Cabinet Manual

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There is a tradition that some material in upcoming policy announcements is sometimes briefed out to engage the great British public, but the substantive announcements are nearly always made to this House while Parliament is sitting.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has been good enough to tell us three times that the reason for this prolonged delay in publication is that the Government are “considering options”. Apart from the option to publish or not, can she outline what those serious options are that are causing the delay?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The content of the Cabinet Manual is, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, would agree, a matter for the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister of the day. The work being done is to look at everything that has been said, including in debates here and by the committees, and to decide on the content of the various chapters. As has already been said, there have been quite a number of changes—we have left the EU, we have got rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and we have even introduced maternity pay for female Ministers, which was a great step forward—and there are various different things that need to be done. A view needs to be taken on what we put in the Cabinet Manual and how we keep it simple and engaging. Indeed, a suggestion was made in the debate led by my noble friend the Leader of the House to do more online in this digital age.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

The noble Baroness and her friends cannot possibly give an assurance that a circumstance will not arise not precisely the same as that which occurred between 2017 and 2019 but in which a simple majority could not be obtained for an election, because a majority of the House of Commons was content to stymie and hobble the Government and keep them in place in that paralysed state, which was what we saw in that unhappy time.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

The noble Lord seems to be missing the fundamental fact that the problems to which he referred took place under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which required a two-thirds majority. This Bill gets rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The circumstances that occurred in 2017-19, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, cannot recur in absence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

With respect to the noble Lord—he knows I have great respect for him—I do not think that he was listening to what I have just said in answer to his noble friend. All this Bill does is to replace the bar of the two-thirds majority which the Fixed-term Parliaments Act provided with a slightly lower bar, but there is still a bar and it is perfectly conceivable that we could have a House of Commons in which the Government did not have a majority.

--- Later in debate ---

That is what we want to avoid. Trust the people—that is the entire point of the Bill, and that is why the amendment should be disagreed.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having attended previous debate on the Bill, but I want to make just two simple points. First, it is not true that the problems of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act were not foreseen. They were foreseen and explicitly raised by many Members on this side of the House. Secondly, however, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has encapsulated the difference between the two sides of this argument. In particular, I ask him to reflect seriously on his statement that we want power flowing from the ballot box to the Executive. That is completely contrary to the constitution of this country. Indeed, not only is it contrary to that, but it is enormously dangerous, because any system—

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

What I want is a system where, if the Prime Minister wishes to call a general election, that election happens and we get to the situation in which we can trust the people. That is where I wish to see the power flowing.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Out of courtesy to the noble Lord, I will check the record, but my distinct recollection was that he said that we want a system where power flows from the ballot box to the Executive. Not only is that contrary to everything we believe, by omitting Parliament in the middle of it, but it is the basis of every bad dictatorship that Europe has produced—referendums and power flowing from the ballot box to the Executive. That is the extreme case or course, but it is, in essence, precisely the difference between the arguments on the two sides today, in which we believe that on major issues, which now in the British Parliament include the declaration of war, the people who should make the decision at the end of the day are those in Parliament, not the Executive. All the power that the Executive receives is because they can control or, rather, call on a majority in Parliament. Should the Executive cease to have the confidence of Parliament, whether on policy, war, peace or the Dissolution of Parliament, the Executive cannot proceed unless they can change the mind of Parliament. That is a simple argument that applies to the most important things that Parliament can decide. I would argue that the Dissolution of Parliament is one of those issues.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the third time in your Lordships’ House that we have had a debate focused on this issue. At Second Reading, it was a key issue, as it was in Committee. It comes down to a fundamental point.

In the other place and, indeed, in your Lordships’ House, Ministers asserted from the beginning that bringing in this piece of legislation takes us back in some kind of parliamentary TARDIS to the status quo ante whereby we return to exactly the position that we were in before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. However, in Clause 3, that argument is completely undermined by saying, “But just in case we haven’t got it right, we are going to have a clause that avoids any legal action”, and the so-called ouster clausem Clause 3. So the Government are not confident that the Bill without the ouster clause returns us to the position that we were in before.

