to to be a member of; secondly, at Westminster, where comprehensive EU scrutiny processes at mandate, negotiation they will have a say in trade agreements that will also and concluding stages. We were fully involved in those processes.”— affect them. This bare reality is now being seen in the [Official Report, 29/9/20; col. GC 31.] Northern Ireland Assembly, as referred to on an earlier Yes, we were involved through our MEPs. It is group by my noble friend Lady Suttie and others. worth developing what the Minister was referring to a The Government’s discontinuity proposals can be little further. I am grateful to him for bringing this seen in contrast to those of our biggest non-EU partner, comprehensive scrutiny process to the Committee’s the United States.It has been suggested that parliamentary attention. It prompted me to do a little more research, decision-making, accountability and approval along because I was interested in what he said. these lines would bind the hands of our negotiators. In the United States, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade 4.30 pm Priorities and Accountability Act 2015 sets the parameters The European Commission document, Negotiating of US trade policy and the negotiating objectives, as I EU Trade Agreements: Who Does What and How We mentioned in an earlier debate in Committee. Robert Reach a Final Deal, illustrates the stages at which Lighthizer, the US trade representative, does not strike elected parliamentarians are involved and have a say me as someone continuously bemoaning the fact that in the process.At the stage of preparation, the Commission his hands are tied by Congress. GC 237 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 238
Congress delegates to the Administration the Even at the outset of the CRaG process in 2009, a negotiation of agreements as our Parliament does to distinction was made that European treaties, which its Executive, but after the mandate has been agreed have different processes, would be considered as different by Congress and Congress has nominated participants from others. In these amendments, we argue that CRaG in the process, the trade representative knows the is the baseline and that we should put building on it on parameters of what will be acceptable and what will a statutory basis so that there is proper accountability not be. That strengthens his hands; it does not bind and scrutiny for Parliament for deep and comprehensive them. Now, our MPs will not be empowered much trading relationships going forward. I beg to move. more than being given information that the Government wish to share at the time of their choosing, at their discretion, on an ad hoc basis and not through a Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): I support legislative framework. Amendments 47 and 98, to which I have appended my name, in particular. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others have for the clarity with which he introduced his amendment indicated how these agreements are so different from in this small group. their predecessors. Liz Truss, the Secretary of State, When we come to a later group, I will address the says that we will go way beyond continuity in the Japan issue of what is lacking and make the case for why we agreement and have scrutiny that goes way below what need an international trade commission, but I will not was there for the original Japanese agreement. However, rehearse those arguments now. Instead, in support of the Minister has said that we will go beyond the CRaG the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, let me process for that agreement—but not as far as the say that, under the current situation of CRaG and the Japanese Parliament; the National Diet will vote in 21 days, we will be in a substantially worse position both its houses on the Government’s proposals before than the one in which we have found ourselves in the ratification. Why will we not have that ability? past. Having been an MEP for some 10 years, I was in Earlier in Committee, the Minister said that a position to look in detail at some of the agreements “when negotiating new free trade agreements we have gone above that were negotiated by the European Union on Britain’s and beyond the baseline CRaG process”.—[Official Report, 29/9/20; behalf. I am sorry to put my noble friend the Minister col. GC 32.] in this position but it seems extraordinary that we will Why? If CRaG is so good, why have the Government put ourselves in a weaker position than the one we decided to go beyond it? Why did they feel that they enjoyed as part of the European Union when we are should go above and beyond? What did they recognise meant to be strengthening our position by negotiating as deficient in the CRaG process and something that these deals in our own right. I believe that this area has they wanted to go above and beyond? Can the Minister to be addressed. explain? If his position—I commend him for it—is Amendment 47 sets out the case for a post-ratification that the CRaG process is the baseline, why not do this report and a timeframe within which it should be for all agreements going forward and make a statutory done. I think this is particularly important because I framework so that everything is clear? Parliamentary have looked at some of the figures that have been scrutiny and accountability should never be dependent made available to us by both the Library of the House on the discretion of Ministers telling us what they of Lords—I almost said “Library of the House of think we should know and when. Last week in the Commons”—and individual organisations such as the Commons, Mr Speaker warned of this in stark terms. Food and Drink Federation. Food and drink is our In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, greatest export, followed by—I am trying to think eloquently made the case that it would be unthinkable what it is called. In all three major industries, including to do this for our health system, so what is materially cars and whatever we discussed in Committee yesterday— different for our trade system? which will come back to me in a moment—all our Let me be clear on what the Minister has told us: exports to EU countries and overall have gone down that British parliamentarians were involved in substantially because of Covid. comprehensive scrutiny and accountability for the The one that bucked the trend, interestingly, was mandating, negotiating and concluding stages of our with Norway. I understand informally from the noble continuity agreements and that, for new agreements, Lord, Lord Purvis, that the rollover agreement has CRaG is the starting point and the Government are now been signed. That is good to know. Apparently, willing to go above and beyond it—all okay so far. our exports to Norway went up incrementally in the This amendment would put on a continuity footing a last year, by some 45%. I would be interested to know comprehensive approach that we believe is appropriate what caused that. The situation is that, apart from given the scale and breadth of trade agreements going Norway,we have suffered substantial falls in our exports. forward. It builds on the CRaG baseline. I will not repeat at length what was discussed earlier Finally, I have reflected on what Ministers have said but, because of tariffs imposed on Scotch whisky, we repeatedly,both during debates on this Bill and previously, have had a big hit on sales of Scotch whisky to the US. about the CRaG process. I reread the Second Reading Therefore, I believe there is a strong argument for debate on what was then the CRaG Bill. Interestingly, post-ratification support, as set out in Amendment 47. in his speech outlining it to Parliament, Jack Straw I would like a good reason from the Minister as to why made a point of separating EU treaties from the that should not be the case. It goes to the heart of the CRaG process. He said: case that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is making for “That is because there is already more extensive provision the whole group of amendments on why we need to requiring those to be ratified by this House and by the other strengthen parliamentary approval of agreements and place.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/09; col. 805.] initial scrutiny of them before they come into effect. GC 239 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 240
[BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING] I do not wish to argue for a veto for each of the Amendment 98 is in the name of the noble Lord, devolved nations in all circumstances. Ultimately, Lord Stevenson, and I have appended my name. It Parliament is sovereign and should decide, but Parliament proposes that powers in the Bill would not come into and the Government must consult with and listen to effect without a parliamentary vote on either anEU-UK the views and concerns of the elected representatives free trade agreement or ending the transition period in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast and, wherever possible, with no deal. I realise that we are looking at continuity work with their consent, not in the teeth of opposition. agreements and I cannot see why that should not be the So I support the principle behind this amendment, case with continuity agreements as well. He neatly sets and the whole group of amendments, to make it clear out why there should be further parliamentary scrutiny that the Bill must be amended to reflect the legitimate and a vote before a future trade agreement comes into role of Parliament and the devolved authorities in effect. determining the shape of our trade policy which, in I will look at one rollover agreement, on which the turn, can determine our freedom to act in so many noble Lord, Lord Purvis, secured a separate debate in areas of domestic policy. I feel we will need to return the last Parliament, and that was the agreement with to this on Report. the Faroe Islands. We export the small amount of £98 million-worth of goods to the Faroe Islands, but we Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, I am very pleased to import £200 million-worth, mostly of fish. That is follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. On the points again damaging, not just to the Scottish economy but she made about the relationship with the devolved to the rest of the UK where fish is produced. So there Administrations, when we were debating the Fisheries are a number of reasons why we as parliamentarians Bill before the summer, I was struck by how constructive need to keep an eye on the trade flow with these countries. the relationship with the devolved Administrations If we are not given the chance to—and I honestly do was in deciding what the fisheries regime should look not believe that the 21 days of the CRaG procedure is like and how it should be administered. There is a enough—in my view, the Minister should come up with good precedent there for how we should look at trade a very good reason whythere should be less parliamentary agreements, where they bear on the industry of particular approval than that which we enjoyed in the past. I parts of the United Kingdom. We will look at that more declare an interest, in that regard, as a former MEP. as we go through some of the other issues, but it was a very positive illustration of the Government’swillingness Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB): My Lords, I am and ability to work with the other Administrations. most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, In this group, I will speak in particular on for so eloquently laying out the issues. In some ways, I Amendment 63, which is in my name and that of the hesitate to come in after their vast experience. But, as noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The so often at this stage of proceedings, my purpose in purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the statutory supporting this amendment is not so much in the provision in the Constitutional Reform and Governance expectation that every word of it will be enacted—as Act. Noble Lords will recall the much-referred-to we are now in Committee—but to make a very important 21-day period. I am a member of the EU International point that I hope the Government will reflect on and Agreements Sub-Committee, and nothing I say today address. is any criticism of the way in which Ministers have been dealing with this new committee. On the contrary, We are one-fifth of the way through this 21st century, they are giving us the kind of access and information and on the eve of an era where, outside the EU, we will that we are looking for. be more reliant than ever on negotiating trade agreements. Trade policy is simply too important to be determined But the point is that, in addition to the 21 days, solely by Ministers wrapping themselves in some cloak there is a period before the laying of such a treaty of royal prerogative. As the Supreme Court reminded during which it can be looked at by the relevant us, prerogative powers should not be used to curtail committees of this House and the other place. It is a the rights of Parliament, and in particular the elected matter for Ministers how long that is. Once the document House, to hold the Government to account. is laid, the 21-day limit applies. Amendment 63 relates to the part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance 4.45 pm Act that makes it clear that Ministers can create Trade agreements are not just about tariffs and further periods beyond the 21 days. They can renew expanding consumer choice. They can also restrict our that period to allow for such a debate to take place in capacity to decide for ourselves the standards of the either House. food we eat and the way we manage our public services, Ministers have said that, as a matter of convention, so of course Parliament must have a role in setting the they will seek to allow such a debate wherever practical bounds of what the Government should seek to achieve and where the parliamentary timetable allows. My and what they are allowed to negotiate away in their point is that this should not be, in any sense, at the trade deals with countries that do not share our values discretion of Ministers. Where either of the committees or priorities. And of course Parliament must have the in the two Houses has resolved that the agreement or right to consent or not to the terms of a free trade treaty raises issues of sufficient significance that it agreement, once it has been negotiated. Given, as I requires a debate in that House—in the case of either rehearsed earlier in Committee, that trade agreements House, it might be critical of the agreement, and in the will inevitably impact on matters within devolved case of the other place, it could even go so far as competence, the devolved legislatures and Governments to seek to reject its ratification—Ministers must allow must also have a role in these matters. such a debate to take place before ratification itself occurs. GC 241 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 242
