Media and Lobby Briefings

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I cannot comment on whether there was a genuine misunderstanding or whether certain people chose to misunderstand the basis on which invitations had been issued.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, we are lucky in this House to have a Minister who has the trust of the House, but we are in a situation where trust and transparency are at grave peril for all manner of different reasons, and not just in this country. It behoves the Government at this time to act in as trustworthy and transparent a manner as possible. In the interests of transparency, can the Minister provide a list of those journalists who were invited? Can he tell us whether they were indeed technical and specialist journalists? I would have thought that, if one is doing a technical and specialist briefing, it is more important to get the generalists inside the circle to understand these complex matters. Does he have a list, or did No. 10 compile a list, of people who were not invited and for what reason?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I do not have a list of who was invited. I was merely given the bald statistics on numbers. If I can illuminate the noble Baroness on that matter, I will be happy to write to her.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted that this Bill has finally seen the light of day. It is 18 months since we debated R&R in this House. Then, I urged the full decant of the House, having been traumatised by what I had seen in the basement the previous week—I have not dared to go back.

I can understand why the process has been so protracted thus far. I can also understand more intimately the deep frustration that drove Pugin and Barry apart. I am sure that the relationship between the sponsor body and the intelligent client, Parliament, will be infinitely better—because this is indeed the sequel to that great work. It is the most complex and costly restoration project that we have ever attempted in this country. It will be the most exposed and the most controversial; it will be done in full view and with full expectations. Getting it right, as one witness to the Joint Committee put it, means articulating the “why” and not just the “how”. Revealing the building as well as restoring it so that we can see its full significance for the future and so that it will be better appreciated for what it means requires an explicit statement of exactly what we want to achieve, and I hope that that is restoration as a route to renewal in its boldest form.

As far as I can tell, the “how” is about right. I am happy with the arrangements for the delivery of the project. They are tried and tested ways forward, and the right powers are in the right place with the right people. It is admirable that we have the report of the Joint Committee and that it has been accepted by the Government. The committee listened very closely to its experts and recognised that in the relationship between the intelligent client and the sponsor body—I thought this was incredibly important—there should be no opportunity for politics: what Bagehot, obviously with great feeling, called “the busybodies and crotchet-makers” who would frustrate progress.

I am particularly glad that the temptation to take planning powers into the control of the delivery body was resisted; I think that the Government are absolutely right there. Sidelining the normal planning process is always a draconian decision, reserved for the most complex sites where sets of authorities and consents overlap tortuously. We are dealing here with one planning authority. It is probably faster and better for the process to be seen to be going through the full and contestable democratic process at the heart of Westminster.

I hope there is scope for the entire site to be seen and treated as a whole, ideally by a masterplan approach that would not only take into account the northern estate and the possibilities of the QEII but explicitly recognise what it means for this to be a world heritage site in terms of the purpose and quality of the conservation and its management, and the setting up of the historic buildings that make up the whole site. UNESCO has had its eye on us for many years and has not been pleased with what it has seen. It is not going to go away and it is not going to let us get away with the second-rate or the incomplete. This is what the sponsor body and the delivery authority need to think about.

I said that the Government were right to welcome many of the report’s proposals, but I worry that we may have been neither bold nor demanding enough in two important respects. On the fundamental and related characteristics of this place, there were two serious omissions from the list of core principles. One was the significance of the heritage of the building, which has been referred to. The second was the absence of a clear reference to sustaining the work of Parliament. Like the DNA model, these purposes and functions wind around each other. They make up the total statement of significance of this building. I am sure that the Leader of the House will deal with the first matter as she winds up, but I shall focus briefly on the latter.

I thank the Leader for what she has said, both in confirming in her own language the paramount importance of the heritage of this place and for confirming that the Government are bringing forward their own amendment. It is important that we see that amendment because there are, rightly, caveats to do with balance. The important thing is that heritage is in the Bill as a core principle. I was surprised and a little shocked that it was omitted in the first place; I thought that it would be a sine qua non, and the Joint Committee and Historic England thought so, too. The Government argued that it was redundant because the process was going through the planning system with all its checks and balances, but something totally fundamental was lost in translation here regarding the fact that so much is at stake, and so much reassurance needs to be communicated about the importance that we attach to the significance of this building.