The fundamental point, also made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is that there is a choice. Do we accept on the calling of an election executive authority or parliamentary democracy? The huge flaw in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is that he seems prepared to trust Parliament on every issue—matters of life and death, legislation and whether we go to war—but not on whether there can be a general election.

I heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in exactly the same way as my noble friend Lord Reid. I wrote them down. He seemed to want to make a major constitutional change where power flowed from the ballot box to the Executive. The fundamental basis of our democracy is that power flows from the ballot box to the elected Chamber of Parliament, the House of Commons, and that the Government derive their authority from that House and are responsible to it.

On the point made by the noble Lord about denying the people a vote—that somehow, if the House of Commons were to vote not to have an election, we would be denying the public an opportunity to have their say—he is not correct, but is right on one point. In effect, there is a fixed or maximum term, in which it is not open to the House of Commons, the Prime Minister, or anyone else to never have an election. There is an end term to any Parliament, by which time an election must be held. It is not simply fixed in time. The argument is that previously the Prime Minister would be expected to go to the monarch. I doubt any of us wish to return to the situation where one puts the monarch in such controversy. We are all scarred by the unlawful Prorogation and how the Government behaved on that. It comes back to this point: do we have executive authority or parliamentary democracy in calling an election? There is nothing more basic for the House of Commons than that objective. Offering the other place an opportunity to vote on this issue avoids the need for Clause 3. The idea that the courts would involve themselves in a decision of Parliament to hold a general election is fanciful. This is an elegant and correct solution of this issue.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to the issue of the former Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, threatening MPs that if they failed to support the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister could call an election. If we are talking about hypothetical circumstances or crises that could occur again, that is certainly one, and should be guarded against at all costs, by not placing the power in the hands of just one person. We should not be surprised by such threats; noble Lords may recall that the current Leader of the House, early on in his parliamentary life, threatened your Lordships’ House with 1,000 extra peers if we failed to pass a piece of legislation he supported. Perhaps threats come quite easily to him.

We had a lengthy debate on this, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, summed up well at the beginning. When this was debated in the House of Commons, there was no lengthy debate, and there is an opportunity for them to reconsider this. When we debated it in Committee previously, my noble friend Lady Taylor said that she was surprised that the House of Commons gave away that power so easily. It may be because it did not discuss it in any great depth or with consideration. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the Joint Committee was divided on the issue of whether it was appropriate or not. It is entirely appropriate that the House of Commons is given the opportunity to consider this again.

I come to one final point, which is that the noble Lord, Lord True, said at both Second Reading and in Committee that the Commons had not amended the Bill, so your Lordships’ House should not do so either. Last night, this House sat beyond 3 am, which is unusual. Today, to facilitate business, we are sitting at 11 am, on a much longer day. If it is not the duty of this House to pass amendments that the other end can consider, then what is the point? The amendment has our full support and I urge noble Lords to vote for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, your Lordships are required to deal with the Bills that are sent to us by the other place, and the other place has sent us a Bill with no such provision. Members of your Lordships’ House under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord McLoughlin on the Joint Committee, which reflected at length on these matters, did not propose such an amendment. None of those who have scrutinised the legislation formally have proposed what the noble and learned Lord has suggested.

The noble and learned Lord said that we could not return to an ancient system. There is perhaps a faint irony in advancing that argument in an unelected House with a tradition that dates back centuries. He said that we had to be 21st century. Well, we tried “21st century” in 2011 and, frankly, I rather prefer the experience of many decades in the long past which I believe served us well, and the proposition before your Lordships, supported by my party and the party opposite at the general election, was that we should do away with the failed 21st-century experiment.

We do not have to talk the talk about the problems that a Commons vote might cause. There has been a lot of speculation, to and fro, on this, but we lived it in 2017 to 2019; that Parliament refused three times to be dissolved and to meet the verdict of the people.

The repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was in our manifesto and that of the party opposite. I found it fascinating to hear the throaty roar of approval from the Benches opposite when any noble Lord, starting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that we must not go back to the situation before the Act was passed. I remind the party opposite, as did my noble friend, of the Labour Party’s promise to the people:

“A Labour government will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which has stifled democracy and propped up weak governments”.