That is what this amendment does, and I hope it is of those amendments, but I will say two things. This effective in that regard. It requires Ministers to continue particular amendment was divided upon at Report to extend the 21-day period until such time as a debate stage in the other place, and negatived with a majority has taken place in either House where that has been of 63. That must make us consider whether,in due course, sought by the relevant committee.I hope that is reasonably we actually want the House of Commons to think again. straightforward. Are they likely to think again and why would they think Turning to other amendments in this group, it is again? They could change their minds because this rather important for us just to recall that the noble goes to a central issue, which is the Government’s use Lord, Lord Purvis—I mean no criticism of him—has of the prerogative power and the extent to which they retabled amendments that took the form of new clauses are mandated and their prerogative power is circumscribed at Report in the House of Commons. Amendments 36, by a mandate from either House. It also means some 37 and 38 bear upon the issue of a report from significant constraint on their negotiating flexibility. This Ministers to highlight where there is any divergence is different from the question of parliamentary scrutiny between the continuity agreement and the originating and the approval/ratification process. It can actually agreement between the European Union and the relevant support negotiators in that they can say, as American third country. As a former member of the EU Internal negotiators quite often do, “That wouldn’t pass on the Market Sub-Committee of our EU Committee here, I Hill.” They should be able to say, “That would not pass know that we looked at quite a number of these through Westminster.” It is something that we can use. continuity agreements, and the idea that they were cut When we come to look at this again at Report, we and pasted is actually rather limited. Even if they were should only send amendments back to the Commons intended to be a cut-and-paste job, as with the Switzerland which are asking them, in the other place, to strengthen agreement, for example, we were reminded that they the ratification process and the parliamentary scrutiny were a bit like Swiss cheese: more notable for what was leading to ratification, rather than suggesting that we left out than for what was included. should create a whole new assumption that the prerogative The divergence is really very important. Where the power of the Executive must be overridden by a mandate Japan agreement is concerned—and, of course, I have from Parliament for all of these treaty negotiations. I not seen it, but we hope to see it soon, as the Minister hope that Ministers will say,in relation to Amendment 63, said on Tuesday—it is not just an enhanced agreement; that they are prepared to see the conventional approach we also want to see how it relates specifically to the given statutory backing. EU-Japan agreement. For example, the EU has a most favoured nation clause built in, so is it the case that Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): My Lords, I that is triggered? Will we have a most favoured nation congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on clearly clause as well in our agreement with Japan, so that if laying out the issues in this group. I largely agree with the European Union starts to say, “Well, if you’ve almost everything that has been said. In fact, I put my given the United Kingdom this in this regard, then we name to Amendment 63 not only because I thought it want a compensating benefit”, would that benefit also was a good amendment but because the name of the accrue to us under a most favoured nation provision? noble Lord, Lord Lansley, looked a little bit lonely We previously discussed the question of tariff-rate there, so I thought I would support him even though quotas, and there are significant tariff-rate quotas we are not natural allies on almost anything. applicable to agricultural goods exported to Japan from I am not really one for rules and regulations—I tend the European Union. The question of how they are to to kick against that sort of regimentation—but I am be distributed is quite a significant issue. Is the Japan-UK essentially rather law-abiding, so I have quite honestly agreement wholly additional to the EU’s existing quota, been absolutely horrified by this Government. They are or is the EU quota being reallocated in ways that will breaking the law: they are actually sending two Bills to be beneficial to the UK, or is the UK reliant, as we your Lordships’ House in which they ask us specifically have probably discovered, on the rest of the European to break the law. I just think that that is dreadful. Union not using its quota in respect of some goods, in Parliament is actually recognised as the unwritten British which case the UK is actually dependent on whether constitution; it is the will and the voice of the people. that quota is used by the EU? These are rather significant We could make Parliament more democratic, but the issues, so the point of Amendments 36 to 38 is to Government are actually saying that they do not want require Ministers to tell us about that. to. They are almost saying: “Well, the discretion of Ministers can quite legitimately say, “Well, that is Ministers is as good as anything.” No, it is not; that is the job of the International Agreements Sub-Committee absolutely laughable. It sidesteps parliamentary scrutiny to go away and check.” We will do that job, but in the most horrendous way.Wecannot let the government it should not be a requirement to initiate such an majority in the Commons absolve the Government of examination. It should be taken as read by Ministers any meaningful scrutiny. We have to scrutinise and we that they should present such a report as part of the have to be tough. scrutiny process. I note that those new clauses at I very much hope that, when it comes to Report, we Report stage in another place were actually tabled by can pull a lot of these ideas together and ensure that six Conservative Members of Parliament. we send them back to the Commons and make it clear That brings me to Amendment 35 which, of course, that we are actually scrutinising in a way that MPs is the same as new Clause 4, which was considered at really ought to be but are not. From my point of view, Report stage in the Commons. I have the greatest respect we have to embed binding scrutiny into the Bill and we and sympathy for my former parliamentary neighbour, have to make the MPs feel, I hope, a little bit shamed if Jonathan Djanogly from Huntingdon, who was the mover they do not support it. GC 243 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 244
5 pm should be taking on that role. The amendments in this group—particularly Amendment 35—open the way Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]: My Lords, I for Parliament to do that. It is not a power grab, as I support Amendment 35. One of my noble friends has suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is about to just sent me a message to say that I was not muted and suggest once again, but a way of ensuring that this that Members could hear me cough and laugh. I parliamentary democracy is able to act as such. The apologise. I knew that I was not muted. I am not present Government should at least look seriously at these in person today because, while sitting through last amendments. week’s debate in Grand Committee, I started coughing. Lest I got into trouble in the current Covid circumstances, I thought that I should self-isolate. I have since been Baroness Noakes (Con): My Lords, it is indeed a tested and my cough is nothing to do with Covid—but pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of it was too late to attend in person today. Newnham, and to be reminded of a pleasant afternoon In Committee last week, the Minister said that he we spent last month debating reports from the did not draw a distinction between negotiating objectives Constitution Committee and the EU Committee on and a negotiating mandate. I think there is a huge the handling of treaties. I think it would be helpful to difference between them. Objectives are something remind ourselves of some of the things that were in which the Government might set themselves. The those reports. I have to say that that afternoon I was, Government might wish to achieve them with or without as I shall be today, no doubt, the only participant the support of Parliament. A mandate suggests something supporting the Government, and the rest of the rather narrower and that would be explicit in participants in that debate were repeating lines we Amendment 35. have heard already and will continue to hear on this issue. Clearly there is a question over the royal prerogative— The Constitution Committee looked in particular whether Parliament should be seeking to constrain the at the European Parliament processes which were Government. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, of Llandaff, pointed out, it should not be used by and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and it recommended Ministers as a way of precluding the role of Parliaments. not replicating them. There was a very clear finding The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised some concerns that we should not replicate them, and the committee about a mandating approach. Amendment 35 has pointed out the differences with the European Parliament two parts. The first is about negotiating objectives. as a supranational Parliament. The noble Lord, Subsection (3) is about becoming a signatory to a free Lord Purvis of Tweed, earlier referred to Jack Straw in trade agreement. I hope that the Government might relation to the CRaG Act. Noble Lords might be consider the two parts separately. I am not expecting interested that he gave evidence to the Constitution the Minister necessarily to accept that Parliament Committee and advised it that he thought that copying should be mandating the Government’s negotiating the European Parliament’s processes was a rabbit hole objectives—although I would support them doing so. down which we should not go. Could the Minister address the two issues separately, The other important aspect of the Constitution because mandating and approval are clearly rather Committee’s findings was that we should not fetter the separate issues? royal prerogative and that some of the processes that A month ago in Grand Committee, we debated have been put forward by noble Lords, and that have treaty scrutiny on the basis of three reports from your been put forward again today, do indeed fetter the Lordships’ House. On that occasion, I had the honour royal prerogative, as my noble friend Lord Lansley of speaking immediately after the noble Baroness, said. That applies in particular to a role in negotiating Lady Noakes. She expressed considerable concern about objectives. The committee did not recommend that the role of Parliament and suggested that, Parliament should fetter the royal prerogative in that “the three reports being debated show that there is an insatiable way. beast lurking in the committees of your Lordships’ House. This That debate and these debates come back to a lack beast wants more information and more involvement on more of happiness among noble Lords with the CRaG aspects of treaty activity.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. GC 123.] processes. I remind noble Lords that the CRaG processes I do not believe that your Lordships’ committees, were not invented when the CRaG Bill was brought or the House as a whole, or the House of Commons, forward by the last Labour Government. Those processes are “beasts”, but I do believe that both Houses of were based on the Ponsonby rule, which has existed Parliament need sufficient information to be able to for a very long time and served Parliament extremely scrutinise treaties. It is also appropriate for us to have well on the ratification of international treaties. The sight of negotiating objectives before the Government CRaG Act effectively codified those processes into law start to negotiate. As various noble Lords have and recognised the role that Parliament should have, already pointed out, the scope of trade agreements is which is at the end of the process once the royal extensive. The idea that Ministers can hide behind the prerogative has been used to negotiate treaties. royal prerogative is not appropriate in the 21st century. There has been a lot of talk about whether 21 days These are huge issues. Parliament needs a role. As is enough. We have to remember that it is 21 sitting my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed outlined in days, so that would be a minimum of five weeks and considerable detail, the European Parliament has a sometimes quite a lot longer, so this is not a minimalist significant role in scrutinising and approving treaties. period for parliamentary committees to go about doing Now that the United Kingdom has left the European their work, and I believe that on the whole that has Union, scrutiny is down to Westminster. Surely we proved adequate for scrutiny take place. GC 245 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 246
Coming on to whether extra time is needed, which concerns were also expressed as to whether it was possible to is in Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend conduct meaningful parliamentary scrutiny within the timetable Lord Lansley, we have to remember that CRaG allows permitted under the CRAG Act.” the other place not to ratify a treaty—so, de facto, the We had a good debate; I repeat the thanks to noble other place already in effect has the power to require Lords who participated in it. Sadly, the noble Lord, extra time by the simple act of denying approval of the Lord Grimstone, was not the Minister on that occasion, ratification. That can be done an infinite number of so we did not have the benefit of hearing his responses times. The other place does not have the power to to those reports—I hope that today will provide an make changes to treaties but does have the power opportunity for him to do so. However, I believe that simply to refuse ratification, and that can be used he shares our belief, if I dare take his name in vain, effectively if the Government were perceived to be that parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements acting reasonably. As my noble friend Lord Lansley is crucial and that we have moved on from the days said, the Government have said that they will respond when it was thought that the sovereign—read now the where possible to any reasonable request for further Executive—could simply enter into agreements without time, and I think that that is a perfectly reasonable any involvement of Parliament. position for us to be in. I acknowledge that the CRaG process has changed I will comment on only one other amendment in this, at least to some extent. However, it is still ex post this group, Amendment 98, which seems to be facto—after the agreement has been made—which another opportunity for Parliament to disapprove of gives rise to the serious problem that Parliament, a no-deal Brexit by denying this Act to come into whether it is the other House or the comments that effect if it does not approve a no-deal Brexit. As we this House make on it, has to take it or leave it. Under know, the Government do not want a no-deal Brexit, CRaG, strictly interpreted, it is not until the deal is but we may not achieve a free trade agreement with done that the matter is subject to scrutiny, and then, in the EU, and if we have to exit on a no-deal basis, that the case of the other place, the sole weapon is to is what we have to do. Had this amendment gone into withhold consent. the Bill we were considering a couple of years ago, it 5.15 pm might have had some purpose to it for those not of a Brexit persuasion to have a last gasp at trying to keep It is worth reflecting for a moment, as we talk about us in the EU. However, with the current electoral the respective roles of Parliament and the Executive, result in the other place, with a large majority that on what was said a very long time ago by the great was elected on a clear campaign promise to get Brexit constitutional expert Walter Bagehot. He said: done, I cannot believe that Amendment 98 has any “Treaties are quite as important as most laws, and to require real place in the Bill, and I hope very much that the the elaborate assent of representative assemblies to every word of the law, and not to consult them even as to the essence of the noble Lord will not press it if it comes back on treaty, is prima facie ludicrous.” Report. That makes the point very well that Parliament ought to have a role in the conclusion of international Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]: My Lords, this is the first agreements. time I speak on the Bill; I apologise to noble Lords When we looked at it, we took a somewhat pragmatic that I have not done so before. I am prompted to do so approach. We concluded, as set out in paragraphs 31 because of the references that have been made in this and 32 of our report on working practices—if I may debate and in some of the amendments to the EU direct the Committee’sattention to it—that we appreciated International Agreements Sub-Committee, which I that the Government were have the honour to chair. I want to speak not so much “reluctant to amend the legislative framework and review the about the detail of some of the amendments —I timetable for scrutiny”. cannot speak with the authority of the committee as it So the report set out a series of pragmatic has not taken views on some of them as such—but to recommendations, which we describe as lay down a marker. If some of these amendments come “proportionate recommendations to facilitate effective Parliamentary back on Report, I may well not be quite so reticent. treaty scrutiny, without the need for legislative change.” I will make some basic points about the job that we We concluded, in paragraph 32, that: have now been tasked to do by your Lordships’ House, “Time and experience will tell whether it is possible to conduct which is to scrutinise international agreements—not meaningful scrutiny within the current timescales. Much will simply trade agreements, although they are obviously depend on how far the Government is willing to share information an important part of that. Reference has already been in advance of laying an agreement under the CRAG Act.” made to the debate which took place on 7 September, I immediately recognise, as did the noble Lord, if my memory serves me right, on three reports: the Lord Lansley—who also sits on the committee—a report that we had produced on Treaty Scrutiny: tribute to what has happened so far and particularly to WorkingPractices,alongsidethereportof theConstitution the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. He has been making Committee, which is chaired by my noble friend an effort to make sure that our committee is kept Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the Lessons Learned report informed of what is taking place. Indeed, we are due of your Lordships’ EU Committee. As we noted in to see him again on Monday. That leaves us following our report, which is the most recent of them, at the pragmatic approach to see how it goes. We also paragraph 23: gave clear warning in that report that, if we do not “all three reports called for greater transparency; a role for think we are able to do the job we have been given, we Parliament much earlier in the process of negotiating international will not hesitate to push for legislative change. The Bill agreements; and a proper role for the devolved institutions. Significant and the amendments being made may pre-empt that. GC 247 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 248
