Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 1 February be approved.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to the Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Coronavirus, Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) Order in the same speech.

Perhaps I may say at the outset how much I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hannan, who will address us shortly. The instruments brought forward today make sensible provision to support the effective administration of elections. The mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections order amends the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007, the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 and the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017. The purpose of the order, following representations made by my noble friend Lord Hayward and others, is to reduce the number of signatures required on a nomination paper for a candidate in the police and crime commissioner, combined authority and single authority mayoral elections. It is intended to reduce the need for person-to-person contact ahead of the May elections, given the specific context of the current pandemic. Similar provisions relating to local councillor and London mayoral elections have been made in a separate order.

In making these changes, we have taken the approach that the candidates should obtain subscribers on the basis of two per local authority area, whether for a poll within a single local authority or for electoral areas that contain a number of local authorities. Single local authority mayoral candidates must obtain signatures from two electors instead of 30; candidates for police and crime commissioner elections must obtain signatures from a number of electors which is twice the number of local authority areas within that police area. This is instead of the current requirement of 100 electors. For example, under the changes, for the Devon and Cornwall police area, which has 12 local authority areas, a candidate will need to obtain 24 signatures. Combined authority mayoral or so-called metro mayoral candidates must obtain signatures from a total number of electors that is twice the number of local authority areas within the boundary of the area. For example, the Liverpool City Region has six authorities, so the total number of signatures needed is 12. These signatures must be obtained from two electors registered to vote in each local authority area within the mayoral area. Currently, 100 electors in total are required at a combined authority mayoral election.

In making these changes, the Government have responded, after consultation, to the concerns of the electoral sector, candidates and political parties that the need to collect a high number of signatures for nominations for a candidate in some types of poll would encourage an unhelpful and unnecessary amount of interaction, as well as complexity for candidates. While it is essential that candidates in a poll can demonstrate a clear amount of local support, we must balance the importance of democracy with the need to protect people in these unique circumstances.

As I have explained, we are not removing the signature requirements completely. It is important that there should remain a democratic check and balance for candidates to demonstrate a degree of local support from electors in their area. These provisions will remain in force until 28 February 2022 to support candidates in any by-elections that may occur in the coming months as we emerge from the pandemic. The elections in May 2022 will automatically revert to the standard rules.

I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for drawing this to the attention of the House. The committee considered that there are some points where the drafting of the instrument and its Explanatory Note could have been clearer in certain respects. We welcome the views of the committee and are particularly interested to note its thoughts on how best to assist readers in understanding which provisions in an instrument will apply to different parts of the UK. We consider that the instrument takes a proportionate approach to a temporary rule change which has been introduced to reduce the number of face-to-face contacts required in the pandemic. I am gratified to see that the committee has agreed with the response of the Cabinet Office to its request for a memorandum has provided additional clarity.

We consider that it is clear from the context of the order itself when and to which elections it applies. However, in order to further aid clarity and certainty, we have published a note on GOV.UK on the order and its effect, particularly on the numbers of signatures required, and to assist candidates, their supporters and those administering elections. This includes tables that set out the number of subscribers needed for candidates standing at combined authority and London mayoral elections in England, and elections of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. As I have explained, these are polls where the election is for an area covering a number of local authority areas and the tables set out the total number of subscribers that candidates will need in these areas, and whether a specific number is required from each constituent authority or not.

I now turn to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021, which I hope will be welcomed by your Lordships. It introduces a set of prescribed forms and forms of words translated into Welsh in respect of the range of other forms already in use, in English, at PCC elections. These are in addition to the Welsh versions of the ballot paper and nomination form for candidates that are already provided.

The form and forms of words prescribed by this instrument are for use in any police and crime commissioner election that takes place in Wales. The Welsh forms in the instrument cover various stages in the electoral process and include poll cards issued to electors, the postal voting statement completed by postal voters, the declaration to be made by the companion of a voter with disabilities, guidance for voters and forms completed by candidates and their agents.

Some forms are in Welsh only and others are bilingual, in Welsh and English. The forms that are prescribed in Welsh and English—for example, poll cards and postal voting statements—are to be used in the bilingual form in place of the English versions. Forms that are prescribed in Welsh only—for example, the candidate’s consent to nomination form and the candidate’s declaration as to election expenses—are to be made available in Welsh where the person completing the form, such as the candidate, prefers to communicate in Welsh rather than English. The order also provides a Welsh version of the forms of words setting out guidance for voters that appears in polling station voting compartments. The effect of the order is that the form of words appropriate to the number of candidates will be displayed.

We have consulted the Electoral Commission on the orders, and it is supportive of both. We have also had support for the changes to the nominations process from the Association of Electoral Administrators and in discussions with political party representatives via the Parliamentary Parties Panel. We also shared a draft of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021 with the Welsh Language Advisory Group, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and officials in the Welsh Government. There is broad support among these stakeholders for the proposed changes set out in these two instruments.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The question is that this Motion be agreed to. I should have made it clear at the beginning that the time limit for this debate is one and a half hours. The first debate is on the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021, and one other Motion later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken for the general welcome given to both these orders. I very much agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, about the way in which things are best done in this House and our ability to reach across the aisle. He has always exemplified that and I will always try to live up to that standard.