Everyone knows that the planning process is the end of the conversation. The beginning is where you start with a shared agreement on why something is important, what has to be protected and what can be reasonably adjusted. Spelling that out in the Bill as one of the core purposes is very important when it comes to getting the changes right. That is what we will be talking about when we come to address the perceived, but not real, conflict between conserving the heritage and renovating the building. That goes to the heart of what my noble friend Lord Blunkett was talking about in relation to disability access—I will come on to say a bit more about that. The point is that the sponsor body should have the confidence to make judgments on the balance of necessity and what constitutes “reasonable adjustments” when developing proposals. So I will look hard at the amendment that the Government bring forward, but I certainly would not want to hold up the Bill in any way.

What does it mean to be responsible for the extraordinary, intangible heritage of this building? If we did not do it properly, not only would we signal dereliction of duty—that we did not understand what it meant to be curators and inhabitants of one of the world’s most important buildings—but we would simply fail to take account of and keep pace with all the things that have changed in the way that we manage and bring back to life our historic buildings. This place—and it is a place, not just a building—has been at the heart of our religious and political life for a millennium. In the past two centuries, it has spoken aloud the biography of this nation—and it still contains its original function, when so few historic buildings do. That makes it extremely important. Barry and Pugin agreed, in so far as they could, that this should be the showplace for the best of Parliament, as well as for the best of art, innovation, engineering and architecture. We should do no less.

So let me try to reassure noble Lords who think that conserving a heritage building will mean a whole procession of people saying no to imagination and action, and a failure to do what is required, whether that is adding better or more appropriate disabled access, or using new materials or technologies. Those days are over. The restoration of many of our historic buildings, whether they are cathedrals or coalmines, shows that with the right kind of thought and discussion, a way can be found around almost any barrier. Indeed, it is more than that. Ensuring good-quality access can enhance our understanding of the historic environment and its sustainability. It is called constructive conservation and Historic England has been doing it for many years now. This building is in our care and there will never be another chance to do anything as transformational as this, reviving trust and confidence by opening up the place and its courtyards to a more challenging life. It is about treating people not as visitors but as participants, welcoming them and ensuring that they know their role. Frankly, it means a national conversation that starts now. This Bill is a very good start.

Business of the House

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Ridley]

In a minute—I have not even finished a sentence at this point. I said that I wanted to talk about the procedural points, and I have, but I have been diverted by these interventions on Brexit. I would be quite happy to save these points for the Second Reading later today, if noble Lords would prefer.

[Baroness Andrews]

It is not the interventions which are distracting the House; it is the fact that the noble Viscount himself introduced the Brexit argument. He has made yet another unsubstantiated assertion; this time that the British public rejected Mrs May’s deal. Where does he get that information?

[Viscount Ridley]

From opinion polls, and that is the best evidence we have.

As I said, one can be in favour or against the proposition that we should leave the European Union, or that we should leave it with or without a deal. I am acutely aware that, as we have seen in the past five minutes, most in this echo chamber of remain are wholly against it and are absolutely out of touch with people all over the country. However, we cannot deny that it is a matter of solemn importance, and, if the Bill goes through in the fashion proposed today, without proper debate and scrutiny, a lot of people out there may be very angry. They will be angry with us not because we spent a lot of time talking about procedure; they will be angry because we rammed through something without proper scrutiny and debate. I say again that the integrity of the constitution is the key point.

I am no historian, but I know that, for good reasons, we have arrived over the centuries at the delicate balance of powers we have in this complicated democracy. One of the key points is that all government Ministers are answerable in Parliament. Who is accountable in Parliament for the Bill that we will be asked to pass today? Will it be Sir Oliver Letwin, Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn or Mr Bercow himself? They cannot be dragged to the Dispatch Box in the same way that a Minister can be, and they are not represented in this House by a junior Minister—unless the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is now Sir Oliver Letwin’s junior Minister; I am sure she would be very good at it.