[LORD GOLDSMITH] The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness I emphasise, as have the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, the noble Tweed, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Lord, Lord McNally, has withdrawn, so I call the Pickering and Lady Smith of Newnham, the big change noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead. that has taken place in relation to agreements. It is one of the reasons that our committee was established: no Baroness Fairhead (Con): My Lords, before I turn longer will agreements, trade agreements in particular, to the amendments, I will begin by welcoming my have the detailed scrutiny that took place through the noble friend the Minister to the House most warmly, EU process, which involved Members who pursued as this is the first time that I have spoken on the Trade British interests.I understand that is why the Government Bill since he assumed his role. As I have been participating say there is less need for scrutiny of continuity agreements, both remotely and in person, I congratulate him not but we are also looking at the possibility of new only on his clear grip of the subject matter but on the agreements. We have already started to inquire into assuredness with which he has steered the Bill through. the United States, Australia and New Zealand, where I am particularly struck by the effective working there will not be the benefit of scrutiny engaged in by relationships that he appears to have developed with any EU body. my noble friends and with Members across the House. We very much welcome the approach of the noble I have little doubt that, combined with his experience Lord, Lord Grimstone, and the department he represents, and superb track record, this will enable him to be a but whether that is sufficient is under consideration very effective and enormously respected Member of and it is important to know whether it works. Our this House. report raises concerns, some of which have been raised I am delighted that the Trade Bill has returned to in some of the amendments: consultation of the devolved your Lordships’ House, not because we shed much Administrations; keeping us informed and advised of blood, sweat and tears over its previous incarceration— negotiations; and early sight of the text, because of although we did—but because it is an important Bill the timetable. Given those, it follows that, if the for the UK, her businesses and her people. It creates Government were to accept, for example, the amendment important tools that we will need for the UK to step proposed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of into the future as a strong, independent and high-integrity Balmacara, we would be content. I do not anticipate trading partner. I am also happy that it remains, in the that happening, but it does not mean that we should words of my noble friend the Minister, all about not consider the amendments that have been put forward. continuity and certainty—two elements that businesses We will be looking closely at the main issue of the large and small, up and down the country, really value. terms and processes for scrutiny. The way we do our However, that does not mean that the Bill cannot be work will follow through and, ultimately, take a view made even better. As I have said on the Floor of the on whether there is enough in the process to enable us House and as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of to do the job that I said we need to do. Balmacara, rightly recalled last week, it is my view Let me turn specifically to one aspect. It seems to that me that, in his Amendment 63, the noble Lord, “no legislation passes the scrutiny of this House without being Lord Lansley, is absolutely right. I, too, would expect improved”.—[Official Report, 6/3/19; col. 615.] the Government to allow the time for debate—that is a That is why I want to speak to Amendments 57 and 63 critical part of the process that we are engaged in—but in particular, and to address the issues of transparency, would it not be better if that were guaranteed, rather engagement and parliamentary scrutiny. I have one than us having to depend on the good will and discretion question and one request for the Minister, both of of the Government? which I will come to. I too look forward to hearing what the Government I want to be clear that I am not speaking about say but, overall, this debate and these amendments give transparency, engagement and scrutiny of continuity the Government an opportunity to show that they are trade agreements that are expected to have no significant truly committed to the role of Parliament in scrutiny. changes. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that Obviously, warm words will not be enough, however they have already undergone rigorous scrutiny in both sincerely they are expressed. Of course I recognise that the EU and the UK, and I am content that the the roles of the Executive and Parliament are different, Government will continue to publish parliamentary but Parliament has a major role in the scrutiny of reports for the remainder of such agreements that are international agreements, and we hope that the transitioning. Further,I note that anysecondary legislation Government will find a way to make sure that that is required to implement these agreements will be subject effective. to the affirmative procedure, requiring debates in both I agree with those who have said that, as we have Houses. However, it is here that I have my question. seen in the international comparisons that we have Can my noble friend confirm that this Bill’s scrutiny looked at, having parliamentary involvement can give provisions apply exclusively to continuity trade agreements government negotiators a weapon—that is, an additional and cannot be used for future trade agreements, for it piece of leverage so that they can tell their interlocutors strikes me that the wording could be construed as so why they do not think that a particular thing being doing? negotiated for will pass through the parliamentary process. Turning to the future free trade agreements, a number So I very much look forward to hearing what the of your Lordships have highlighted the importance noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and other noble Lords and extensive reach of modern FTAs. They cover areas have to say.If we come back to this matter in amendments far beyond trade alone and include, among others, on Report, I will look forward to saying more about it. geopolitical commitments and environmental, food GC 249 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 250 and other standards.Your Lordships have also highlighted 5.30 pm the transparency and genuine engagement permitted I was also encouraged by the Minister’s opening by the previous scrutiny process to bodies such as civil speech at Second Reading in which he referred to the groups, industry bodies, trade unions and many more, proposal by the International Trade Committee of the not least the devolved nations.Let us be clear: transparency other place for a structure providing such scrutiny and with no ability to engage is a much weaker proposition. confirmed that the department was working with it Finally, a number of your Lordships, including my and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, of Kinlochard and Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble on which my noble friend Lord Lansley also sits, and Baroness, Lady Kramer,have previously highlighted—as taking it very seriously. This could enable the UK to did my noble friend Lord Lansley today—the benefit benefit from the rich experience of a number of your of having a rigorous scrutiny process which, properly Lordships,with information being shared on a confidential structured, can have the benefit of strengthening, not basis to allow Parliament to scrutinise negotiations weakening, one’s negotiating hand. To be clear, I am effectively from the start to the finish and throughout not suggesting any change to the fundamental the process.This route should also allow for the committee constitutional principle that underpins the negotiation reports to require further scrutiny in both Houses, at a of all international treaties, including FTAs: that the minimum highlighting areas of concern to be debated. making and amending of, and withdrawing from, such However, I believe it is for the Government to bring treaties is a royal prerogative function. forward detailed, specific plans on transparency, However, taking all this into account, I continue to engagement and effective parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that further detail and improvement is required believe that working with and through the committees in both transparency and engagement with wider of this House and the other place and any successors audiences and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. I that this Parliament deems appropriate is the way to shall direct my comments to two main amendments: go. That is why, although I support the underlying Amendment 57 in the names of the noble Lord, merits of these amendments, I do not intend to support Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, them at this stage. However, I have a request and I urge Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and Amendment 63 in the the Minister to expedite the work with the IAC and names of my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble the ITC to consider specifically the elements of Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as they aim to Amendments 57 and 63 and to bring forward clear, address these issues. They have been laid out elegantly satisfactory plans for enhanced transparency, genuine by those who have put them forward. On Amendment 63, engagement and rigorous comprehensive scrutiny by I agree strongly with words of the noble and learned Report or as soon as practicable after that. Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the ability to have a debate, if an issue has been raised on any of the future The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, having FTAs, is important. On Amendment 57, I support made my maiden speech a week or so ago at Second some, but not all, of its provisions. I very strongly Reading of the Bill, I am very grateful to the noble support the need to consult. I am not fully seized by Lord, Lord Purvis, for proposing Amendment 35, to the concept of a mandate rather than objectives, but I which I wish to speak, without, I have to say, the think there are elements in Amendment 57 that should expertise of other contributors, but I shall speak in be considered and pondered by the Government. favour of the amendment on two counts, only simply, Let me turn to transparency and engagement. Clearly, as I do not wish to repeat what has already has been transparency needs to respect the commercial, confidential said. elements of negotiations. That said, interested parties First, the need for parliamentary support in both across the UK need to have sufficient information in a Houses at a preparatory stage of reaching a trade timely fashion about the areas of discussion, the ability agreement by setting objectives is wise and prudent. If to submit their views and objectives and clear mechanisms parliamentary support in agreeing those objectives is for feeding in and engaging. The Government have required only once work on an agreement has begun established a number of bodies to enable this to happen: and is in its later stages, it will prove nearly impossible the Strategic Trade Advisory Group and 11 sector-based for Parliament to wind the clock back, debate the trade advisory groups. This is a terrific start, but I objectives and revise a carefully crafted piece of work encourage the Government to ensure that those bodies that has already begun. Undoing what has been worked are kept under review, to ensure that the appropriate, on over a period with the other party in that agreement rich level of engagement is achieved to enable businesses could also do serious damage to relationships and to contribute. could threaten the finalising and reaching of an agreement, Turning to parliamentary scrutiny, I realise that the so early scrutiny by both Houses on objectives is Command Paper of February 2019 is not binding on essential. I know the argument against that position is this Government, but I am happy to observe that it that it might delay the process with lengthy debates has been complied with in practice. It is an excellent and endless amendments on all kinds of detail, but base from which to build. It required the previous surely a mechanism could be found to speed up the Government to produce an outline approach to process even, say, in this House, and enable a fair wind negotiations, including its objectives, and it had to be to be given to agreeing the necessary objectives. Once accompanied by a detailed economic analysis. It also such objectives have been agreed in one instance surely committed the Government to publishing progress those that follow will not prove to be very different reports after each negotiating round, and annual trade and could proceed more speedily. Agreements will reports across all live negotiations. vary hugely, but objectives will remain much the same. GC 251 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 252
[THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN] Sometimes it is appropriate to simply say “no” as, The second reason for my support for Amendment 35 for example, in the case of the topical, but historic—and is that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the proposed not completely analogous—piece of legislation which new clause calls for a sustainability impact assessment on ended slavery in the British Empire. There was no “food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.” more argument after that. In the real world, a policy Selecting just two of that list, the NHS and agriculture, statement leaves the matter in question on the table both need to be protected from agreements driven and hence in play. As a number of noble Lords have solely by lucrative financial gains. No one can argue said, the CRaG Act is weak and reactive, not proactive. against shrewd business arrangements, but finance is I believe a strong framework is needed around all the not the only factor to be considered. The duty to Government’sactivities in this area, as these amendments ensure the future of our fragile farming industry is propose. At this stage, I am not concerned by the crucial. Any trade deal that strengthens the decline of minutiae. Others in this debate know much more that sector is unwelcome. Any trade deal that advocates or about this than I do. allows the further dismantling or privatisation of the No doubt, the Government will say that they need NHS must be resisted, and this amendment gives a flexibility to negotiate. They do. All Governments do, strong assurance that those protections are guaranteed wherever they are and however they operate. They and are in place for years to come. We have to keep in should not cross our domestically generated red lines. mind more than just the present. Those who follow This was what taking back control was all about. It is after us will pick up the consequences of our decisions the logical corollary of Brexit. and it is because of the seriousness of these concerns that the Bill without Amendment 35 is lacking. I The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]: My Lords, I support give my wholehearted support to the noble Lord’s Amendment 35 on parliamentary scrutiny.I am grateful amendment. to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for tabling it. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I felt she was a Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]: My Lords, I speak in little bit nostalgic for the European Parliament. That support of all the amendments in this group. This is was not surprising. I have felt it too. It is not nostalgia perhaps a paradox, as they may—to some extent—be we need but the procedure and ideas that came from mutually exclusive. They also touch on a number the European Parliament when we are discussing CRaG. of other amendments on the agenda of today’s I will leave it at that. proceedings. However, I was encouraged by the Minister’s reply As I said in Committee on Tuesday, the congruence to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, earlier on the of leaving the European Union and the royal prerogative enhanced scrutiny process, and of course this is only in a world which is very different from the 1960s and the preamble for Report, which will be very important. 