It would be hard, however, to live up to the standard of speaking of my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, who we all welcomed to this House. I congratulate him on his impressive and thoughtful maiden speech. He touched on things that are important to all of us—at least, some are important to all of us, and some to some of us. As was said by another speaker, his affirmation of the importance of casting a vote—of getting people to use democracy, particularly local democracy—speaks volumes to someone who has spent a lot of their time working in local government; I think I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on this as well. Without going into specifics, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who also spoke eloquently about the importance of local democracy and devolution. I listened with interest to his remarks.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, spoke of a belief in freedom. As a child of the 1960s, I believe that almost every question comes back to freedom. I used to say that to my children when they were five years old and wanted to go out and play; they did not always see the point. It was good to hear him here today. Sometimes, in the pre-Brexit days, when some of us on these Benches were in a minority, we occasionally listened out for and watched his speeches in another place, which were an encouragement in difficult times. I wish him well in this House. He has instantly gained the respect of noble Lords on all sides.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I was asked a number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, ingeniously got Donald Trump into the question of police commissioner elections. I do not think that in any of this the Government were looking any further than the interests of democracy in this country and the Welsh language. The noble Lord asked whether Welsh Ministers were consulted and what the feedback from Welsh language advisers was. The answer is that the Welsh Language Advisory Group is content with the proposed changes. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also raised this point. No major changes were made as a result of the consultation with stakeholders, who overall were content with the changes that we made.

I confirm that Cabinet Office officials sought the views of officials in the Welsh Government on the Welsh forms order. It is appropriate that there is consultation and effective activity on technical matters between the different Administrations in this country at official level. For that kind of contact to take place in no way denigrates the importance of intra-Administration contact.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, also claimed that the Welsh Government were staggered, as he put it, that the UK Government were obstructing voting approaches. The conduct of elections in Wales is devolved. So far as the UK position is concerned, the Government in this time of Covid seek to ensure that people will have the opportunity to vote in the way that they wish to: by postal vote, by appointing a proxy or at a polling station. The UK Government do not think that changes to these mechanisms are needed. It would not have been possible to move to an all-postal vote without changing the voting process to remove the use of personal identifiers for security, which would open up the risk of fraud, or otherwise require them for every elector, which would run the risk that people would not provide them and so not be able to use a postal vote.

There will be three ways to vote in the UK: in person at a polling station, by postal vote or by proxy and these will all be available in 2021. We recognise that the pandemic may change people’s needs and preferences as to how they cast their vote. Guidance is available to enable voters to make their choice. The UK Government have always been clear that it would not be appropriate to impose an all-postal vote for the elections, as this increases fraud risk and removes choice from voters who wish to cast their vote in person.

We are seeking to put in place a strong set of new measures to ensure that the polls are Covid-secure. As for why campaigning is allowed when people still cannot see loved ones, this is highly regrettable but these are the circumstances that Covid requires. I look forward with passion to the day when I can see my granddaughter again. But campaigning is an essential part of democracy. Voters deserve to be well informed before going to the polls and there must be a level playing field for candidates. Careful guidance has been issued.

On the collection of nominations, the view is that people should follow social distancing rules, so no specific guidance has been given on that. All persons involved in the electoral process must ensure that public health is protected. The Government have issued appropriate guidance to that purpose and will continue to do so.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as I said, the Welsh Language Advisory Group was content with the proposed changes and translations and no major changes were made as a result. We have worked closely with our partners, including the Welsh Government, to support the delivery of Covid-secure polls in May 2021. I repeat, it is for the Welsh Government to take decisions around polls within their competence. We will continue to work with them to ensure an aligned approach to the polls.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, raised a particular and important issue and I undertake to write to him with guidance on how the circumstances that he described would be addressed.

There has not been major dissent and I am grateful for your Lordships’ support for the instruments today. I think most agree that they make sensible changes to support the effective administration of elections, reducing the number of signatures that candidates will need to be nominated, which balances the need to demonstrate local support for those wishing to stand as a candidate. I hear what some noble Lords said about the number of signatures. As I set out in my opening remarks, the previous position will come back in May 2022. I always found it rather congenial going around to get nomination signatures, because they occasionally came with a cup of coffee or even a glass of wine. I am sure we will listen to your Lordships’ advice on this matter.

To conclude, I very much welcome what has been said about the Welsh language. This order carries on a long process of work that goes way back. I remember working as a young adviser with Viscount Whitelaw in the days when the battle over Welsh language broadcasting was live. The work is never completed, but we are ensuring here that there is effective Welsh language provision at elections in Wales and consistency with other elections held in Wales. In a world that treks towards a drab uniformity of approved culture and thought, we should always cherish the richness of ancient cultures and language, among which the great Welsh language is pre-eminent. In that spirit, I commend the instruments to the House.

Motion agreed.

Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Coronavirus, Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 February be approved.

Relevant documents: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 41st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the intstrument).