As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, from the way Sir Oliver was talking in the Commons last night, in a shockingly disrespectful way towards this House, it certainly sounds as though this is the way he sees it. I remind noble Lords that he said:

“My hon. Friend may also wish to know, although I fear that it will also be of no comfort to him, that there is overwhelming support in the House of Lords for this measure”.


How dare he say that in advance of us even seeing the Bill? He went on to say that,

“we therefore anticipate that it will, in all probability … pass through the House of Lords very rapidly”.

He took the House for granted, and I hope that irritates noble Lords as much as it irritates me. He went on:

“To that end, the House of Lords has in fact already passed a motion that provides for the expeditious consideration of exactly this form of Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1067.]


Noble Lords will see how precedent works: suddenly, something we did in January comes back to haunt us. He went on:

“My sense, for what it is worth, is that although the House of Lords procedures are arcane and it is impossible to determine from the outside the time that will be taken, there is very substantial support for the Bill there”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1071.]


Thus we are dismissed with a wave of President Letwin’s hand.

My time is nearly up. Let me end by saying that I find it peculiar that so many in this House urgently wish to rule out leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement, but show none of the same urgency and determination to rule out not leaving the European Union at all.

EU Council

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, what we will be focusing on in the weeks before the vote in January is to hope to provide reassurances to MPs so that they vote to support the deal. We will be continuing to talk about the fact that we believe that it is a good deal for both the EU and the UK. That is what our European partners have said and it is what we believe, and we will continue to make the case while trying to get the reassurances that MPs need in order to feel able to support it.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, may I take the noble Baroness back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick? If the House of Commons rejects the Prime Minister’s deal, she tells us that there is a process. Does that process include consideration of the extension of Article 50, or of the other options that are under consideration—for example, the customs union and the Norway option? Could she give us more detail, particularly on the point about Article 50?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, our focus as a Government, and the focus of the Prime Minister, is to ensure that we provide the reassurances that MPs need to get this deal approved. This is the best deal for the EU and the UK. I am afraid I am not going to speculate on situations that may arise if this deal is rejected by the House of Commons. As I have said, a clear process is set out. What our focus is on is to make sure that this deal does get the support that we believe it warrants and that is what the Prime Minister will be focusing on in discussions with her European colleagues over the coming weeks to try to make sure that that is the situation that happens, because we believe that that is the best outcome for the UK and we believe that that is what delivers the referendum result that the people voted for.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate, and sobering to listen to the experiences of noble Lords around the House. I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. She did an outstanding job of explaining the interrelationship between the three elements of that amendment. The withdrawal agreement leaves us stranded neither in nor out of Europe; it denies us benefits and influence but introduces constraints and frustrations. Nor can I support a political statement that offers neither clarity nor certainty about our future key relationships. For example, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the devastating implications for science. These two painfully crafted fudges, to borrow the word from the marvellous speech earlier of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, will not heal divisions. They will make things worse, and they will make us poorer.

I strongly believe that none of the risky choices facing us and that will follow from the vote next week—the day that really counts will be Wednesday—will leave us stronger, safer or more influential, except one. As has always been the case, that is to remain part of the European Union. Just as we now know how much we gain not merely in prosperity—I refer to the speech yesterday of my noble friend Lord Howarth—but in justice, security, safety, opportunity, influence and reputation from being in the European Union. We are now more aware of the ghastly possibilities that would follow a no deal, which should be taken off the table.

There are very few things that we may all be able to agree on in this House, but one might be that the game is well and truly up. We certainly recognise hubris when we see it: the hubris that stares down a Government who claim to act in the national interest—always a slippery term—but who in the past two years have failed in their first principles. The national interest would have been so much better served if the Government had trusted the nation with the truth—about the complexity, the degree of integration, and the complex web of benefits and costs—rather than with what I can only describe as the Ladybird version of Brexit. I can recommend Ladybird’s The Story of Brexit. It should be a Christmas bestseller; it makes everything very clear. To deal in the truth would have taken courage and would have been better, because Governments addicted to duplicity usually die by the same hand.