1970s, leaves much domestic policy, in practice if not I hope and expect that the Minister will be sympathetic in theory, beyond Parliament’s reach. Since the United to this amendment. He should be, because I believe Kingdom Government are accountable to the United the Government have been working hard to stretch the Kingdom Parliament for all their activities, both inside CRaG framework above the baseline so that they can and outside the jurisdiction, Parliament has a genuine then cover a range of issues. For example, the new locus to impose—or at least place—a framework around FCDO is looking at improving the EMs on human government activities abroad. These activities directly rights, and in Committee we have already covered determine what happens in this country. matters such as food safety, health and the environment, Now that we have left the European Union, we are which are all to be covered by a sustainability EM, as in reality—to put it in crude terms—tarting our way mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. All these around the foreign and trade ministries of the world in issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, so sensitively search of improved and new agreements. This is an mentioned, and as the Minister knows, are of huge inherent consequence of Brexit. In the circumstances, importance and concern to the public, and they will it is the only sensible response to where we find ourselves. loom large in the US deal. I know we are dealing with I have no complaints about this, though being a Parliament now, but we are also aware of the public. suppliant does not necessarily enhance one’s negotiating Amendments 36 to 38 are also needed because they strength. set out the terms of the reporting arrangements required My complaint is about the goods we have for sale. by Parliament for every relevant free trade agreement Everything is more or less on the table, as is generally so that it can be examined and debated properly the case in the grubby world of politics and, for that within the narrow timeframe of 21 days. I was fascinated matter, in the marketplace. Almost everything is for by the conversation of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, sale unless it is expressly stated that it is not. There are about Amendment 63, which we will come back to. some things which should be stated as non-negotiable NGO and trade union interest in trade deals and from the outset. I disagree with my noble friend fair trade these days is at a much higher technical level Lord Lansley and agree with the noble Baroness, and, although stakeholders and civil society are consulted Lady Smith. In a negotiation, there is a difference in advance, they also need to be properly informed between boundaries and aspirations. This is illustrated after negotiations are over and as every deal passes by the slightly surprising combination of the noble through Parliament. That is part of the process described Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Adonis, in these amendments. Weowe a lot to Jonathan Djanogly, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, as has been mentioned, and while I am not sure why signing the same amendment which we shall discuss reporting comes up in later amendments, I support later in the passage of this Committee. those too. GC 253 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 254
The Bill is restricted to rollover agreements, but I back in negotiations on nearly all of the 40 rollover understand from previous ministerial replies and agreements that we have already approved. So the statements that the Government are generally and suggestion in Amendment 47 is that there would be a genuinely ready to listen to suggestions and, as has five-year review period of those agreements, particularly been said, open to improving if not amending the to facilitate our engagement there. CRaG process. We all look forward to the Minister’s Amendment 53, which is in my name, sets the scene confirmation of this. for a much more ambitious rolling programme of Reporting on an agreement is also important for five-year reviews of the functions of each of the FTAs the scrutiny committees themselves, because it is part approved under the Bill, which can include all of of their mandate to follow its progress in the months them, not just rollovers. It lists an ambitious range of following ratification. I think we were grateful for the considerations to be brought into the review, which I intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord hope will commend itself to the Minister. I look Goldsmith. The recently concluded Japan agreement, forward to his positive response. In particular, it focuses which we will shortly all be examining, will provide the on our involvement with developing countries, as specified first test of these arrangements. in Section 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which we have not had the opportunity to Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, discuss but which is relevant to the whole process of I thank all concerned for contributing to this debate, trade. It perhaps needs more attention than we have which has been of a very high standard. We should given it in this debate so far. all acknowledge and thank the noble Baroness, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her Lady Fairhead, for deciding to use this opportunity to support of Amendment 98. Despite the comments of speak to the Committee about her experiences on the the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is not about 2018-19 Bill. I was sorry to hear about the blood and refighting Brexit; she may not have noticed but we sweat, although I can confirm that there was just as have left the EU. This amendment tries to put Parliament much on our side of the table as I am sure she was back in the picture to debate the outcome of the current correct in describing was on hers. If there were any negotiations with the EU on a free trade agreement. tears, I do apologise for that; we did not have those, We do not really know where we are on this. We and I am sorry if we were guilty of inflicting them. understand that progress is still being made and that Because we have a range of amendments here around both sides are still discussing, but each side seems as this topic, we have a variety of suggestions for the skilled as the other in disinformation and threats. We Government to consider on how they might engage are not therefore certain about where it is going. formally with Parliament. The common thread for all But I think it is fair to point out that in their of them is that they build on steps already taken and, election manifesto the Government put forward the as others have said—I support this—many of these suggestion that they would be able to negotiate a deal are very welcome indeed. Amendment 35 in particular easily, which they described as “oven-ready”. It is only sets a very high standard at the top end of the scale, appropriate that, if there is a deal, Parliament should where all approvals and all considerations of final have the chance to debate and approve it; or, if there is remit have to be done by both Houses of Parliament, no deal, Parliament should still have the chance to with full engagement with the devolved Administrations. debate and approve that. This is not about refighting There are some very good points in this amendment, old battles. It is suggesting that Parliament should which, broadly speaking, goes with the grain of where have a place going forward in these issues. I look we are coming from. However, as other noble Lords forward to the Minister’s response to this suggestion. have said, this may well not be the time to repeat this amendment back to the Commons, because it was In a quick tour d’horizon of this group, I come to considered and defeated at that stage. I take very Amendment 57, which is in my name and supported strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, whom I thank. I said: namely, that there are elements in what is in front would also like to talk about Amendment 63. Like the of us today that would allow for some progress to be noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, I see quite a lot of made. I hope very much that the Minister will be able commonality in the approach to this issue through to signal his willingness to engage further with us these amendments. I wonder whether we could have when he comes to respond. further debates about this outside Committee. Amendment 57 would build on the amendment agreed 5.45 pm by the House of Lords in March 2019. As I hope the Perhaps I may speak to the amendments which are Minister agrees,it also builds on the work the Government in my name or related to them. Amendment 47 has a have done in involving the Select Committee on slight change of gear. We know that most rollover International Trade and the EU Sub-Committee on agreements are still being done in very short order—we International Agreements. In saying this, I endorse the heard about the new one today. There are a lot still to comments made by my noble and learned friend come, but further negotiations may well also be required Lord Goldsmith, who spoke very powerfully earlier in once they are done. This amendment tries to pick up the debate. that thought. Once we have passed the transition As other noble Lords have said, Amendment 57 period and the free trade agreement with the EU, if tries to finesse the current ad hoc arrangements, brought there is one, is signed and implemented, and once the in by agreement between the Government and the broader picture emerges of where the UK stands on Select Committees, and the very limited parliamentary international trade, it is almost certain that we will be scrutiny that the Government can provide under the GC 255 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 256
[LORD STEVENSON OF BALMACARA] quo on parliamentary scrutiny is just not acceptable to CRaG Act of 2010 which, as everyone has said, suffers this House, to civic society or to the people of this mainly because it is ex post hoc and because it is country. I am sure that we could find a mutually nuclear in terms of how it can be dealt with. In this acceptable way forward and I appeal to the Minister regard I welcome Amendment 63 from the noble to use the time that we will have before Report to find Lord, Lord Lansley; crucially, it would secure the time a common, sensible solution and a way forward. for a debate on any future trade deal because it would ensure that the Government honoured their commitment Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): My Lords, the to provide the space for the committees, and Parliament, amendments that I will speak to now all relate to the to have the appropriate debates. It does not get over crucial role of parliamentary scrutiny. Having listened the question of why we are dealing with this in an ex carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, post hoc arrangement, but it does give us the timeframe I believe that, if one puts CRaG and the royal prerogative that is missing from the debate. to one side, we are in much closer agreement about So I say to the Minister that Amendment 57 may what the role of the House and the committees should well be too detailed, and that the current arrangements be in this matter than people might think. for how committees consider all the documentation Before I start, let me answer the question posed by and paperwork provided are sufficient to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the Ukraine agreement proper scrutiny is given. But, as others have said, I that we have just signed. The noble Lord researches wonder whether this is the time to get this into the Bill his interventions so carefully that I fear that he was and ensure that it is appropriately laid out for the right and I was wrong, but I am pleased to confirm future. There is no other country which denies its that we will voluntarily publish a report on Ukraine, Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise trade Bills, highlighting the differences between the agreement and no other area of public policy which is off-limits that we have signed and the underlying continuity to Parliament. These omissions stand starkly exposed agreement. Also before I start, I thank my noble by the debate today. friend Lady Fairhead for her references to me, which I have been trying to step back from the individual were more than kind. I thank her very much for that. words of the amendments and to understand why the I begin this grouping with Amendment 35, in the Government are so adamantly against agreeing to names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox. open up deals to better and, more importantly,appropriate As I said, I believe that the noble Lords and I, along parliamentary scrutiny. With a majority of 80, they with many of your Lordships, share common ground have control over the elected House, so it cannot be a in so far as we agree that it is important for Parliament matter of simple arithmetic. They have already promised to effectively scrutinise the Government’s trade policy most of the collaboration requested of them by the and have sufficient information in order to do that. As committees and their attempts to engage with wider I have made clear, both at Second Reading and civic society is heading in the right direction. They say subsequently during our debates in Committee, this that the CRaG Act 2010 gives Parliament the final say, Bill primarily concerns continuity for our existing EU even though it is patently obvious that, by controlling free trade agreements, although noble Lords may be the timetable and framing the debate around a negative pleased to hear that I will not restrict my comments in procedure, this is in truth a conditional and not a this debate just to those continuity agreements. wholehearted engagement. This Bill does not and has never been intended to This boils down to the simple question of whether, deal with the scrutiny processes for all our free trade by changing the CRaG Act process and agreeing to agreements, including those with new partners such as parts of what is in Amendment 57, you can get something Australia. In formulating our approach to scrutiny of that would be workable in the short and medium future international trade agreements, we have, of terms and for the long term, subject always to the course, rightly and properly, considered the approach experience that has been gained as we go ahead. When of international comparators, including the United you add in the credit that the Government would get States and countries with similar Westminster-style for stepping away from the absurdity of using the democracies such as New Zealand and Canada. The royal prerogative powers, the increase in credibility at UK Parliament will be able to conduct scrutiny in a the negotiating table that would come from the way that is appropriate and proportionate to the UK’s requirement to get parliamentary approval for deals constitutional context and in areas goes beyond that being negotiated, the better decision-making and input of New Zealand and Australia. that could flow from using the skills and expertise of The making of treaties, including international trade both Houses across the wide range of topics that are now agreements, is a function of the Executive held under included in trade deals and the strengthened position the royal prerogative. At the same time, it has long in negotiations that would come from all the devolved been held—and I emphasise that this Government Administrations, you have to ask what is really going continue to hold—that Parliament should have on here. When people struggle to explain why they are the opportunity to scrutinise treaties effectively. The trying to shore up their weak position and will not Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 engage, there has to be another agenda. What is it? confirmed, after a process of consultation, the respective The whole purpose of Parliament is scrutiny and roles of the Government and Parliament in treaty the process requires active engagement. The Government making. The Government will continue to support are hiding behind the royal prerogative in order to and facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of treaties under behave like a despotic ruler of ancient times. This CRaG, including laying the agreement before Parliament debate has once again demonstrated that the status for a period of 21 sitting days for full scrutiny.Continuity GC 257 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 258 agreements will—and in many cases have already been— Regarding the devolved Administrations, international scrutinised through the framework set out in CRaG. relations, including the negotiation of free trade Additionally, noble Lords will know that we have agreements, are a reserved matter under the devolution voluntarily published parliamentary reports alongside settlements. The suggestion made by the noble Baroness, signed continuity agreements, outlining any major Lady Finlay, about giving the DAs a formal role changes with the underlying EU agreement. As I said would not therefore be appropriate, but as we heard earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can confirm from my noble friend Lord