Motion agreed.

Financial Services Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an extremely detailed and thoughtful debate. I will try to answer as many points as I can in the time available, which I fear will be quite Parkinsonian and extend in line with the notes I have received. I am grateful for the general tenor of the debate; I think all of us in this House agree that there are profound problems here which we collectively, across parties, are seeking to address. I am grateful for that.

I will briefly explain the Government’s position before turning to the amendments. Obviously, the Government want to incentivise more of the people who could benefit from it to access professional debt advice, and access it sooner. To this end, we are introducing a debt respite scheme, as many noble Lords have said. The first part is the breathing space, which begins on 4 May, and the second part is the statutory debt repayment plan. The SDRP will be a new debt solution for people in problem debt and will provide a revised long-term agreement between the debtor and their creditors on the amount owed and a manageable timetable over which it has to be repaid. It is intended that during their plan, debtors will be protected from most credit enforcement action and from certain interest and charges on debts in the plan.

My noble friend Lady Morgan asked whether bailiffs can be sent in during a moratorium or SDRP. During a moratorium, a court or tribunal must not instruct a bailiff to take action. It is intended that, during an SDRP, enforcement action would also be paused.

These amendments seek to require the Government to include certain features in the debt respite scheme, including specific requirements relating to breathing space. Amendments 52 and 67, which many noble Lords have spoken to, seek to set a deadline of 1 May 2024 for the SDRP to be implemented. Similarly, Amendment 68 would require the Government to publish a timetable, with a requirement for the scheme to take on clients before the end of 2024.

I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments and am grateful for the chance to address the timing of the SDRP and for the discussions we have been able to have and the genuine and positive engagement with noble Lords prior to this stage and—who knows?—afterwards. The consultation response published in June 2019 set out areas that required further policy work and consultation. Given the challenges and complexity involved, the Government continue to work closely with the debt advice sector, creditors and regulators to make sure that the policy can be implemented successfully and that everyone involved has time to prepare. Setting a hard deadline for the SDRP risks tying all our stakeholders’ hands unnecessarily and arbitrarily limiting the time they have available to prepare properly.

I can nevertheless assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to implementing the SDRP in a timely manner. To that end, detailed regulations establishing the SDRP are currently being drafted and will be consulted on as soon as possible after this Bill receives Royal Assent. This process will ensure that the SDRP is not rushed and is developed to a high standard that can effectively support the individuals who will use it, as well as those who will operate it.

As my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond said, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, put her case most elegantly. Although a bad dancer myself, my wife would tell the Committee that it is much more congenial to dance to elegant music. I can say that the May 2024 date is consistent with the Government’s planning assumptions, although, for the reasons I have given, they do not agree that setting a specific date in primary legislation is an appropriate or practical way of ensuring this. The amendments as drafted would prevent the Government making further regulations on the whole of the debt respite scheme after that date; this would be undesirable, as it would prevent the Government acting to amend the scheme in future—for example, in response to feedback.

The noble Baroness also asked when universal credit debt will be brought in to the scheme. UC overpayments will be included in the breathing space scheme from day one. UC advances, which the noble Baroness asked about, will be included in the scheme, on a phased basis, as soon as possible, as will third-party deductions. This does, however, require significant IT changes, but I assure the noble Baroness that the Government recognise the importance of including all UC debts as soon as possible. I hope that, having heard the debate, noble Lords will accept that we will reflect on what further clarity might be offered on a timetable, short of a statutory tie, and that what I have said on this will be reassuring.

Amendment 53 would expressly enable the regulations to cover the provision of debt advice. I assure my noble friend Lord Holmes that this is possible under the existing powers. It is already built in to the breathing space and is intended to be built in to the SDRP parts of the scheme. Indeed, the scheme cannot work without professional debt advice provision and the Government are aware of its importance. Amendments 56, 57 and 58, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, affect the debt advice provider in breathing space, including extending the 60-day period of respite in breathing space, varying the time in which the debt adviser must conduct a midway review, or allowing the debt adviser to exclude certain debts from the scheme.

Amendments 61, 62 and 65 focus on the creditor, including the possibility of regulations being made which vary the time creditors have to comply with notifications, among other implications. The Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 delegated the detail of the debt respite scheme to secondary regulations, thus providing the Government with broad powers to design the scheme and implement it, rather than specifying implementation decisions in primary legislation. The Government have already set out their approach to the debt respite scheme as a whole in their response in June 2019, following the consultation they carried out. The policy aims to strike a fine balance between the interests of the debtor, debt advice provider and creditor. That was recognised in the speech by my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend asked if joint debts would be included. Joint debts can be included in a moratorium, even if only one party seeks it. However, the other party’s other debts are unaffected. A moratorium applies to a debt, not a debtor.