Until recently, Mrs May was still saying that the terms of Britain’s future trading relationship would be settled by the time of Brexit. That was always nonsense, and the political statement shows graphically how untrue it is. Even at this 11th hour, her letter to the nation, and indeed the Statement repeated in this House, in effect promised an extra £394 million per week for the NHS. The Statement not only inflated the sum on the side of that famous bus but contradicted the judgment of the Bank of England and the Treasury itself that there is no fiscal benefit from Brexit. Their combined evidence shows that real wages will be worse hit than GDP and that the poorest regions, which depend on what is left of manufacturing, will suffer most. There will be two nations: one optimistic and privileged, the other pessimistic and poor. What is needed is not Brexit but a new Marshall plan to restore the vitality and confidence of our entire nation. That is where reconciliation should start.

It is a counsel of perfection to say that it would have been especially in the national interest if the Prime Minister had faced down her rabid Brexiteers, but that challenge—which goes so deep into the psyche of the Conservative Party—has proved practically impossible. But as my noble friend Lord Cashman said, there is no excuse for the Government not defending the judiciary against the tabloid press and making an enemy of Parliament at every turn. The failure to defend our constitutional principles by those who set such store by sovereignty is extraordinary.

The problem is that sovereignty carries its own conditions. In a world beset by rampant nationalism, rogue states, rogue presidents, mass migration and climate change, and where economies and intelligence are so closely integrated, no nation can go it alone. We should recognise this not least in the centenary year of the Armistice, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said.

I am not tempted to vote for the withdrawal agreement on the basis that, if the Brexiteers loathe it, there must be something to commend it; or because, if we do not support it, we will lose control of all the other options. I am listening to what the Chancellor said, and he said that the deal can only make the country poorer. I cannot see that on the side of a bus. That may be one of the reasons why the Prime Minister is so hostile to the idea of an election. The best she has been able to say is that her deal will not make for a better future, only a different one.

The Prime Minister’s deal is one of many options. They all carry risks, some greater than others. The skill is in navigation, clear sight and creating time and space to find the safer and better option. Nothing I have heard in the past weeks in the other place suggests that this deal commends itself to the national interest. I simply do not see—not least having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea—where the basis for another negotiation with Europe might be, given that we cannot change the history or the geography of the United Kingdom.

So if, come next Wednesday, Parliament is gridlocked and a general election cannot be secured, the honourable, logical and legitimate way forward is to assert a set of principles that serve the national interest because they answer the following questions: what is it that will finally draw an indisputable line under the bitter political and parliamentary divisions that Brexit has called up? What will give us the space and opportunity to reflect and take a safer course? What would our friends in Europe be most likely to support us in doing? What would give, in the face of a parliamentary stale- mate, the greatest possible legitimacy and long-term sustainability?

There is only one choice that answers all these questions. Vernon Bogdanor has written that,

“our exit from the EU depends upon the continuing consent of the people”.

We need to ask whether that continuing consent is indeed there. We need to ask the people of this country, who now know so much more about the facts and consequences, whether they still advise that we leave the European Union. There will have to be a proper process. There will have to be time. There will have to be an extension of Article 50, which I am sure the European Union will grant, as many noble Lords have already said. And there will need to be a minimum time to prepare for a referendum on options that are more robust and secure. It will be difficult, but it can be done. It is the safer option and we could all live with it.

I can do no better in conclusion than to quote the arch-Brexiteer David Davis, who said in 2012:

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”.


I find myself agreeing with David Davis.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the government Motion and hope that this House will follow the lead of the other place and support it this evening.

I confess that this is the second speech I wrote for this afternoon’s debate; the first one was written before I took the basement tour. I cannot compare it with what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, saw; I can say only that it alarmed me. My first speech was rather academic, but I commend the basement tour to anyone who is in any doubt that this Motion is the right thing to do. Forget about Guy Fawkes—think about burst boilers, random electric fires, routine and constant maintenance and equipment failures, and floods. Frankly, I am amazed that this building functions as well as it does. I am even more convinced that we are living on borrowed time. There are limits to how much risk can be managed, even by the expertise of the wonderful staff who work on the Parliamentary Estate to keep us safe.

