Democracy Denied (DPRRC Report)

Lord Janvrin Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and I am glad she was not my teacher. I declare an interest as a current member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and a former member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I too pay tribute to the staff of these two committees, who provide incredible support, week in, week out.

These two hard-hitting reports highlight the continuing and growing misuse of secondary legislation through unnecessary Henry VIII powers, skeleton Bills, and disguised and tertiary legislation. Together, they express real disquiet about what is going on. This is not surprising. As the titles of the two reports suggest, the concern about secondary legislation scrutiny goes to the very heart of the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive.

This is of major constitutional significance and, as we have heard, it has real, practical consequences. Effective scrutiny makes better law, but secondary legislation is not subject to effective scrutiny because, to be effective, scrutiny ultimately entails an ability to amend or at least to think again. This lack of effective scrutiny is the essence of the problem addressed by these two reports.

Of course, it is easy to see why nothing gets done. Parliamentary time is in short supply, the wider constitutional agenda is pretty full, and secondary legislation is seen as something for constitutional technicians. But above all, turkeys do not vote for Christmas, and Ministers are not going to fall over themselves to limit their own powers.

Let me try to remind the Minister why he might urge his colleagues to take a longer view. First, the current situation is a muddle and inherently unstable. Few understand the present complicated range of scrutiny processes and procedures, and the present all-or-nothing approach rests on a potentially fragile understanding, challenged in the past, that the Lords does not vote down secondary legislation. Secondly, the problem will not go away. Brexit and Covid have highlighted the problem, while the temptation to produce more and more contentious Bills seems insatiable. There is wide and growing concern, and not just in this Chamber. Thirdly, and most importantly, the issue is above all about public trust in our democratic system. As others in this Chamber so effectively remind us, we do well to recall the importance through history of the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. We only have to look across the Atlantic to remind ourselves of the apparent fragility of even the strong democratic systems in a world of populism and social media.

What should the Government do? The very minimum would be to look again at the suggestions in these two excellent reports to make the existing procedures work more effectively. The government responses were disappointing and, in my view, short-sighted. I ask the Minister to spell out in detail why skeleton Bill declarations, a scrutiny reserve or more rigorous avoidance of disguised and tertiary legislation should not be pursued.

Beyond this, I urge the Government to review the whole question of how best to scrutinise secondary legislation, including the power to amend or think again. I suggest using as a starting point the current Hansard Society review, which is about to issue its preliminary findings. With his long experience of constitutional matters, the Minister is well placed to take a lead on this, perhaps by setting up a Joint Committee of the Lords and the Commons to consider a new secondary legislation Bill. Effective Commons engagement is crucial, despite the Strathclyde review on the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive—and not Lords versus Commons, as has already been pointed out.

This is a fundamental constitutional issue, with practical consequences for every citizen in the land. The present system is a mess and crying out for reform. It is surely time to act.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord Janvrin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill. It will ensure that the constitutional business of the Government can proceed without delay when the sovereign is unavailable. I declare an interest as a former member of the late Queen’s household.

The daily workload of the sovereign as Head of State contains much that is of an essentially formal legal nature, requiring, for example, a presence, a formal approval or a signature to process state business according to law. As we have heard, this covers such things as Privy Council meetings, receiving ambassadors’ credentials or the formal approval of appointments. It has long been the working practice of the Palace to ensure that such formal business is carried out without delay—hence, for example, the discipline of the daily red boxes and the regular appointment, certainly in my time, of Counsellors of State when the Queen was overseas. The present pool of working members of the Royal Family who are eligible and available to be Counsellors of State is, for reasons which are well known, very small. The addition of the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal makes very good practical sense. If I may say, when many minds are on football, it will give much-needed strength and depth to the bench.

I have three brief points to add. First, some might question whether in the age of Teams, Zoom and electronic signatures the business of the Head of State could be updated—as indeed some of it had to be during Covid—but I am not sure that this is the right way to go in normal times. Some of the activities performed by Counsellors of State, such as the receipt of credentials from ambassadors, are better done face to face, especially when a little ceremonial adds to the occasion. I am no expert on the legal technicalities of how, where and when electronic signatures are valid, but I would need to be persuaded that an electronic royal sign manual is either practical or historically desirable, especially when the alternative of Counsellors of State is on the statute book.

Secondly, the Bill is about process and good administrative practice; namely, the expeditious execution of formal government business. It is not about policy matters or wider royal matters such as finances, programmes, major speeches or other royal activities which are the subject of continuous formal and informal discussion between the Government and the Palace.

Thirdly, this is a very limited administrative measure but one which could be of great importance in the event of unforeseen developments that come out of nowhere; I think, for example, of accident or illness.

The fast-tracking of the Bill though Parliament therefore seems entirely sensible. It is a very simple Bill which does not affect the underlying Regency Act, and it is entirely non-political. For this reason, it surely does not merit extensive use of scarce parliamentary time. I support the Bill and the Government’s handling of it.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Lord Janvrin Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in expressing, here in this House, my deepest condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family on the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. As perhaps many of us know at first hand, however prepared we think we are for a loss such as this, the shock of bereavement is acute.

So much has been said and written about Prince Philip in these past few days. To the surprise of some—it is a revelation to many—we see an affectionate and more rounded picture of this extraordinary man. He would perhaps have raised that quizzical eyebrow of his at the praise he is receiving, but he deserves every word of it.

Plenty has rightly been made of the way he defined his role in those early years as the restless and hyperactive innovator driven by his passions, the creator of his ground-breaking award scheme, the conservationist so far ahead of his time, the advocate for engineering, design and technology, and the convenor for his growing interest in faith, religion and philosophy. He was a philanthropic entrepreneur long before we knew what those were.

Less has perhaps been made of Prince Philip in his middle years, as the innovator gave way to the consolidator at home, across the Commonwealth and more widely. He remained a constant and very visible supporter of our armed services and those of the realms. He arranged the seamless succession of Prince Edward to lead the international award scheme. He tirelessly supported the WWF’s increasing global agenda until he stepped down as international president at the age of 75. He helped to set up the Royal Academy of Engineering. He encouraged interfaith dialogue on conservation through the Assisi declarations.

These are all major achievements in themselves, but he never let these passions get in the way of what he so clearly saw as his primary duty: to support the Queen. He knew, as did the Queen, that he was in a unique position to offer support by being totally honest, straightforward and, if necessary, critical in a way that nobody else could.

Day after day, year after year, he was a willing and accomplished part of that royal double act at public events and engagements here and around the world, working a room, greeting another line-up or meeting people on walkabouts. At the same time, the Queen looked to him to give a lead on family matters, to advise, to cajole, to dispute and to reconcile, as families do. Above all, he was an advocate for and a believer in change. He recognised that the monarchy has constantly to evolve. In the early years he drove this himself, and later in life he was a source of much guidance and advice.

Like many British institutions, the monarchy might sometimes seem difficult to explain. That it continues to inspire trust, loyalty and affection is founded on the Royal Family’s ability to make a clear contribution to the life of our nation, adapting with the years. Throughout this long reign—through times of unparalleled political, economic, social and cultural change—the Queen, anchored in her faith, has by example gently reminded us of the values of courage and humility, of service and duty, of continuity and change. We can never know the true extent of the support she has been given by Prince Philip, either directly at her side or through the breadth of his own contribution, but it has without doubt been immense. History will judge him very kindly.