Many of the aspects covered by these amendments are already factored in to the scheme design and, should the Government wish to make further changes to the breathing space regulations in future, they would not require these amendments to be made in order to do it. We will be glad to exchange further information with my noble friend Lord Lucas to reassure him further. He may ask whether, if the Government can already do these things, they will commit to do them. I assure noble Lords that the Government listen with respect and intend this scheme to be successful and useful. As I have already set out, there is still significant policy work to do on the SDRP, which is why the Government have committed to publishing draft regulations and consulting on them as soon as possible. With less than three months to go until the start of the breathing space scheme, it is important to have certainty and stability in the requirements to allow everyone affected to make the appropriate preparations. The matters which noble Lords have raised in their amendments will be kept under very close review.

Amendments 54 and 59 suggest changes to the Financial Guidance and Claims Act that would allow the Government to include specific provisions to the debt respite scheme. I assure noble Lords that Section 7 of that Act, as amended by Clause 34 of this Bill, will contain powers to allow the Government to include such measures as are suggested in this amendment. I recognise that Amendment 54, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is intended to suggest certain design features for the SDRP. I will attempt to reassure noble Lords on the points raised, but not exclusively. As with my response to my noble friend Lord Lucas, we would certainly accept the noble Lord’s invitation to write to clarify further.

Amendment 54 seeks to require that debt advice providers be authorised by the FCA. It is envisaged, as set out in our response, that only debt advice providers with appropriate FCA authorisation will be able to offer an SDRP, unless they are a local authority which offers money advice and is exempt from FCA authorisation. This would mirror what has been legislated for in the Breathing Space scheme in secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked for further clarity on this point—on which local authorities will be able to start Breathing Space. It applies only to those local authorities that offer debt counselling to residents. It is intended that those same debt advisers will be able to offer SDRPs when they are implemented.

Amendment 54 also suggests that only authorised charities or not-for-profit organisations should be allowed to become payment distributors. The 2019 consultation response explained that either debt advice agencies with FCA permissions for handling client money or the Insolvency Service should act as payment distributors. If commercial debt advice agencies do this, it is intended that they will be entitled only to the same percentage of monthly payments available to other types of payment distributor in the scheme. It is intended that they will not be able to charge debtors any fees for delivering any other aspect of the SDRP. Powers to determine a reasonable level for the charges in the scheme, to require debts owed to the Government and other public bodies and service providers to be included, and to protect against enforcement action by court-appointed enforcement agents, are already provided for in the clause we are debating.

Amendment 59 suggests the introduction of penalties for creditor non-compliance. Section 7 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act already provides powers to impose consequences on creditors, so this amendment is unnecessary. I repeat that the Government have committed to publishing draft regulations and consulting on them as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That consultation will offer all those who are interested in the SDRP, including noble Lords, to consider the proposals and offer their feedback on the Government’s design for the scheme, ensuring that it is fit for purpose.

My noble friend Lady Morgan asked how the scheme would be funded. The Government intend for the administrative costs of the scheme to be funded by deducting an amount from debtors’ repayments. The funding model aims to ensure that it remains sustainable to operate for debt advice agencies while providing fairness to creditors—but I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, probed a little further on that.

Turning to reviews, which are the subject of Amendments 60, 69 and 70, I can confirm that the Government are already committed to carrying out full and proper evaluations of both the Breathing Space scheme and SDRP after their commencement and will keep the matters raised by noble Lords under review. The Government are already required by law to carry out a review of Breathing Space within five years of its commencement. I can confirm that the Government are happy to continue to engage with my noble friend Lord Lucas on this issue to ensure that the views of stakeholders are heard. On Amendment 60 in particular, the Government continue to work closely with the Money and Pensions Service, the Financial Conduct Authority and other stakeholders to monitor personal finances, including financial resilience and the impact of debt on individuals.

On Amendments 63 and 64, my noble friend Lord Lucas asked whether the scheme was ready to go. His amendments would not permit regulations to commence until certain aspects of the Insolvency Service and court system’s IT services had been delivered. The Treasury understands that the Insolvency Service and Courts Service are on track to deliver the necessary functionality for debt advisers and creditors to comply with Breathing Space. Officials have engaged extensively with a broad range of creditors to ensure that they understand their obligations under the scheme and are making any necessary IT systems changes. Guidance for debt advisers and creditors was published in December 2020 to assist with that process, and the Money and Pensions Service is delivering training for debt advisers this month.

The start date for this scheme—4 May 2021—was set in regulations and agreed by both Houses last year, and the Government consider that implementing the Breathing Space scheme on time is a priority. Delaying implementation of a scheme that is due to start in less than three months would be unnecessary, unhelpful and harmful to debtors, who desperately need the relief this scheme offers, as all noble Lords have agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have already spoken at some length about the statutory debt repayment plan, so I will restrict my remarks to the amendment in front of us. Amendment 55 would require regulations to include a provision that would mean debts that have been sold by one creditor to another are subject to a fair debt write-down when they are included within an individual’s SDRP. Both my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, illustrated, from their position of great experience in these areas, some of the important issues that would need to be considered in an intervention of the kind proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, made the same point from a slightly different perspective.

As its name suggests, the SDRP is intended to support the repayment of debts in full, over a manageable timeframe. The policy is not intended to provide debt relief, but a fair and sustainable way to improve debtors’ finances and returns to creditors. Other statutory debt solutions, such as debt relief orders, offer debt relief to people for whom repayment is not a realistic prospect. The Government recently launched a consultation on raising the financial threshold criteria for individuals entering a debt relief order.