I understand that feelings run high, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is surely part of that. I believe that the options have been fully and exhaustively explored and that the Motion is correct and we should follow it. However, I understand that this is part of how Parliament has always felt about this building. I remind your Lordships that, between 1834 and 1870, there were no fewer than 100 parliamentary inquiries into this building as it was being built. We are not quite of that order, but we have form on this.

This leads me to explain why it is such a challenging building. I had something to do with the rebuilding of King’s Cross, and I am afraid there is no comparison. The fact is that this was and remains a revolutionary building in every respect. Until recently it has survived all the tests of time. It was capable of being built this way due to the Industrial Revolution, and it is now accommodating the fourth industrial revolution. It was one of the greatest medieval buildings of Europe, and under the genius of Barry and Pugin it became a Victorian masterpiece, not just of design but of engineering, on a scale never before entertained, innovative as much for its frankly bizarre ventilation system as for the industrial use of stained glass throughout the building. It has proved flexible enough to house a small town, and has withstood wartime bombing. Over that period, it has become a visual shorthand for the big ideas around democracy that have shaped our nation and which are under our feet and over our heads: Church and state; law and government; monarchy and people; and today we remember in particular power, government and the representation of women.

As a world heritage site, it matters as much to the rest of the world as it does to us. But what makes it almost unique is that, unlike much of our physical heritage, so much of which has been lost or compromised, not least by fire, this building has not only survived but is still doing the job it was intended to do. You can say that about very few buildings in this country. But more than that, it is more open, better understood and more democratic than it has ever been in its history. Last year, we welcomed over 100,000 children, for example, among 1 million visitors. Our ambition should be not merely that we put it into their hands fit for the future but that, in doing so, we inspire and energise our whole democratic tradition.

We can do that only if we support the Government’s Motion tonight and agree to a full and timely decant, with all the right processes in place. The evidence—there is no point in rehearsing it—is consistent, expert, thorough and inescapable. This building has to have a radical restoration. The electrical and mechanical infrastructure needs to be stripped out completely and replaced; that is three-quarters of the cost. The fragile fabric and decoration of the House must be made safe and repaired by expert hands; otherwise, it will be lost for ever. The only way this can all be done safely, effectively and at cost-benefit is if we move out.

Millions has been spent on aggressive maintenance and replacing obsolete equipment over the past 20 years, which is done at night or when we are not here. That has been the only way the basic services have been kept going. Every new technology and new development has required more cabling—layer after layer. I suggest that noble Lords go to the basement to see the carbon fibre cables laid alongside the electricity cables, which are laid alongside the gas pipes and the water pipes. They should look at the 95 ventilation shafts which house them—shafts which were designed to facilitate the flow of clean air but are absolutely designed to accelerate fire. The sewage plant dates from the building of Bazalgette’s great sewer in the mid-19th century. I can certainly recommend that to noble Lords, although I would not recommend that they stay very long.

Much has been done to reduce risk—£72 million was spent on reducing the risk of steam, for example. However, the point is that, no matter how hard our engineers work in the coming years, they will only ever be able to keep pace with and not reduce risk. The whole system is alert for alarms. We were told that there are 120 routine alarms a day. The building has no fewer than 117 plant rooms; Buckingham Palace has only eight. Only five of our plant rooms have been modernised. That is the scale of the problem, and it comes inevitably from the fact that this is a single building with a single electricity system, a single water system and a single sewage system with no compartmentalisation. When pipes burst at this end of the building, the problem occurs at the other end. The risk of fire is not just from cabling; it is from the random electric fires that people put on in remote parts of the building.

For goodness’ sake, let us learn from history. The history of this building is written in fire. In 1512, Henry VIII abandoned it after a conflagration, and we know what happened after 1834. Last year, there were 12 fires. I am sorry, but the idea that the whole electric and mechanical infrastructure could be ripped out and asbestos contained while services continue to function somewhere in this building and we face minor inconvenience is nonsense.

The timetable to get things done before we can move out is long, but it involves a necessary process. However, the danger is that, although enough has been done to manage risk until 2020, the situation beyond then is more unpredictable. The other risk is that, if English Heritage, Historic England and UNESCO look at this building, one will say that it is a building at risk and another will say that it no longer merits its world heritage status. That is not an idle threat; both possibilities are very much under review.