Younger, there are many that we will continue to publish these reports for points of contact between the DAs and the Government remaining continuity agreements. on these matters. The UK Government will therefore I will set out for noble Lords what the Government be acting on behalf of the whole of the UK in free have committed to in this area, because I believe that trade agreement negotiations, and our overall principle we have moved significantly from our original position, is to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from any having listened to the views shared by colleagues across deal. As a reserved matter, it would not be appropriate both Houses. The Government have committed that, to give the devolved Administrations a statutory role, before we begin FTA negotiations, we will publish our as opposed to an informal role, in international trade negotiating objectives, alongside a response to the negotiations. public consultation, and an initial economic assessment. Of course, the UK Government recognise that modern In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, trade deals cover an increasingly wide scope and interact Lady Smith, this is the mandate that we give our with areas of devolved competence. As such, we recognise negotiators and it is covered by the royal prerogative. I that the devolved Administrations have an interest in understand that the noble Baroness finds this old- international trade policy and DIT works closely with fashioned, but that is the way our constitution works. I them to deliver policy that reflects the interests of was pleased that my noble friend Lady Noakes spoke all parts of the UK. In recognition of the importance in confirmation of this. of this relationship, we have recently launched a This has already been undertaken for our negotiations new ministerial forum for trade with the devolved with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. In its Administrations. This has already met to discuss our most recent report, the EU International Agreements approach to FTA negotiations and will meet regularly Sub-Committee praised the Government’s approach as negotiations progress. to pre-negotiation information sharing, stating that these publications had been helpful in initiating its In line with our commitment, the Government have scrutiny work. We feel that we have nothing to hide in already published an initial economic assessment for this area. In addition, the Government have committed each of the new FTAs we are currently negotiating. to keeping Parliament updated on the progress of Once negotiations have concluded, we will publish an negotiations. We have done this throughout current updated assessment based on what has been negotiated. new FTA negotiations, with I and my fellow Trade This will be presented to Parliament alongside the Ministers having met with a large number of colleagues final treaty text and an Explanatory Memorandum to to update on progress and discuss trade policy issues. I aid parliamentarians in their scrutiny role, in addition have always been keen—and have held round tables to the CRaG procedure. and briefing sessions—whenever there have been new As I have set out, this Bill is not about free trade developments to discuss. I can absolutely confirm that agreements with countries that the EU did not have an throughout, we have engaged and will continue to agreement with before 31 January 2020, but, none the engage, closely with the EU International Agreements less, I trust I have reassured the Committee that the Sub-Committee—the IAC—in your Lordships’ House Government are committed to a transparent trade and the International Trade Committee in the other policy and to engaging with Parliament. place. I have taken steps in my department to ensure that we treat the IAC absolutely on all fours with the Next, I would like to address Amendment 36, which ITC, which clearly should be the appropriate way that is also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis we interact with your Lordships’ committee. and Lord Fox. Noble Lords will be aware that despite the previous Bill falling, we have committed to and are 5.59 pm delivering on publishing these parliamentary reports Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. on a voluntary basis to assist noble Lords with the scrutiny of agreements. Wehave provided this additional 6.05 pm scrutiny, over and above the statutory framework set out in CRaG, in response to the genuine concerns Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): It must have been raised by noble Lords. hard enough following my remarks without a break, so I hope that noble Lords do not find it even harder now. While it is of course true that we have not carried Once an FTA has been negotiated, it will need to be forward the amendment from the previous Bill, we implemented and ratified. I remind the Committee have not done so because it is unnecessary. We have that free trade agreements cannot of themselves change adhered to the commitment we gave, as our record domestic law. If changes to legislation are required, demonstrates. We have not required a legislative Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and commitment to see the benefit of these parliamentary approve them in the normal way. I hope that this reports, which have been invaluable in assisting noble demonstrates that the Government are committed to Lords with the scrutiny of continuity agreements. Parliament being able to scrutinise future trade agreements. Again, I can confirm that we will continue to publish I will amplify these comments in a moment. reports for all continuity agreements yet to be signed. GC 259 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 260
[LORD GRIMSTONE OF BOSCOBEL] 6.15 pm Turning specifically to Amendment 37, we fully intend These discussions include making sure that we allow to publish parliamentary reports alongside agreements the committees to produce independent reports before as they are signed. I hope that noble Lords will judge FTAs are laid under CRaG. This is a very important us by our record and accept our commitment—including development. It requires us to provide the FTAs to the my personal commitment—in this area. committees in final form, so that they have time to produce a report before the agreement is laid. This is With regard to Amendment 38, in Committee in vital because these agreements are complex and not the other place, my colleague, the Minister of State for easily comprehensible. It will be very useful for the Trade Policy, made the astute comment that committees to go through them beforehand and give “trade negotiations … have a habit of going down to the wire.”— your Lordships’ House their view on and appraisal of [Official Report, Commons, Trade Bill Committee, 23/6/20; col. 199.] the agreement. We will work constructively with the ITC and the IAC to allow them time to produce an The eminent businesspeople and negotiators in this independent report on the final agreement, aiding House do not need to be reminded of that fact. Thus, parliamentarians’ and the public’s understanding of it is possible that we may sign a continuity agreement its potential implications. I hope that my noble friend very shortly before the transition period ends. This Lady McIntosh welcomes this. may make it difficult to leave a period of 10 sitting This goes beyond the bare bones of CRaG but, days before any SIs are brought forward if we are to having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, avoid a cliff edge in trading relationships with the I am not sure whether he thinks going beyond the bare country in question. However, I assure your Lordships bones of CRaG is good or bad. I look forward to him that we will leave as much time as possible for clarifying that in his final remarks. I assure my noble parliamentary scrutiny before regulations are brought friend Lady Fairhead that the powers in the Bill relate forward. Of course, CRaG allows a period of 21 sitting to continuity agreements and that new FTAs are likely days for agreements to be scrutinised in Parliament to require additional legislation to be implemented. before they can be formally ratified, which—I hope and believe—provides an effective period of time for On Amendment 47, in the names of the noble Lord, parliamentarians to scrutinise agreements. Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as I have already said, Moving to Amendment 41, while the command paper parliamentary reports have been voluntarily laid alongside was published under the previous Administration —since every signed continuity agreement, outlining any then, of course, we have had a general election and significant differences between the signed agreement secured our exit from the European Union—I hope and the underlying EU agreement, as well as detailed that noble Lords will recognise that this Government information on trade flows and key imports and exports have continued to give Parliament further opportunities with trading partners. The Government are eager for to scrutinise our trade agenda effectively.This Government your Lordships to make your voices heard as continuity remain committed to the key principles of transparency agreements are finalised, signed and laid before this and ensuring effective scrutiny of our trade policy. House for scrutiny in a proportionate and productive way. That is why we have made our own commitments, Ultimately,our continuity agreements seek to replicate which I outlined in reference to Amendment 35. Noble the effects of our existing trade agreements in which Lords will notice that those commitments repeat many we formerly participated as an EU member state. The of the commitments made in the 2019 command 21 signed continuity agreements demonstrate that we paper. are not going beyond our mandate of continuity. Therefore we believe this requirement to report on The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, spoke agreements retrospectively is unnecessary. about the role of the committee that he ably chairs: the I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the IAC. I carefully read its report on working practice, next amendment, Amendment 53. I take this opportunity and I must say that I found it in the main sensible and to reassure the noble Lord that the Government will pragmatic. I commit that we want to work pragmatically seek to provide robust and credible evidence to support with the IAC going forward so that it can do the job our assessment of the impact of free trade agreements. that Parliament has asked it to do. The noble and In the recently published scoping assessments for the learned Lord asked for my views on the IAC’s report, UK-US,UK-Japan, UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand given that I was not the responding Minister during FTAs the Government committed to publishing a the Lords debates on it. As he knows, I welcome his monitoring and evaluation framework prior to committee’s vital scrutiny work. Frankly, I also welcome implementation of those agreements. Wealso committed the praise specifically for my department’s working to publishing evaluations of these agreements at the practices, which the committee, in its wisdom, advised appropriate time. other departments to follow. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn On the point made by my noble friend Lady Fairhead, endorsed the importance of high standards in agreements. the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, The Government completely agree on this. Listening Lord Stevenson, we are not just standing still on this. I to the right reverend Prelate, he has taken to the ways reassure noble Lords that we are in active discussions of your Lordships’ House so smoothly and effectively with the ITC and the IAC to ensure that we can work that I find it hard to believe that his maiden speech together to ensure satisfactory progress for the scrutiny was as recently as the Second Reading of the Bill. of FTAs. I hope that those discussions will lead to a I congratulate him on the way that he has found his pragmatic approach that both committees will welcome. feet in our House so effectively. GC 261 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 262
Amendment 57 is also from the noble Lord, Your Lordships should be assured that all changes to Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. The Government are UK legislation required from these agreements will be committed to the principles of transparency and scrutiny scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the normal way. of our free trade agreement negotiations, but that does I have listened to noble Lords’ concerns about the not mean we can accept a role for Parliament that role this House and the other place have in relation to infringes on the Government’s prerogative power to trade agreements, but I repeat that the Government enter into trade negotiations with third countries. believe that our existing CRaG processes already provide That is a red line for us. an effective and robust framework for parliamentary The Government have published negotiating objectives scrutiny, particularly those that have already undergone for each of the FTA negotiations we have entered into comprehensive scrutiny at EU level. to date. In addition, for each negotiation we have I recognise the concerns which noble Lords have published an assessment of the strategic case for securing outlined relating to new FTAs with trading partners, an FTA with that country and an initial economic such as the USA or Australia, although they are not impact assessment on a potential deal. I believe these included in the scope of the Bill. I have already outlined documents have provided parliamentarians and the how we have gone beyond the statutory requirements public with a clear understanding of the Government’s of CRaG. Our continuity agreements already undergo reasoning and aims for each of the FTA negotiations. an extensive and well-designed parliamentary scrutiny These positions have been informed by a comprehensive process. The amendment proposed by my noble friend programme of engagement and consultation with a is well intentioned, and I thank him for the productive broad range of stakeholders. Furthermore, our strategic discussions we have had, but we believe that the current and sectoral trade advisory groups have provided expert framework for the scrutiny of continuity agreements advice to help shape our trade policy positions. under CRaG is both fair and appropriate. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ Finally, I shall now speak to Amendment 98 in the House is supportive of our position. Its 2019 report name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on the scrutiny of treaties stated that providing Parliament and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The with votes on mandates amendment seeks to stop most of the provisions of the Trade Bill coming into force unless the UK reaches “would impinge inappropriately on the Government’s prerogative an FTA with the EU, or the other place explicitly power and limit the Government’s flexibility in the negotiations.” approves leaving without a deal. I think the committee got that absolutely right. The Government have been clear that we are looking Comparing systems in which legislatures have a role to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU like those in mandate setting, such as in the US or the EU, the EU has previously struck with other friendly countries ignores the fundamental differences in our constitutional such as Canada, and those conversations are, as noble make-up. In the example of the EU, I strongly argue Lords will be well aware, ongoing. However, the Prime that its scrutiny arrangements reflect the specific and Minister has made it clear that we will not sacrifice the unique structures of the EU and that direct comparison economic and political independence of the UK and with the UK is unhelpful. I do not believe that the will leave the transition period with an Australia-style arrangements for parliamentary involvement in EU trading relationship with the EU if necessary. The treaties can or should be the model for parliamentary Government were elected with a mandate to negotiate involvement in UK treaties.The previous process reflected with the EU to these ends, and Parliament passed our position as one of 28 EU member states in which legislation which clearly outlined that there would be the EU Commission negotiated on our behalf. We no extension to the transition period. It is not for this now need a process that is right for the UK as an House to attempt to frustrate the clear instruction this independent trading nation and its constitutional Government have received from the electorate. arrangements outside the EU. It would be strange if, Any delay in our ability to implement UK continuity having left the EU, we thought it necessary to emulate agreements would cause disruption to UK businesses, its constitutional arrangements if they are not appropriate consumers and international trading partners.Twenty-one for our country. The enhanced scrutiny practices put agreements have so far been signed and would be forward by this Government do this and go well unable to come into force, harming UK consumers beyond the statutory framework for the scrutiny of and businesses. Furthermore, accession to the Agreement treaties under the CRaG Act. on Government Procurement, commonly known as I now turn to the amendment proposed by my the GPA, will maintain UK businesses’ access to public noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, procurement opportunities, and that too would fail if Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which seeks to amend the amendment were accepted. The Bill also allows the Section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Government to collect data on exporting which will Act to ensure that where Parliament requests a debate provide the Government with an accurate view of on a trade agreement, Ministers are legally obliged exporting activity across the UK and assist in providing to make it happen. The Government believe that the targeted support to businesses in accessing export existing scrutiny measures for continuity trade agreements opportunities. are proportionate and fair. In light of the debate on Before I conclude, my noble friend Lord Lansley the 2017-19 Trade Bill, we added the use of the draft asked various questions about the new Japan free affirmative procedure for regulations made, which was trade agreement. I ask him to wait until the Japan welcomed by DPRRC in its recent report on the Bill. FTA and accompanying reports are laid before the GC 263 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 264