The noble Baroness’s amendment would apply to debts which have been sold on, and not to other qualifying debts. The Government do not agree that it is necessary or desirable to treat these debts, or the people who owe them, differently from other debts and debtors in the scheme whose debts have not been sold on. People entering an SDRP will be in financial difficulties regardless of who the debts are owed to, and they all deserve fair and equitable treatment. I can, however, reassure the noble Baroness that, as per the 2019 consultation response, accrual of most interest, fees and charges will be prevented during a SDRP, so the amount of a person’s debt should not increase while they are repaying, regardless of who the debt is owned by or sold to in that period.

This amendment would also require any outstanding amounts owed in respect of sold-on debts to be treated as if fully discharged at the end of an SDRP. As the SDRP supports debtors to repay debts in full, it is not envisaged that there will be any outstanding amount left to pay at the end of a completed SDRP. Including such provision would be contrary to the policy intent of the Bill and to the broader arguments put forward by noble Lords in the course of this brief discussion, so I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly those who have supported Amendment 55. I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who painted a powerful picture of the impact of what we now know was the early stages of the pandemic, as set out in the churches’ Reset the Debt report. He spoke movingly about the increase in demand at food banks and church food pantries, which have been essential in helping so many households through. However, the food bank does not pay the gas bill or the council tax demand.

The right reverend Prelate stressed, as we would expect, the strong moral case for this fair debt write-off—who better to do so? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, highlighted the pressure of council tax being felt by so many households. Of course, council tax is funding essential services as budgets are being squeezed by slashed funding from Westminster. I should perhaps declare at this point that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also thank the noble Baroness for stressing the issue of zero-hours contracts, which affect so many households.

I strongly thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for making a powerful argument for something much larger than this, as I said at the start, modest proposal; for making the parallel with the bank write-offs of 2007-08; and for calling for consideration of a more wide-ranging debt jubilee. That is why I went to a number of NGOs and campaign groups with a proposal; they came back to me with this, saying that it could and should be practically delivered right now. The noble Lord also made a useful point about the macroeconomic impacts and the sheer drag of debt.

As for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I am sure that we will find something to agree on one day, but I thank her for her thoughtful exploration and exposition of the detail. I am not sure, looking at the clock on my computer, that this is the ideal time in the evening to go through her worked example in detail, but I will point out that what is proposed here is not retrospective. In fact, I do not think we even have the power to do such a thing. The price of the debt purchased in the future would reflect the legal change and so would still allow a profit to be made. I also think, given that the secondary debt market is currently paying less than 10 pence in the pound, that her example reflects little understanding of the practical reality of the lives of many in society and in many communities. Perhaps she is thinking more in the range of the market of Greensill Bank, which we have seen collapse today.

I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said on the need for a broader debate on debt, reflecting also what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. I do not agree that we should not act now: we are in an emergency situation and, as the discussion on the previous group highlighted, we need to give some certainty and hope. Given the noble Lord’s reflections on how people are appalled and horrified to find themselves in this situation, I thank him for sharing those experiences.

On the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer —I will take a look at them in Hansard to ensure that I understood them clearly—there may be some misunderstanding at their heart. Being in debt in the secondary market is not about creating a situation where extra charges can be laid. We are not talking about people going out to borrow money. We are talking about council tax bills, and gas and electricity charges.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that we really need broader debates on these issues. Indeed, I said in my introduction that I expect to come back to them many times in the coming years. At the moment, we have had a useful debate; I take on board the noble Lord’s suggestion of a general debate. Perhaps those on the Front Benches, who have much more access to such occasions, would consider originating such a debate. My action at the moment is obvious.

Again, I thank everyone who has contributed here today and everyone who has contributed to this discussion outside this Committee. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to consider bringing it back. I invite any noble Lords who are interested in working with me on this matter to approach me.

Covid-19: May Elections

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot resist a quick personal tribute to the Lord Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, likewise: it was only 40 years ago that the Lord Speaker and I first worked together and I should like to express my sadness at the notice, and my appreciation of all that he has done for party, country and, indeed, the world, and we look forward to his independent career.