This debate is about restoration and renewal. Let us concentrate on the future as well as on the past. Let us look to conserve the archaeology, the antiquities, the art and the fabric, but let us also commit to involving the whole country in a process of democratic renewal. The other place has spoken; I think we should listen; and I hope that that is what the House decides to do tonight.

Grenfell Tower

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I hope I have made clear to noble Lords, we want a judge-led inquiry. It will be for the person appointed to lead the inquiry and to determine how it works. However, as we have said, we want to make sure that all voices are heard, and I am sure that whoever leads the inquiry will refer to this debate with interest and take account of noble Lords’ comments.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Fire Brigades Union asked the Department for Communities and Local Government to update Part B of the building regulations—the fire safety regulations—some time ago and that this has not been done? Especially as she confirmed the element of illegality of certain types of cladding, does she know whether the request was to look in any way at the nature of cladding? Can she also take the opportunity to answer the question asked by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Government’s future attitude to regulation? It is significant that the Prime Minister says in the Statement that the state has not worked for many people. I suggest that the reason for that is that in recent years it has been so whittled away in respect of important and defensible regulations, not least in relation to planning and housing.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Baroness because I do not know the answer to her question about the fire union’s request. I apologise but I will write to her.

Government and Parliament

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I know that that very important and provocative question will be studied closely by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is always in the front line when it comes to asking why we accept provisions.

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I want to reflect on the wider issues raised by the second part of the debate’s title: on the need for Parliament to have,

“full details of all legislation that it is asked to consider”.

This is really the question about the relationship between knowledge and power, and is the basis on which we conduct our scrutiny effectively. I raise this question because I have had the privilege of being a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and am now a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is wonderfully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

I have had a curious career. I started in Parliament as a parliamentary clerk in the House of Commons and ended up as a Minister in this House, with many parliamentary pit stops in between. I have seen the erosion of parliamentary power from many different perspectives, and have been concerned for a long time while understanding the yearning of all Ministers to grab more power. However, I believe that in the lifetime of this Government we have seen a step change in the pursuit of power.

The debate on the noble Lord’s report became increasingly surreal as each of the four committees wrestled with what was essentially a false premise, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, has already said—that is, that this House exceeded its powers in relation to secondary legislation and needed to be restrained from doing so in the future. There is a predictable consistency in those four reports’ demolishing of the argument. However, for me, what was equally significant was the noble Lord’s advice to government that they should,

“take steps to ensure that ... too much is not left for implementation by statutory instrument”.

My experience is that Governments have never been very good at drafting legislation, and have certainly got worse. The law of unintended consequences never sleeps. However, there is a difference between things turning out differently because a genuine mistake has been made—Professor Anthony King’s book is full of such examples—and bringing legislation before us which is simply premature, incomplete, obscure, or indifferent to evidence and impact, so much so that we cannot, however diligent we are, advise those who will be affected by it on how the law is actually going to work, let alone warn them or achieve some mitigation. We have already had the examples given several times this evening of the Childcare Act—an egregious example of that—the Housing and Planning Act and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, all eclipsed to an extent by the infamous case of tax credits. In fact, on coming into office, this Government signalled their intention to break some basic rules of engagement between Government and Parliament very early on.

I so wish that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, had been in this House when we were debating the then Public Bodies Bill in 2010 and the then Deregulation Bill in 2013. The notorious Public Bodies Bill, which attempted to abolish, remove and restrict arm’s-length bodies entirely through Henry VIII powers, was to an extent stopped in its tracks and we were able to mitigate that. What astonished me was that, in 2013, there was a more outrageous grab for power. Clause 14 of the Deregulation Bill, which was introduced with great brio by the Minister Kenneth Clarke, would have caused legislation that was,

“no longer of practical use”—

in the terms of the Bill—to cease to have effect. He described it as,

“a quick and tidy dustbin”,

and was rather bemused when it was thrown out by the pre-legislation committee.