[LORD GRIMSTONE OF BOSCOBEL] We will have to come back to this on Report—we House and the IAC has made its report on it. If he has will have to—because there is a risk. It is a small risk, any outstanding questions after that, I will of course and not something that the Government have been be happy to meet him to discuss them. guilty of, but as Angus MacNeil, the Chair of the The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, compared the UK International Trade Committee in the other place, said and Japanese scrutiny systems, stating that we fall a couple of years ago, one has to look at this legislation short because we do not give Parliament a yes/no vote on the basis, perhaps, that—he said it a couple of on the enhanced agreement. With all due respect, I years ago—Jeremy Corbyn were Prime Minister. Would cannot leave those comments unanswered. The noble we want him to have this power? Therefore, let us just Lord failed to mention that Japan did not undertake a make sure that we think about this, and I invite the public consultation or call for input before starting Minister also to think about it in the intervening period. negotiations—we did—and he failed to mention that Japan did not undertake engagement with its Select Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): I thank my Committee equivalents during negotiations. We did, noble friend and I will certainly think about it. The and as I previously said, we will continue to do so. In comments he makes are perfectly rational. It is not for fact, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, me to impinge on the prerogative of the Leader of the Lord Goldsmith, we will shortly be sharing this House and the usual channels to debate on whether information with the IAC and the ITC so that they time should be found. Of course, in a rational world, can produce an independent report. I am meeting the one would expect time to be found to debate a matter IAC privately this Monday to take its questions. as important as that. I will consider his comments carefully. This has been a long and rigorous debate, and I hope it has been helpful in clarifying the Government’s Lord Lansley (Con): I have been leader of the House. position. As I said at the beginning, I believe that if one analyses the Government’s position there is less Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB): My Lords, I difference between the Government and Parliament realise that I should have declared at the outset that I than some noble Lords have said. I hope that I have am on the committee advising the Welsh Government, sufficiently addressed your Lordships’ concerns and at their request, as we proceed through Brexit. I asked therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to withdraw to come in after the Minister to correct the assertion his amendment. made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I want to point out that supporting this group—and particularly Amendment 57—is not a last-ditch anti-Brexit move: The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol it is because we have devolved competencies that are of West Kilbride) (Lab): My Lords, I have received deeply affected. Sadly, the Government have not seemed three requests to speak after the Minister, from the to be adequately discussing with, consulting or bringing noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, into confidence the Welsh Government. Wales voted Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I for Brexit and is unionist. It feels as if the Government will take them in order. have been short-sighted to see the Government in Wales as somehow a cloaked enemy who cannot be 6.30 pm trusted to keep confidentiality. The Welsh Government know only too well that the future of Wales depends Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, I am very grateful on these trade agreements and that compromises will to the Minister but I would like to add one point that need to be made for the future welfare overall, and arises from what my noble friend Lady Noakes said. It they respect the vote cast by the people of Wales. is important that we recognise precisely how the CRaG The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, process works. The Government do not require a and the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, highlighted positive Motion from the House of Commons to many strong points within the amendments, and we ratify a treaty. However, if the House of Commons must find a way forward. There is a need to bring the has voted that a treaty not be ratified, the Government devolved Administrations into the inner circle in cannot then proceed to ratify it. The Government can negotiating if the good of the whole UK is to be ask the question again as many times as they like, but achieved. I ask the Minister to please consider that. they cannot ratify it if the Commons has said that they should not. That is why it is such an important Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): I have noted issue that, if the House of Commons has received a carefully the noble Baroness’s comments. I am sure report from a relevant committee saying that it should that both I and other Committee members will consider consider such a treaty, in my view that debate has to them carefully. take place before ratification can happen. Legally, however, the Government can use their power to control Lord Grantchester (Lab): I have one more small the timetable and avoid a debate, the period of 21 days point. The Minister’s reply to the question of CRaG can expire, and the Government can ratify. That is the and how it applies to continuity agreements did not legal position. If the Government have a requirement really reflect on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord of urgency, under Section 22 of the CRaG the Lansley, regarding TRQs, as they go wider than just Government can lay a Statement saying, “This treaty the Japan deal. The status quo underlying EU agreements must be ratified”, but that must be apparent right at and continuity agreements cannot really ignore TRQs the outset and not become something to which the and any outcomes. Can the Minister respond more Government resort because they wish to avoid a critical fully on TRQs and their differences and how they are Motion in the House of Commons. reported on under the CRaG process? GC 265 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 266
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): I thank the debate and read the committee’s conclusions. The noble noble Lord for his question. I will write to him and Baroness is right that paragraph 76 of the report said place a copy of my reply in the Library. that the committee did not argue for Parliament to have a resolution on the negotiating objectives on any treaties. That is one point. However, she did not state Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, I thank all the rest of this paragraph—I hope, Minister, that this noble colleagues for taking part in this debate and the is accurate research—but I can quote it. It said that Minister for giving a comprehensive response. If we “for significant or controversial treaties, the Government will could legislate to guarantee a rational world, there want to ensure that it has the support of Parliament at the outset would be unanimous support for it in the Committee. of negotiations in order to secure ratification to the final text of However, we will have to reflect on where we have got the agreement.” to whereas the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others Now, we are in the realms of how that is done: either such as myself who welcome what the Government through informed consultation and debate, or through are doing voluntarily, think that it should be the basis having a resolution on objectives in order for the of a future statutory framework. I do not impugn the Government to consider their mandate to then be integrity of the Minister or his word, as I did not with stronger because it has parliamentary backing. That is the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, who spoke so well the area that I am in. in this debate. It is very nice to see her making a That report was on all treaties.Jack Strawwas referring speech. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to some of the sensitivities with Spain over the treaty apologised if he had caused her tears because that of Utrecht. We consider a huge range of treaties, from means I do not have to—I thought it was me. I hope relatively minor ones through to nuclear non-proliferation. the fact that I have been citing her quite a lot does not But, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, give her more discomfort on trade issues. and others,there is consensus that deep and comprehensive While we do not impugn the integrity of Ministers, trade agreements go far beyond simple tariffs and we want a sustainable mechanism. The noble Lord, quotas. They will impinge on consequential domestic Lord Lansley, referenced the attempts in the House of legislation, and therefore this is justified. Commons and he is absolutely right that my That is why I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Amendment 35 started with Jonathan Djanogly MP. I Lady Finlay of Llandaff, came back to the Minister. It had very good discussions with him but the reason I is why Canada, for example—which the Minister referred did not lead on that is that I did not want people to think to—has a federal-provincial committee on trade and a it was simply a cheeky initiative. It was an initiative by federal-provincial committee designated to agriculture, six Conservative MPs in the House of Commons but I for example. The provinces are involved. They have a think it has genuine cross-party feeling behind it. formal role and there have been federal state clauses in I am glad that the Minister gave a reassurance treaties that Canada argued for. Canada has a dualist about the report that will come on the Ukrainian deal system, as we do. Australia has a treaties council with and on all others, going forward. I am still perplexed the Prime Minister, the chief Ministers and the state as to why the Minister is comfortable giving the assurance premiers, if it wishes to activate it. The Minister sought that all subsequent agreements will have a report, yet to respond to my comments on Japan. I am glad he the Government do not want to reinstate an amendment did, but he did not—and I am happy to be corrected— which would guarantee that. We will just have to deny that Japan will have a vote in both houses of the reflect on that. Diet on the agreement to authorise the formal signatures. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley,and the noble Baroness, Ultimately, the Minister asked me whether I am Lady McIntosh, made an important point on timing and happy that the Government have gone above and certainty and I was grateful to her for giving the beyond CRaG. Yes, I am delighted. I want it not to be, example. The noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, will as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, at the discretion remember the debate that I activated through the of Ministers or for us to allow Ministers to decide CRaG process because the Government had chosen whether it is appropriate. Going beyond CRaG once not to bring a debate to the House of Lords. I activated means that it is harder not to do it, and I am pleased one on the Faroe Islands and the Minister admitted, about that, but for it to pass the Jeremy Corbyn test, very graciously, that there could be improvements on or even the Jeremy Purvis test, I hope to have some consultation because, on a fisheries deal with the kind of discussion on a framework. Faroe Islands, there had been no consultation with Finally,the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Scottish Ministers. That was quite breath-taking but referred to the fact that my amendment went through the fact is that it happened and was corrected, so we the House of Commons. There was a vote on it. The were able to move on. It helps that there have been Government also chose not to progress the amendment examples of this. in his name. We will reflect on this before Report, but I The next point was made by the noble Baroness, warn the Minister that there has been sufficient support Lady Noakes, and I want to address it. My for putting mechanisms that go beyond CRaG on the noble friend Lady Smith related the fact that the noble statute book to warrant this coming back on Report. Baroness, Lady Noakes, think some of us are just In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 35. animals with insatiable appetites to get more and more powers. I am just a wee timorous beastie here; I Amendment 35 withdrawn. am just trying to do my best. I am not threatening or insatiable, or anything, but I am glad that she mentioned the Constitution Committee report. I took part in that Amendments 36 to 38 not moved. GC 267 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 268
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol The Government are seeking continuity in law for of West Kilbride) (Lab): We now come to the group trading with the FTAs, and we are seeking continuity beginning with Amendment 39. I remind noble Lords in law for trade and development as part of them and that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should for any new agreements. Why do I say continuity? It is email the clerk during the debate. because: “EU law requires all relevant EU policies, including trade Amendment 39 policy, to promote sustainable development. EU trade policy aims to ensure that economic development goes hand in hand Moved by Lord Purvis of Tweed with: social justice; respect for human rights; high labour standards, 39: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— and; high environmental standards. “Conditions for trade deals: Sustainable Development Goals The EU strives to ensure trade policy helps promote sustainable (1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for development through: EU trade agreements; special incentives the purpose of implementing an international trade for developing countries, and; trade and development policy.” agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent I am delighted that, in the continuity agreements, we with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development are also carrying on that approach. Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015. The trade agreements with Central America, Mercosur and countries such as Canada, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam (2) Any future international trade agreement not implemented under section 2 shall only be eligible for signature or and Ukraine, which we have discussed, all have trade and ratification by the United Kingdom if the provisions of sustainable development chapters in them. I hope that that international trade agreement do not conflict with, this will also be the Government’sposition in carrying over and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable these agreements and for the remainder of agreements. Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General That should be a straightforward commitment, and I Assembly on 25 September 2015. would welcome it if that were the case. (3) Within 12 months of making regulations under section 2(1) or ratifying a future trade agreement, a Minister of the Condition (3) of Amendment 39 would require a Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing how report assessing how trade agreements will support those regulations or trade agreement is making a positive the SDGs. Every year so far in our trading relationships impact towards the implementation of the Sustainable through the EU, there has been a report from the Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.” Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Member’s explanatory statement on the implementation of free trade agreements, including how they are meeting the sustainable development goals The new Clause ensures that trade agreements cannot be implemented, signed or ratified unless they are consistent with the and advancing the trade and sustainable development provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals. objectives. We want continuity, and we want the UK voluntary national review process under the SDGs to take into consideration our trade and development Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, I apologise policies. I hope that this is not a great burden for the to the Committee, which is no doubt fed up of hearing Government. I hope that they will be able to commit my voice. I declare an interest for this group, as I to stating that that will be an entrenched part of our co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Trade reports. For those who think this may be a bureaucratic out of Poverty, I am a member of the APPG on the burden, I highlight that the Command Paper on trade SDGs and I was co-chair, with the Nigerian Trade referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, in Minister, of an inquiry into trade and development in the previous group, committed the Government to an the Commonwealth. I thank my noble friend annual report on trade, either in our VNR process for Lady Sheehan, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the SDGs or in a UK annual report on trade. Looking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, at how we are supporting the SDGs is important. for supporting this important amendment. The SDGs are a major advance in seeking consensus Amendment 97 is directed towards the preferential on achieving major advances in human development. support and assistance we should give to least developed When I took the 0.7% Act through the House of countries and lower middle-income countries, as defined Lords, I did so knowing that we would be putting the by the OECD DAC, by virtue of their special trading platform for our overseas development assistance in relationship with us through the generalised scheme of statute, and that we would be a world leader, both preferences—we now have our independent scheme of morally and practically, in implementing the SDGs. preferences—and the Everything But Arms principle. Many are off track and hard work is needed to see We had been expecting the documentary requirements them implemented, especially in the context of Covid-19. for our new GSP scheme for developing countries months ago, in order for least developed countries to 6.45 pm prepare for January. What is the status of this in terms of their being able to prepare? The UK has a major role to play, and now that we have an independent trade policy, we need to shape it I was grateful for a letter from the noble Lord, accordingly.My amendment is consistent with the cross Lord Grimstone, of 5 October in response to a question -party, overwhelming support we gave to the principle I asked about the east African states and Kenya; it was of meeting our international obligations on aid. I very helpful that he replied so promptly. There was a hope there is also consensus that our trade policy concerning element to that letter, however, where he should have a fundamental role in meeting SDGs volunteered the fact that ODA programmes in place to around the world for us and our trading partners. support countries in their readiness for trade agreements GC 269 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 270 will be cut. The Minister said that the Government the SDGs in our trading ethos, which Amendment 39 have, in response to the shrinking of our economy and seeks to do, will go beyond mere words and take the reduction in our 0.7% commitment, ownership of a much-lauded initiative that we were “identified a package of reductions in the Government’s planned instrumental in delivering, defining our determination ODA spend so that we can proceed prudently.” to establish Britain as a force for good in the world, This will mean that the support for least developed which is after all the stated aim of Dominic Raab, the countries in implementing the trade agreements that Secretary of State of the newly created FCDO. I am we have asked them to carry out will be reduced. concerned to hear about the cutting of the ODA I want to say something to the Minister very clearly. specifically to implement trade agreements with developing This is not discretionary on our behalf; we are obliged countries. That is very disappointing, and I look forward under treaties to support them. For example, Article 12.3 to hearing the Minister’s response on that. of the SACU agreement with the Southern African If we were to embed the SDGs into the new trade Customs Union and Mozambique states: agreements, we would be keeping in step with the “The UK shall support implementation of this Agreement WTO, which has embraced the ambition of the SDGs through appropriate and effective UK funding mechanisms in and recognises its own central role in delivering them. consultation with the SACU Member States and Mozambique to The WTO’s publication Mainstreaming Trade to Attain contribute to implementing the programmes and projects to be the Sustainable Development Goals shows its commitment developed under the areas of cooperation to be mutually identified.” to delivering and implementing pro-growth and pro- Those areas have been mutually identified. It is not at development trade reforms, and which are crucial to the Government’sdiscretion to cut them unilaterally—we prosperity for us here in the UK as well as for the rest are treaty bound. I would be grateful if the Minister of the world. Without a fair trading scheme, we will could confirm that we will adhere to all our treaty not realise the ambitions to protect our planet as we obligations with the least developed countries, which make good social injustices, and that is the purpose we have asked them to sign and which we are a behind Amendment 97 in the name of my noble friend signatory to. If these are not in place, how can we Lord Purvis of Tweed, with the welcome support of honour our commitments to the least developed countries the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. in the world in raising the level of capacity that we have said we will help fund them to put into place? Least developed countries and low and middle-income countries have a few privileges when it comes to trade We can already see some of the reductions, for with more developed countries without which they example, in TradeMark East Africa, an organisation would never get off the starting block in the cut-throat which facilitates higher standards and less bureaucracy, world of international trade. I urge the Minister to do reducing border time processing and trade—all of the all he can to expedite the rollover agreements with areas which the Minister is passionate about, seeing developing countries we have through the EU which trade agreements as unable to deliver by themselves to date have not been the subject of continuity agreements. unless businesses and enterprises can take advantage The sooner that happens, the better. I think my noble of them. Our commitment to the least developed friend Lord Purvis pointed to the east African states around the world should be a priority for our agreements, and Kenya where that has yet to take place. which is why the amendments in this group are important and I am grateful for the cross-party support for them. The existing concessions for market access for I hope the Minister will look on them favourably when developing countries, such as Everything But Arms he responds, and I beg to move. and preference schemes, must continue and they need to be guaranteed as we carve out new deals post The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol Brexit. I say that advisedly. The Minister repeatedly of West Kilbride) (Lab): We are trying to contact the insists that this Bill has a limited remit to apply only to noble Lord, Lord McConnell, but we have not been continuity agreements, but that is not what is written able to reach him and are checking to see whether that in the Bill. The Long Title starts: is due to technical failure. I therefore call the noble “A BILL TO Make provision about the implementation of Baroness, Lady Sheehan. international trade agreements”. There is no mention of continuity agreements. It is Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]: My Lords, it is a pleasure therefore little wonder that so many amendments have to follow my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, been tabled to secure in the Bill safeguards for existing whose grasp of the particular issues that developing standards that our citizens hold dear in so many countries face is well grounded through his leading spheres of their lives. Britain’s reputation for thorough, role in the All-Party Group on Trade Out of Poverty, open and regular scrutiny, something that the noble which he mentioned at the start, and which complements Baroness, Lady Fairhead, remarked upon repeatedly, his demonstrated knowledge of trade matters in general. is in no small measure the backbone of our good I thought I would be following the noble Lord, standing on the international stage and should not be Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, so I will leave out given up. a bit of my speech. Amendment 97 would impose a duty on the Amendment 39, to which I have added my name, Government of the day to lay a report before Parliament seeks to ensure that trade agreements take full heed of on a regular basis assessing the economic and the UN SDGs, or sustainable development goals, which developmental impact of each free trade deal between the UK in no small measure helped to craft, along Britain and least developed and lower middle income with an impact assessment report back to Parliament countries. This is a powerful requirement, the mere on progress towards meeting those SDGs. Embedding knowledge of which will act as a positive incentive to GC 271 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 272
[BARONESS SHEEHAN] Glenscorrodale. As I am a regular proponent of the the Government of the day to keep in place existing sustainable development goals as a way of bringing measures to deliver the “gold standard”, as the Fairtrade systems thinking and understanding of planetary limits Foundation puts it, in the trade for development policy. into our policies and plans, this will probably come as That is what we are looking for: a gold standard in no surprise to this Committee. I confess—and I trade for development policy. It will go a long way acknowledge in advance—that the other proponents toward securing—I again quote the Fairtrade Foundation, may not thank me for my support. I go back to the “an overarching trade strategy that works in support of the words of the amendment: SDGs, business and human rights and climate change commitments.” “Any future international trade agreement ... shall only be I shall end my contribution with a few words on eligible for signature or ratification ... if the provisions ... do not fossil fuel subsidies and their abundant use in our conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the trading relationships with developing countries. If you Sustainable Development Goals”. believe, as I do, that unless we stop climate change, we I remind the Committee that the United Kingdom will destroy life as we know it on our plant, we must is not on track to meet one of those goals—to which stop burning fossil fuels. It makes little sense to me we are of course a signatory. Business as usual will not that we, through UK Export Finance, continue to do it, for us or for the rest of the world. Globalisation subsidise investment in new fossil fuel infrastructure in and trade have done great damage to the social, developing countries as if existing infrastructure will environmental and economic fabric of our world. not take us over the two degrees of warming that spells disaster. The argument is often put forward that I have already referred to the trade and investment not to help former colonies to harness energy from oil requirements of the Zero Carbon report by the Green or gas somehow harks back to colonial times when House think tank. Any agreement meeting the sustainable Britain dictated economics abroad. That is pure bunkum. goals or any such trade would require a total It is far more reminiscent of the colonial era to lock transformation of our current system. If passed, the former colonies into soon-to-be defunct stranded assets amendment would do nothing less than ensure a peaceful and pocket the profits at the same time as we in the economic revolution—one that could greatly boost west equip ourselves with modern, clean and cheaper the national steel industry and the growing of fruit energy infrastructure. My plea to the Government is and vegetables. It would utterly transform our economy, that they stop subsiding fossil fuel infrastructure here very much in line with Green Party policy for one-planet and abroad and transfer those subsidies to clean living. But that is—perhaps I do the signatories to the renewables, such as solar, wind and hydro, which amendment a disservice—something more than they present plenty of opportunities to do business in intended. developing countries. There is no justification for the fact that salmon accounts for 74% of our fish-trade carbon footprint. 7 pm In 2019, we exported 125,000 tonnes of salmon—48,000 Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My tonnes of it by air—over half of which was flown to Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 97, in the the US and China. We also imported almost the same names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble amount—101,000 tonnes. The air-freighted salmon Baroness, Lady Sheehan, to which I have attached my we exported was 64 times more carbon-intensive than name. It is a pleasure to follow both the noble Lords. I the almost identical, if cheaper,salmon that we imported. particularly associate myself with the comments on No trade deal aligning with the sustainable development ending fossil fuel subsidies made by the noble Baroness, goals could allow that. Lady Sheehan. In 2019, just 16% of the fruit and 54% of the Since they have already amply explained the vegetables we consumed in the UK were grown here. amendment, I will simply note that we are coming out We have a climate which is ideal for growing apples of an arrangement as an EU member where there and pears yet, in 2019, we imported 438,000 tonnes was—as I was frequently forced to repeat during the more than we exported. The greatest carbon impact Brexit debate—the generalised scheme of preferences, came from those imported from furthest away—South which meant that there were no tariffs and no quotas Africa and New Zealand. on goods from the least developed countries, except on arms and ammunition. Some of my reservations Then there is the massive water footprint of the about the role of trade have already been expressed flowers, fruit and vegetables we bring from around the and will be extended in my comments on Amendment world, and the human misery—literally blood, sweat 39. We often hear words about development aims and tears—in the seams of fast fashion. A trade deal from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, in aligned with the sustainable development goals could your Lordships’ House. We can only hope that we will not allow this to continue, for of course it would be not be damaging the least developed countries with about delivering the sustainable development goals for our trade policies. A regular report would be a way of other nations, as well as for ourselves. checking on that. This is a modest amendment with Two-thirds of the 2 million tonnes of higher-grade which I hope the Government will agree. They could steel used in UK car manufacturing is imported, yet use it to display the progress on one of their avowed we currently export four-fifths of our scrap steel, policy aims. which could be an important resource for making new I also support Amendment 39, in the names of the steel through renewables-driven arc furnaces. This is a noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Baroness, sustainable development goals approach that would Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, McConnell of reshape and largely end both directions of trade. GC 273 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 274