I can use a little bit of the time available because I can give the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, a positive Answer that we are changing proxy rules to enable those who need to self-isolate to request an emergency proxy vote at short notice, right up to 5 pm on polling day. This week we have laid a statutory instrument to make this change.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We all appreciate that the Government have been able to take advantage of expert advice since I tabled this Question and have published some good guidance and some very useful changes, especially addressing the problems faced by shielding and self-isolating electors in arranging proxy votes, a matter to which I drew attention. In the meantime, can he clear up the mystery of the scientific or health advice on which the Cabinet Office unilaterally declared that a leaflet delivered by a volunteer was a serious Covid health hazard but that one delivered by a commercial company was not?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, guidance has been issued on aspects of election campaigning and further guidance will be issued. Campaigning is an essential part of democracy. The current national lockdown restrictions in England say that one must not leave or be outside one’s home unnecessarily, and those restrictions do not support door-to-door campaigning or leafleting. However, I take advice from the noble Lord’s question and, as I have said, there will be further guidance on top of the guidance that has already been issued.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, frail elderly people, people with disabilities and their carers have traditionally relied on transport services provided by the voluntary sector to access polling stations. Since many of those services are now in short supply, or even non-existent because of a shortage of money, volunteers or Covid restrictions, how does the Minister suggest that this should be addressed so that those less able citizens are not denied their democratic right to participate?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, like most people in this House, I have driven electors to polls and I anticipate a future when I myself might be driven. I can assure the noble Baroness that the arrangements that we are putting in place for emergency proxies right up to 5 pm on the day should ensure that anyone who is self- isolating or has tested positive for Covid-19 can still have their say in the elections without having to leave their residence. That will be the Government’s policy and is the assurance that I give the House.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify who is responsible for this round of elections in Wales? As he knows, the running of the Senedd elections is devolved, while the election of police commissioners in Wales has not yet been devolved, although the Silk commission set up by the Cameron Government recommended that the police service should be devolved in Wales, as in Scotland. Will he clarify whether the police commissioner elections could go ahead in Wales while not doing so in England, if Senedd elections go ahead as planned, or will we face unnecessary duplication of the cost of holding two separate rounds of elections in Wales?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely hope not. The noble Lord, in a sense, answered the first part of his question. The position is obviously that Senedd elections are the responsibility of the Welsh Government and police commissioner elections of the UK Government. We are working closely with the Welsh Government on planning for polls. The UK Government have confirmed that local, mayoral and police commissioner elections scheduled for 6 May will go ahead in England and Wales. A decision to postpone the Senedd elections would be for the Welsh Government but our understanding is that they have no plans to do so at this time. So I hope that all can go together.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Lord Speaker, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and myself, I say thank you very much.

Moving on to my supplementary question, first, I record my thanks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the Government’s willingness to change the procedure in relation to signatories for nomination forms, which has greatly benefited everybody in these circumstances. I also take this opportunity on behalf of everyone involved to welcome the extreme efforts that all members of electoral services organisations are making to deliver free and efficient elections in difficult circumstances.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend’s final comments about electoral services officers. I am also grateful for the interventions he and others made. The Government are always willing to engage with noble Lords on these and other matters. There is a collective will across the House to make sure that elections can go ahead safely.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the easing of lockdown restrictions in general is obviously welcome in the run-up to the scheduled elections but does the Minister accept that if, for any reason, the easing has to be halted or reversed, there may be a case for seeking all-party agreement for the postponement of the elections? In the meantime, in relation to the advice about what is appropriate for campaigning in those elections, does he accept that the only way in which to reassure people that the decision is based on scientific, health and medical advice, not simply the interests of his party, is to publish that advice?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have published a delivery plan. I am sorry that the noble Lord suggested that there was a party advantage here. Our hope is to assist all people of all parties and none to fight an election and record their democratic wishes. The Government believe that these elections can be delivered safely. We co-operate with, and will talk to, other political parties, and I can assure the House that the medical officers have advised Ministers in drawing up the delivery plan.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, when we discussed this last month, my noble friend described my contribution as “novel” and “interesting”. This was the proposition that, when council tax bills are issued next month, included should be details of how to vote by post or by proxy in order to minimise voting at polling stations. What happened to this novel suggestion?

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, I think I called it something like “ingenious”, although “novel” is a good word. It was a good suggestion. It has been passed on and I am aware that a number of local authorities have chosen various ways to promote postal voting to their electorate, for example through the canvass communications earlier this year. I hope that my noble friend’s suggestion and others will be considered positively; indeed, I always consider his suggestions positively.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in paying tribute to hard-working electoral services staff across the United Kingdom. Can the Minister speak to his officials and satisfy himself that everything possible has been done to ensure that voters who are shielding or ill are fully aware of the options for postal and proxy votes—and emergency postal and proxy votes—so that no one will lose their ability to cast their vote in these important elections and, in the days after the poll, we avoid those embarrassing media stories where citizens who have always voted were denied the opportunity to do so purely because they did not realise what voting options were available to them at the time?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord. We have given local authorities additional extra resources, and we will support and encourage them to do everything that the noble Lord so wisely suggests.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I pay tribute to the way in which local government is swinging behind these elections and getting them done. I want to hone down on the count. ROs and election officers in Hertfordshire have written to the Cabinet Office and are very concerned about the count process, which, as we both know, can be intense and very long. Certainly there is a fine balance to be struck between safety and scrutiny; indeed, when I am a scrutineer, I am definitely closer to people than I am to, say, my noble friend. So how can we ensure that social distancing is maintained during the verification and counting of votes, and when will we get that guidance?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that it will very soon. Yes, I have felt sharp elbows at counts and hope that I have not used too many. Further guidance on this important matter will be given very shortly.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My noble friend the Minister confirmed, I think, that attestation will not be required to access a proxy vote under the new rules. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham asked how information on proxy voting would be disseminated. Can he say again how this will be done?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it will be done through every mechanism and through both national and local means. Obviously, as the noble Baroness who just spoke said, local authorities bear a major burden here. We have tried to simplify the system. We recognise not only that some people will not be able to provide proof of Covid symptoms but that doing so would place unnecessary pressure on the health service, so we will not ask for attestation. However, all other security measures will remain in place to ensure electoral integrity.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak also to the other amendments in my name.