They wish to maintain an essential part of that Act in the form of a Commons vote.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Can the Minister give one example of a spokesman from this side saying that we wish to retain the Fixed-term Parliaments Act?

[Lord True (Con)]

I fear I must say to the noble Lord, who I greatly respect and admire, that I simply stated a feature of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act that the party opposite wishes to retain: that there should be a Commons veto on Dissolution. That is what I said, and that is a fact. If the party opposite votes for this amendment, it will be voting for a House of Commons veto potentially on its own Dissolution—it is written there in the book.

Budget Statement

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend Lord Khan, and the noble Lords, Lord Cruddas and Lord Benyon. I am sure we will all benefit greatly from their experience and expertise.

Last week, the Chancellor announced that, over the past year, 700,000 people have lost their jobs, our economy shrunk by 10% and our borrowing reached the highest it has been outside of wartime. He blamed Covid—a fair enough alibi you may think, but it stops at half the truth. What he did not mention is that, while all our international competitors have also suffered from Covid, we have had the worst economic crisis of any major economy. Future reviews will reveal that the failure to prepare, and the dither, delay and denial of the scientific evidence, especially in timeously implementing lockdowns, contributed significantly to the economic damage—as, too, did Brexit, another unmentionable.

But so much for the past. As for the future, the Budget represented a missed opportunity to respond to the magnitude of the economic damage that has been done. The Budget could have introduced a radical plan to sponsor productivity, innovation and wealth creation. It could have included a major green stimulus or provided a transformative change for the decades to come. It could have provided a credible plan to ease the £70 million burden of debt hanging over so many businesses, or avoided the £2 billion council tax rise affecting households across the country. Of course, it could have protected NHS workers against inflation—the least we could have done, given the efforts, risks and courage involved in their work over the past year. Sadly, it did none of these. Therefore, I believe that it fell far short of what the times and the circumstances demand.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I do not oppose the principle behind the Bill, because, like all noble Lords, no doubt, I recognise the need for post-Brexit stability in financial regulation. The Bill is a mass of detail and the Minister has gone to some lengths to go through it. I confess that it does remind me somewhat of a Christmas tree, with little packages all over the place, some of them no doubt previously stored in various government departments—particularly the Treasury —waiting for an appropriate legislative tree on which to hang them.

Leaving that aside, the Bill occurs, as the Minister said, at an important moment for the country’s economy and our financial services industry. As the Minister in the Commons said:

“Our financial services sector is critical to our national effort to recover from the impacts of Covid-19 and move towards a resilient, open and sustainable future for the UK economy.” [Official Report, Commons, 13/1/2; col. 357.]


I agree with that, but he stressed the pandemic and we all know that it is more than just a response to Covid. As the Minister said, the Bill is an essential part of the effort to improve the UK’s regulatory framework for financial services following the end of the Brexit transition period.

As regards our future post-Brexit development, only time will tell, but the early signs do not augur well. Only this month, we approved the post-Brexit trade and co-operation agreement, but, for financial services, this is basically a no-deal agreement. Within a few days of the agreement, £6 billion-worth of euro- denominated share trading shifted from London to European exchanges.

Of course, the express intention of the Government is to secure a memorandum of understanding on financial services by March, and the ambition for regulatory alignment where appropriate. We should have no illusions how difficult that might prove. Only this week, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, a former EU Financial Services Commissioner and a former Minister leading the Government’s review into the City, has confirmed what many of us have long known. He warned that Brussels is targeting London’s position as a global financial services centre and predicted that the EU will not grant British-based firms the highly prized access they are seeking to the European market. It was not in Brussels’ interests, he said, to allow London to continue to dominate the European financial market in the way it did before Brexit. He continued:

“Given that their strategy is to build up the EU, why on earth would they?”


Why, indeed? We should not be surprised then that, so far as we now know, Brussels has granted the UK time-limited equivalence on only two of the roughly 40 different financial areas where London is seeking market access. The EU has, of course, given no further indication on when it will take more equivalence decisions.