What is it that we in this House depend on to defend the democratic process and challenge Government? It is principally our two scrutiny committees, but these committees are now routinely faced by departments—aided and abetted by the Cabinet Office—which bring forward skeleton Bills, or “mission statements”, as described by the DPRRC. The Bills create a host of new powers for Ministers, as we have heard. They bring forward regulations that are far removed from technical or administrative issues, although officials persist in defending and describing them as such. They design and implement new policies by introducing new and basic definitions, such as “coasting schools”, in the education legislation; new criminal offences scattered through secondary legislation; and new institutions designed to implement secondary legislation. The fact that so few regulations are ever available for the House to see does real damage, I believe, to public policy and public trust in the process.

Last year, the Government had the excuse that they did not expect to have to introduce a manifesto, and I found that unacceptable. I find it far less acceptable that, this year, we are already faced with legislation that does the same. We may not be able to do much about ministerial power per se, but we should at least be able in this House to insist on transparency, integrity and competence.

Such was the concern of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in 2013 to strengthen the ability of the House to challenge inadequate and misleading SIs that it proposed new grounds for reporting SIs for the attention of the House because,

“the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.

That is so fundamental. This year, 19% of the reported SIs fell into that category. We have wide frustration, which we have set out in our latest annual report, about the failure to ensure timely, considerate and effective consultation processes, some of which even misreport findings; poor, basically inaccurate Explanatory Memorandums; and minimal or no information on impact. There is a succession of examples that I could refer to, including around the most contentious legislation, such as social security and legal aid, where we cannot form a view as to whether the regulations would operate as intended. We have invited Ministers to come and defend this failure—they all promise to do better; very few of them show that they can.

We have heard a raft of prescriptions as to what is needed. I support all that—certainly pre-legislative scrutiny—and I would suggest that no Report stage should start before we have statutory instruments to discuss. I also urge for better training and support for the Civil Service and Bill teams and an end to the cuts that have debilitated the Civil Service and the quality of advice.

There will always be those who say that nothing will improve because it was ever thus, but I do not believe it. There is a natural tension between Government and Parliament and it is precisely in that contested space that the proper balance between Government and Parliament should be held. That is where the role of this House is at its most critical and why the conversation that we need should be had between both Houses, and be had urgently.

Strathclyde Review

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I sought to speak in this debate for one specific reason. It has been my privilege in recent years to be a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as well as of the Goodlad committee. Noble Lords may wonder what I have done to deserve such cruel and unusual punishment, but it has been a genuine privilege to see the way that the House does scrutiny.

I am speaking personally now. I am concerned about anything that might reduce the legitimate use of our powers of scrutiny in this House and diminish the power of Parliament. I believe that the weight of opportunistic changes to our political system, some of which has been rehearsed in the House, has reached a tipping point in terms of executive power and away from Parliament and, with respect, the noble Lord’s review sits at the heart of that. Far from having a quarrel with the other place, we are here today making a defence of Parliament as a whole and its ability to hold the Government to account—a Government who, as many noble Lords have already said, find it difficult to face losing votes. Sometimes they seem to behave as if it were 1796, not 2016. I advise the party opposite to remember that there is an ineluctable law in politics that no Government have an endless shelf life.

Talking of hubris, despite the elegant way in which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, delivered his speech, in 1999 he declared that the convention that this House did not vote against statutory instruments was dead. In 2005, he conceded that it had had a lively revival and was rather robust, but now, awkwardly, the Government have required him to declare it conveniently dead after all, and have charged him with finding a way of resuscitating the patient. The problem is of course that the patient is not actually dead; as we have heard today, it is sitting up and having a hearty breakfast. Unfortunately, that means that the noble Lord’s review started on a false note with a false premise. Since there is no evidence of the excessive use of statutory instruments being rejected in this House, no case can be made for the abolition of our power to veto.

Having been invited to address the wrong question, the noble Lord, not surprisingly, came up with the wrong answer. It appears that we are the problem, with our apparent “failure” to understand the conventions. We are also told that the convention has been fraying for many years; indeed, to quote from the report, it,

“has been stretched to breaking point”.