We discussed this issue extensively at Second Reading. Almost everybody who spoke from all around the House was clear that the use of the phrase “pregnant person” in the Bill was unacceptable. Amendment 1 and the consequential amendments substitute the word “mother”. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, laid out at Second Reading, last year’s judgment in the Court of Appeal in the McConnell case makes it clear that anyone who gives birth is a mother under English law. That is a word that signifies a role—a word that honours the millions of women who undertake it, and honours equally those mothers who do not own to the label “woman”. It is a word well understood in statute and in law generally, and one that should cause no upset to the Government’s legal team. If I was writing the Bill, I suspect I would have chosen “women”, but I can understand and see that “mother” may be an easier word for the Government to choose, and I am delighted that there are indications that they may be looking in that direction.

Words matter, especially on the long road to equality. The use of the word “person” in the Bill as it is now erases the reality that, overwhelmingly, maternity is undertaken by women and not by men. To leave “person” in place would be a step backwards in women’s equality, uncompensated by gains elsewhere and inconsistent with government policy. I am among a large group of Peers of diverse politics but a shared determination to see continued progress towards equality for women and to oppose attempts to roll that back. There is a great deal to do, and this amendment is just a grain of sand in the balance—but it is a grain on the right side of the scales. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thought it might be helpful if I made a brief statement at this early stage. The Government have listened carefully throughout Second Reading and in the various discussions I have had with noble Lords of differing opinions outside the Chamber. The Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and the desire of your Lordships’ House to give effect to this strength of feeling. The Government recognise the concerns that have been expressed, articulated today by my noble friend in his remarks when moving Amendment 1 and by many others in the debate on Monday, that in meeting the legal requirements of legislative drafting there may be more than one acceptable approach.

The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to change the drafting of the Bill to substitute the words “mother or expectant mother” in lieu of the word “person” in various places in Clauses 1 to 3. The Government accept that such an approach to the drafting of the Bill would be legally acceptable and that the intention and meaning of the Bill would be unaffected by such a change. As a result, the Government will accept the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to my amendments, I very much welcome the Minister’s announcement, as well as his willingness to talk to noble Lords on numerous occasions over the last four days. I also welcome the review he is announcing alongside the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I had already decided to put my support behind the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I prefer the term “woman” but, as he said, I am very happy with the substitution of “mother” for “person”.

I always wanted to see the Bill delivered so that the Minister can get her maternity leave, but I also wanted it to be clear and respectful to women. I am delighted that we have come to this outcome. There is no doubt that the use of the word “person” rather than “woman” or “mother” is not a technical issue that should ever have been decided by parliamentary counsel. It goes right to the heart of the Government’s attitude towards women, their rights and their ability to speak clearly about situations where their sex matters. In recent months we have increasingly heard about the Government’s concerns about free speech in this country. However, when it comes to issues to do with sex and gender, they have been remarkably silent.

I know that many noble Lords have received countless messages, mainly from women, since our debate on Monday—I have had over 200 messages. What comes through is their fear about the hard-won rights of women and their marginalisation in recent years. I was struck by the comments of one senior NHS consultant, who said:

“Language matters and sex-based rights depend upon that language … You are … aware of what happens when women have … tried to express similar concerns”


to those that noble Lords expressed on Monday. She continued:

“What happened to Rosie Duffield was disgusting, but the silence from her colleagues was also chilling and very disturbing.”


Other comments I received were:

“If we can’t speak meaningfully about sex, we will never end sexism, violence against women and girls, or misogyny”,


and:

“I have campaigned for equality across the board all my life and yet now I’m dismissed as a bigot and a transphobe for even trying to raise concerns at all.”


I too find it chilling that those who speak up for women’s rights can find themselves accused of trans hate and subject to horrific abuse, particularly if they are women. That really is a sign of free speech under threat.

At Second Reading, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because she was one of the two speakers who disagreed with the general theme of our debate. She referred to the importance of the language used in legislation remaining inclusive and referred to trans men believing that using the word “woman” excludes them and therefore removes their rights.

As Louise Perry pointed out in this week’s edition of the New Statesman—actually, in relation to the Brighton NHS trust’s adoption of gender-inclusive language—one risk is that if you exclude one group to include another, you impact on their rights. It goes much wider than health, of course. How is erasing women from the language of the law somehow inclusive? Where is the equivalent pressure to change references to men in public health campaigns? Prostate Cancer UK does not come under fire for transphobia for talking about it as a men’s health issue.