I am afraid that the way the Government approached the Brexit negotiations means that there is now no incentive for the EU to agree equivalence arrangements, because their absence means jobs and trading formerly done in London migrating to the EU. Why do I mention this? Herein lies the paradox: the Bill is part of a process aimed at increasing our competitive edge, including vis-à-vis the European Union, but in our present, post-Brexit circumstances any move by the UK to enhance the City’s competitive edge is likely to lessen the chances of progress on equivalence in the EU and the market access that comes with it.

There are, of course, aspects of the Bill that we welcome. I welcome the preliminary agreement between Gibraltar, the UK and Spain, which the Minister mentioned, and look forward to further detail following review by the European Commission. This is of importance to our whole financial sector, not least to our insurance industry.

I also welcome the moves that have been made to tighten up the fight against crime, money laundering and fraud, but equally I wonder, despite the passage of this legislation, how that struggle against criminality will have been affected by the loss of 400,000 records from our criminal database. That has been a disaster that will overrule many of the measures in this Bill.

There are some strange and disappointing omissions from the Bill. I will mention only one, but it is significant. The UK financial services sector has a key role to play in empowering the changes that we need to make to preserve the planet for future generations. But the Bill, which empowers the regulators in so many other ways, is totally silent on that critical issue. The Government say they want the UK to be the centre for green finance globally. Why then, in their first major piece of legislation on this sector since we left the EU, do they say nothing about instructing the regulators to make that a part of their objectives? I hope that the Minister can respond to this.

Of course, the private investment sector is making strong moves towards greater environmental investing, and there is growth in public demand for these products. But this cannot be done by the private sector alone. It will take both the private sector and the public sector working together and pulling in the same direction. I wish the Bill well in its intent, but I fear that it will fall far short of its aims.

Elections: May 2021

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. There are no plans to change the number of signatures required for nomination in May 2021, or to allow nominations to be accepted by email. Although returning officers may allow parts of the nominations process to be carried out online, such as the arrangement of necessary documents, final nomination papers have to be delivered in person. The Government have considered these issues with the electoral sector and Public Health England, and they are of the view that the current process can be carried out in a Covid-secure way.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I suspect that we have another definite maybe from the Prime Minister, who says “We will go ahead”. And yet, if the Government proceed with the elections in May in the normal fashion, in the midst of a pandemic, with half the electorate not yet vaccinated, unlike what the Minister said yesterday—

“the very idea that somebody would be forced to choose between their health and their vote is simply not an issue”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/21; col. 314.]

there will be precisely that issue. Can the Government give us a definite answer—for once—and get ahead of the curve and make a definite decision now whether they are to proceed or to put alternative arrangements in place in good time? Another late U-turn will cause great anger and great confusion.

[Lord True (Con)]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord that clarity is important. The planning assumption in the law is that we are proceeding with these elections. I take the point that he makes about people who are shielding or unable to go to the polling station. That is why, under the current considerations, we are looking at, for example, enhanced arrangements for proxy voting for those affected by Covid. We believe, in concert with those authorities involved, that it would be possible to proceed safely.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a sad irony that this trading co-operation agreement—so-called—will assuredly result in less trade and reduced co-operation with the European Union. The best thing that can be said about it, and it has been said, is that it is better than no deal, but it is emphatically not better than our previous position. I ask the Minister: when have any Government entered trade negotiations with the expectation—indeed, the express objective—of ending up with arrangements that reduce opportunities and increase impediments to trade relative to the status quo ante? That is precisely what this agreement does.

In trading with the EU, we now face more bureaucracy, as people have pointed out, greater regulatory impediments, weaker mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and a new ambiguity in supply chains, while in a week when we hear that 4,000 City firms are at a heightened risk of failure due to the Covid crisis there is next to nothing on the services sector, which comprises 80% of our trade with the European Union. As my noble friend Lord Blunkett pointed out, there will of course also be less co-operation on security and policing and weaker regulation of data flows. Yet the Prime Minister urges us to rejoice and celebrate this deal as though it were some great victory, another Waterloo. That is the maximum self-delusion. This is not a Waterloo; if anything, it is a Dunkirk. It is a temporary reprieve from a disastrous strategic mistake, and I am sure the future will show us that neither trade nor prosperity are won by evacuations.