Trade policy and trade deals currently lock in harms, the nuts and bolts of the world the policies that are encourage and support the production of dirty products necessary—and nothing is more important in the nuts and fill our shores with rubbish. A lot of it is utterly and bolts than the trade arrangements. pointless. We export 1.25 million tonnes of ice cream every year and import 3 million tonnes. Those figures Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]: My Lords, it is always a have both doubled in the past decade. Let us think of pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in the waste and pointlessness of such exchange and debate, because he brings to every debate a lifetime’s acknowledge that in a sustainable world, one meeting experience in parliaments and in international aid and people’s needs and not trashing the planet—a world development after a very successful career as an MP in achieving the balance of economic, social and a neighbouring constituency to my own—although it environmental goals that are the sustainable development was some years earlier, I have to say. I must also goals—the trade landscape would look very different. comment on my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed’s I commend the amendment to the Committee and tour de force. His research is so assiduous and he urge everyone to back it. brings it to debates in such a manner that I cannot but sympathise with Ministers who must quail before him, Lord Judd (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am glad to see knowing that his facts and figures are probably going this important clause being proposed as an addition to to match anything provided by the special assistants the Bill. I am also glad to see that Amendment 97 is that Ministers have available to them. before us. Sustainable development requires a global My noble friend Lord Purvis established his reputation response and the commitment of all those who have very early in his career in the House of Lords, and it signed up to the development goals. Either we take the follows very closely the path of the noble Lord, development goals seriously or we do not. It is no Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. It is a great shame good joining the world in saying that we are determined that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, could not be to establish these goals and work towards them and with us this evening, because he has been a major force then, by something we do in the sphere of trade, in developing the assessment, scrutinyand implementation undermining the very principles on which they are of the SDGs, following on from his sterling work on based. If the Government are serious in their commitment, the MDGs. He has been great in organising us in as given to the international community at the UN, all-party groups to go to the UN and discuss the issues this clause should be totally acceptable. I really cannot which, of course, will be major issues for us in the see any reason why it would not be. years ahead. Amendment 97 is very important. Having spent The MDGs and SDGs are linked very closely with much of my life working on the issues of the third international high-level agreements on achieving aid world, it can be very sad to see how trade arrangements effectiveness and developing indicators to monitor can undermine years of effort towards development that. I have had the good fortune over several years to and progress in some of the poorest parts of the be able to represent UK parliamentarians at a number world. We know that the world is not a level playing of these high-level forums hosted by the UN in the field. I have often heard it said by different Governments developed and the developing world. I want to speak that one must ensure that developing countries have a in support of Amendments 39 and 97 and I shall level playing field, but it is not quite as simple as that certainly support them with my colleagues. because many of them are not fit to play on that level Amendment 39 ensures that trade agreements cannot playing field. There has to be a situation in which they be implemented, signed or ratified unless they are can be brought to be active players on it. consistentwiththeprovisionsof theSDGs.Amendment97 This is rather like what I was saying on the proposed requires a Minister of the Crown to report annually on new clause: either we are serious in our commitment the impact of trade agreements to which the UK is or we are not. Wehave now had set up by the Government party on the world’s least developed countries. The this great new department, which brings so many 2030 agenda for the SDGs, adopted by all UN member aspects of our international relations together, including states—we should remember that—in 2015, provided overseas development and what used to be the a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people responsibility of a special ministry. We are constantly and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart, as assured, and reassured, that things are going to be many of us will know, are the 17 SDGs which are an better on the front of commitment to the third world urgent call for action for all countries—developed and than before because all these different elements are developing—in a global partnership. As some noble working together. Lords brought to our attention today, somehow the This is a test of how serious we are and how far rate of achievement has not been up to the levels that those new arrangements are really working for a better we would have hoped, and it is very distressing to hear lot for the third world. Again, as I said on the new that the UK has yet to achieve one of those 17 goals. clause, this amendment should be totally acceptable to the Government if they are serious about their 7.15 pm commitment to the goals that they have undertaken. The SDGs recognise that ending poverty and other The Government tell us with great passion that, in our deprivations must go hand in hand with strategies that efforts to determine our post-EU role, we are going to improve health and education, reduce inequality and be positive, constructive and key players in the spur economic growth, all while tackling climate change international community. Well, if we want to be that, and working to preserve our oceans and forests. The we must not just pass airy-fairy resolutions and make past few years have demonstrated how clearly saving airy-fairy statements. We actually have to deliver in the world as we know it has become a critical issue. GC 275 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill GC 276
[LORD CHIDGEY] world, especially the poorest countries.Weneed safeguards The division for sustainable development goals in in law to ensure this. As the apostle of the free market the United Nations Department of Economic and famously proffered: Social Affairs provides support and capacity-building “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for for the SDGs and related issues, including water, energy, merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy urbanisation, transport, science and technology. It against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” plays a key role in the evaluation of the implementation These amendments give Parliament a watching brief of the 2030 agenda and on advocacy and outreach that the new trade deals do not result, however activities related to the SDGs. To make the 2030 agenda inadvertently,in a conspiracy against the most vulnerable a reality, broad ownership of the SDGs must translate people on earth. into a strong commitment from all stakeholders to implement the global goals. The UN division for Baroness Northover (LD) [V]: My Lords, I am pleased sustainable development goals aims to help facilitate to speak in support of Amendments 39 and 97 in the this engagement. names of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and Finally, these amendments recognise that all UN others. Clearly, any trade deals that we agree must be member states have committed to the 2030 agenda for in keeping with our international commitment to the sustainable development. It follows that all trade sustainable development goals. Wekeep our agreements, agreementsenteredintoshouldrecognisethatcommitment do we not? and demonstrably keep to it. The implementation of The MDGs agreed in 2000 pledged to halve extreme these agreements should be conditional on that fact. poverty by 2015. We know that economic development and trade played a major part in that being achieved. Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]: My Lords, The SDGs were put in place in 2015, building on the first, I apologise as for various reasons this is the first previous period, and pledged to eliminate extreme time I have been able to speak on the Bill or this series poverty by 2030, at the same time leaving no one of amendments. I speak now strongly to support the behind—so you were not dealing with averages. As my two amendments before us. I am grateful for all noble friend Lord Chidgey has just pointed out, the the powerful reasons that have been put forward SDGs recognise that ending poverty must go along beforehand, particularly by the proposer, the noble with human development through improving health Lord, Lord Purvis. and education, reducing inequality and increasing Briefly, there are three reasons why I support both economic participation, while tackling climate change. these amendments. The first is that, in policy matters, My noble friend Lady Sheehan pointed out that we it is always important to think holistically, and the Bill in the UK led on this. Indeed, Andrew Mitchell, as gives us an opportunity to do so on one of the most Secretary of State, worked very hard to ensure that crucial areas of human endeavour, which is trading. Prime Minister David Cameron led on this internationally. The danger of not thinking holistically is that one Much of the framing of the SDGs was carried out by aspect of policy may be prioritised above all others, DfID, in particular by one of its directors. I had the causing an imbalance and consequent diminution of privilege to be a DfID Minister in the coalition during other worthwhile goals. To maximise trade deals with this period, and was the Minister in the Lords when other countries, at all costs, would seriously harm my noble friend Lord Purvis took through the 0.7% Bill other goods that we greatly cherish. The Bill therefore as the last piece of legislation by the coalition. has many amendments to ensure, quite rightly, that There have been long years of engagement by the issues of the environment, human rights, labour relations EU on trade agreements with developing countries. and so on are properly protected and safeguarded. There was an important shift in the realisation of how Secondly, as part of our holistic thinking, it is right the EU, as a major economic power and the biggest to consider the effect of trade deals on the UN sustainable aid giver in the world, could either damage the poorest development goals, to which, as we know, the UK is around the world or assist them. Major engagement committed and to which we are fully committed as a now goes into seeking to benefit developing countries member of the European Union. We have promised and if we are to have continuity, we have to have that. As other noble Lords have reminded us, there continuity here too. will be continuity with those commitments. We hardly As we seek to agree trade deals with such countries, need reminding that the need is still desperate. While the UK must address the SDGs too. They apply in the good progress has been made on some goals, for United Kingdom, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, example on primary education, others, such as reduction has pointed out, as well as internationally. We know of extreme poverty, will go in the other direction by that this is right, and that it is in our interests. Can the 2030 unless present policies change. One in 10 of the Minister say, for example, which African countries world’s population still lives on less than $1.25 a day. have yet to agree rollover arrangements and what the Malnourishment, leading to millions of deaths, especially sticking points are? What happens if these are not among children, is stark: 3.1 million children a year agreed by the end of this year? Will the Government still die of malnutrition. guarantee existing market access for developing countries Thirdly,despite recent reactions against globalisation, and undertake thorough and timely assessments of it is simply a fact of life. We are bound up with one the impact of any changes, looking at this through a another, economically and socially. Trade deals in one development lens? area can have effects worldwide, so we have to watch The Government have said that any trade deals that the desperate search for trade deals, now that we with developing countries will be in keeping with our have left the EU, does not damage the developing commitments to the SDGs. I expect the Minister to GC 277 Trade Bill [8 OCTOBER 2020] Trade Bill GC 278 reiterate this. The safest and easiest thing to do would I start by echoing the words of the most reverend therefore be to put this commitment in the Bill. I look Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that: forward to hearing what the Minister says. “Reducing the causes of climate change is essential to the life of faith.” Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I It is the way in which we express love and concern for am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for giving our neighbours. Despite the overwhelming contribution me the opportunity to press the Minister on a couple of many so-called developed countries to try to hold of issues in the context of these amendments.Amendment back the tide of climate change, less-developed countries 39, which relates to the sustainable development goals, will lose most from the increases of global warming, is presumably a bit like motherhood and apple pie— which the Anglican Church feels keenly, because 90% of something we would all wish to sign up to. Equally, our communion is from the global south. The sustainable Amendment 97, which calls on the Minister development goals of 2015 pursue a bold and ambitious “to report annually on the impact of trade agreements to which agenda to tackle poverty and provide a sustainable the UK is party on the world’s least developed countries” future for the benefit of all people, wherever they live. will strike a chord with the Minister—my noble friend It is a moral duty not to abandon those who are Lord Younger—regarding his remarks to me on day suffering and will suffer from the influence, such as two of Committee that we want to avoid the unintended ourselves, that we may bring to bear on others elsewhere. consequencesof freetradeagreementswiththesecountries. Sustainable development goals are a matter of concern for the other. Trade with the UK is more than a simple My specific question follows on from the remarks monetary exchange enriching individuals, organisations of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, who expressed and businesses; it is a moral co-operation for a brighter her wish to have expedited rollover agreements with future for all. African countries. I would like to press my noble friend on this. This seems bizarre. The United Kingdom Passing these amendments would be a statement was at the forefront, since so many of our Commonwealth and sign of the Committee’s commitment to the most countries were involved, in negotiating agreements vulnerable in the world. It would express our intent with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. These and priority to look after others before ourselves, and agreements, I understand, have now been rolled over will strengthen our relationship with partners around into—I forget the exact term—European partnership the globe. I hope these amendments will be accepted agreements. Will my noble friend take this opportunity and find their place in stating the way that we, as a to set out which ones have been rolled over, what the nation, choose to treat others and the world that God timetable is, and why we seem to be dragging our feet has entrusted to our care. on them when it surely must be a political priority, given our historic relationship with so many of these Motion countries? Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, new to That the debate be adjourned. the work of the Committee, I am impressed by your Lordships’ stamina during this long, five-hour session, Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, with so I will be brief, as before. I am grateful to the noble apologies to the remaining speakers, I beg to move Lord, Lord Purvis, for proposing Amendments 39 that the debate on this amendment be adjourned. and 97. It must be obvious to any with eyes to see that this planet and the environment are struggling to cope Motion agreed. with the impact of our poor stewardship of their natural resources—the beautiful natural world that we, too The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol easily, have taken for granted and abused. Whether it of West Kilbride) (Lab): That concludes the work of comes from the dulcet tones of David Attenborough, the Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands the announcement of the Earthshot Prize with Prince adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their desks William yesterday or the sight of the damage that and chairs before leaving the Room. plastic waste is doing to so many species in our oceans, does not matter. What counts is our response. Committee adjourned at 7.28 pm.