I know that the noble Lord has a fine sense of irony—we saw it in operation many times when he was Leader of this House—but to say that it is stretching the convention to breaking point for the House of Lords to reject five statutory instruments in 65 years, and four in the past 16 years, itself stretches credibility to breaking point. What is frayed and stretched is the other important and very long-standing convention, the distinction between primary and secondary legislation, which has already been alluded to. As Erskine May itself puts it, the purpose of secondary legislation is to deal with the application of detail. The fact that secondary legislation is increasingly not about detail at all but about the scope, the impact and the implementation of primary legislation and making substantial variations to it is the source of the crisis that this Government have manufactured, and is exemplified by the tax credits regulations.

This is evident in the raft of Bills, some already cited by noble Lords, which have been described by the DPRRC in one instance as simple mission statements. Most notoriously, perhaps, there is the Childcare Bill, which led that committee to say that the delegated powers,

“go to the very heart”,

of the Bill. My experience on both the scrutiny committees of this House leaves me in no doubt that the Government find us a thorough nuisance. Time and again in the past two Sessions the Government have been reprimanded by both committees for excessive and inappropriate use of delegation. We have had to refer back to this House secondary legislation which contains substantial policy changes with substantial impacts—for example, the draft hunting regulations, immigration changes, and universal credit. In this Session alone, 32 SIs have had to be corrected by government after serious flaws were identified and 16 have had to be withdrawn completely.

If we add to that ministerial failure to provide impact statements, or Explanatory Memoranda which do what they are supposed to do, a picture emerges of a Government who not only deliberately exploit secondary legislation and reduce parliamentary scrutiny in the process but are resentful of proper scrutiny. If we were to lose our exceptional power to reject SIs, Parliament would lose a legitimate brake on government excess. However, it would also reduce the credibility of the scrutiny process as a whole and open the gate to greater abuse. What is needed, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, anticipated, is a wholesale review of secondary legislation to remind Ministers of their public duty to be open and transparent about policy and legislation, to be accountable, and to respect—in fact, invite—the role of scrutiny.

Instead, we have the three options before us. We are invited to focus on option 3, which involves a new procedure to be set out in statute which would allow the Lords to invite the Commons to think again when a disagreement exists and to assert its primacy. Sadly, this option raises more questions than it resolves. Where is the timetable which will allow the House of Commons to think again? Where are the provisions for legitimate delay? Where is the guarantee that the House of Commons—either as a whole, or in Committee —would be able to show that it had indeed thought again, by debate, or by vote? Where, in short, is this additional provision for scrutiny which would compensate the House for the loss of our veto?

Many commentators are already alarmed by what this implies. We have heard the Hansard Society quoted. Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit says:

“If a Lords defeat did not trigger a debate, and a full-blown vote, peers could find themselves overridden by MPs who had no clue what they were voting on”.

The reality is that we could end up with the worst of all worlds: having lost important competence in this House but with no extra scrutiny in place.

Finally, when the noble Baroness winds up I hope that she will give some indication of the issues raised by the proposal to legislate for these changes. The legislation, we are cheerfully told by the noble Lord, is likely to be short. That will not stop it being problematic. It will be extremely difficult. Nothing like this will have been done before. I know that the noble Baroness is aware of the pitfalls. I detect a certain wistfulness in the noble Lord’s tone when he says that when the conventions go, Parliament and the people it serves will miss their value. Indeed they will, and they will miss nothing more than the power of this House to have a veto over a Government who sometimes act far too hastily, which is when we save them from themselves.

Care Sector: Apprenticeships

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that the RCN has estimated that more than 3,000 overseas nurses currently earn less than £35,000 and are therefore liable to be deported in 2017 as a result of the Immigration Rules? Can he tell me how many of those nurses are in the care sector? Can he also tell me why nurses are not on the shortage occupation list, which would exempt them from those regulations? Will he make it his business to see whether the Home Secretary can change that?

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the shortage occupation list. In February, following a commission from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to conduct a limited review into a number of occupations on the shortage occupation list, which included roles in the health sector, the Migration Advisory Council advised against putting nurses on the shortage occupation list, after taking evidence from a range of stakeholders. Controlling migration is part of our plan to build a system that is fairer to British citizens. Employers must first try to recruit from the settled workforce.