Spending Review 2020

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the right reverend Prelate in deprecating the cuts to our aid budget. In his spending review, the Chancellor said that it,

“strengthens the United Kingdom’s place in the world.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/20; col. 830.]

He then cut another £4 billion from the aid and development budget. Let me clear: I welcome the much-needed increase in defence expenditure. But robbing the aid budget Peter to pay the defence budget Paul is no way to go about it. I despair. Does the Treasury still not understand that there are three ways in which we exert influence and strengthen our position in the world? The first is by a strong defence posture and capabilities; the second is by assiduous diplomacy; and the third is by extending aid and development to others.

That is not just a moral decision—though assuredly it is. It is much more. First, it is a crucial element of our soft power. Secondly, it is enlightened self-interest. Many of the huge problems that we face, from disease, to conflict, to mass migration, have their very roots in the lack of economic and social development elsewhere in the world. Therefore, such a huge reduction in our aid and development budget is decidedly the wrong thing to do in our own interest in the longer term. It is wrong and short-sighted for us, as well as being wrong for those in other parts of the world who would be the recipients of our aid and development resources.

Covid-19: Devolved Administrations

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Friday 27th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

The next speaker is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He is not answering, so I call the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. There is a problem with the sound, so we will come back to the noble Lord. I call the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, like many in this Chamber, I very much welcome the UK-wide discussions to help us combat Covid. It is always better when we are helping each other. In that context, how much, as a total, have the UK Government distributed in consequentials and Covid-related expenditure to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very important question. I fear I cannot answer with a specific figure, but I will write to the noble Lord and advise others on that matter. As he says, the UK Government have procured vaccines for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Joint Biosecurity Centre, part of NHS Test and Trace, is UK-wide, and the UK Government provide testing capacity to all the devolved Administrations, including operating testing sites across the United Kingdom. Mutual aid and co-operation across and between all four nations has, in our judgment, been a key part in ensuring that PPE gets to where it is needed. I will write on the figures.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Access for Goods

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. The UK Government recognise, of course, the unique position of authorised traders, such as supermarkets, with stable supply chains and comprehensive oversight of warehousing and distribution, moving pre-packaged products for retail solely in Northern Ireland. We are continuing to pursue specific solutions for this trade.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, many of us in this House and elsewhere have long believed that the Government’s claims that the Prime Minister’s deal will produce unfettered trade are, quite frankly, delusional. Now that the Government have recognised that, instead of planning to breach our international obligations, would they not do better to look at constructive alternatives? For instance, what consideration has been given to the sensible proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and his parliamentary colleagues, which might just get the Government off the hook?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the principle of unfettered access, and its legislative underpinning, was one of the key components of the re-formation of the Northern Ireland Executive. The UK Government are seeking to fulfil an obligation, and I regret very much that your Lordships, including the noble Lord, voted against it.

Unemployment

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton [V]]

My noble friend raises an important point. Certainly, a great deal of thinking is going on at the moment about how we can turbocharge investment in green energy. Indeed, our Budget for virus lockdown provided a plank for a lot of these initiatives.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, yesterday, the OECD said that the UK had experienced the worst economic impact in the G7 from the Covid-19 pandemic, which is on top of the fact that we are already seeing a surge in job losses. What targeted help can the Minister offer the hardest-hit sectors of the economy, such as hospitality and tourism which, when the furlough scheme comes to an end, will take longer to reopen and recover?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton [V]]

As the noble Lord will know, we have announced an unprecedented level of support across the economy which includes these particularly hard-hit areas. As he will also know, we announced yesterday that shops will be able to reopen next week as part of our gradual and phased reopening of the economy. The Government are meeting regularly with members of the entertainment and leisure sectors to look at all possible solutions to help them get back into business as quickly as possible.