It is women’s safety, dignity and inclusion that are compromised when organisations do not feel confident in maintaining the ordinary privacy of separate spaces for changing and washing. It is women’s specialist services, such as rape crisis centres, that are being replaced by mixed-sex services—the latest example being very recently in Brighton, with the contract being withdrawn from Brighton Women’s Aid.

It is women’s specialist services and charities where the staff are afraid to speak up for fear of losing funding. It is the women in the workplace who feel threatened if they speak up for their rights under the Equality Act. It is female academics who are being no-platformed and silenced because they are seen as “the wrong kind of feminist”. It is the women MPs in the other place who get the hate and abuse. That is not inclusion.

I support trans rights, and I support women’s rights. Sometimes, there can be a tension between them. That is why the Equality Act 2010 was so carefully drafted to recognise that, with separate characteristics and principles for reconciling and balancing rights when they come into conflict. The legislation uses the word “woman” not just in terms of defining the protected characteristic of sex, but throughout the Act in all sections related to pregnancy, maternity and lactation.

All institutions have a responsibility to avoid discrimination in relation to each of the nine protected characteristics as laid out in that Act, but it is increasingly common to find in the equality policies of many public bodies that the Equality Act characteristics of “sex” and “gender reassignment” have been replaced by a single word: “gender”. The protected characteristics of pregnancy and maternity are often forgotten. How can those organisations then assess how their policies impact on people in relation to sex and gender reassignment, when they collapse the two categories into one?

Furthermore, many are advised by organisations that tell them that even thinking about the possibility of a conflict of rights is transphobic. The result, of course, is that single and separate-sex services, which are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, are coming under increasing attack, not least from the misleading guidance issued by many government bodies, local authorities and the EHRC.

I am very grateful to the Minister. This is a turning point and an important moment, but there is much more to do to protect women’s rights and the other rights enshrined in the Equality Act. I will certainly not move my amendment, but I thank all noble Lords who have given enormous support to this cause; I am very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. Many amendments have been laid before us for consideration. I will keep my remarks brief.

There may be many amendments in this grouping but they all have exactly the same concern: that of the language used, particularly the use of “person”. As has been pointed out many times, this is at odds with other legislation covering maternity rights and protections—including the Equality Act 2010, which we now know uses “her” and “woman” specifically. Noble Lords have said that they cannot understand why “woman” can be in the Explanatory Notes but not in the Bill. The concerns expressed by Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House, both at Second Reading and today, could not be plainer.

In introducing his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was clear that “mother” is properly understood in statute and should therefore be used in the Bill rather than “person”. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath talked about the importance of using language that respects women and the need to support them. We must strive for rights and true equality for all members of our society. My noble friend Lord Winston spoke today, as he did at Second Reading, about the important but sometimes difficult area of understanding what we mean by “gender” and “sexuality”.

It is clear that noble Lords support the Bill’s aims, and that maternity leave will be available to the Attorney-General shortly and to other Ministers in future, but, as has become extremely clear, language is very important. I know that the Minister has been generous with his time in listening to noble Lords’ concerns about the language used in this Bill. Clearly, he has listened and appreciates the depth of feeling among many Members of your Lordships’ House, with his acceptance on the Government’s behalf of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Winston.

Today, many noble Lords welcomed the statement made by the Minister at the beginning of the debate and thanked him for his remarks. However, as I said, it really is a shame that the Government did not give the Bill—a Bill with such importance for women parliamentarians, and which has the potential to encourage more young women to join us and take up a parliamentary career—more detailed consideration in the first place. Many changes could still be made to improve the Bill; we look forward to working with the Government in the near future to make these further, much-needed improvements.

I end by wishing the Attorney-General and her family all the very best.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate—as indeed it was at Second Reading earlier this week. I find it increasingly difficult to recognise myself in the mirror in the mornings; I found it similarly difficult to recognise myself listening to some of the things said about me in this debate.

[A noble Lord]

It won’t last.

[Lord True (Con)]

Let me say in that respect that being a Minister of the Crown is a high honour but duties come with it. The first is to answer to Parliament and your Lordships’ House, and to carry out faithfully the collective agreed policies of the Government. For all the kind words that people have said about me—I am grateful, of course—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, put her finger on it when she just spoke: I am here in this debate merely as the voice of the Government, and it must be heard peradventure that the proposals and points I make are not my ideas but the considered and settled position of Her Majesty’s Government.

I thank each noble Lord who spoke. Of course, I was struck by the passion with which everyone spoke on these issues, from whatever perspective. Again, I agree with all that was said about tolerance and humanity. I have nothing to add to what I said on that subject at the outset of my response at Second Reading.

Some of the subjects we have touched on elicit particularly strong views. I am grateful for and endorse what was said about the importance of respect and sensitivity, which have been shown by all your Lordships as we have debated the Bill and the complex issues that have arisen from it.

The Government have been clear throughout the debates on this Bill, both in your Lordships’ House and the other place, that it is an important step forward—a step, but not a complete step—in at last making provision for Ministers who become mothers to take paid maternity leave. I would not want us to lose sight of that, or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, just said—the important message that it should send about participation in public life by women.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is not the occasion for another lengthy intervention, but I of course express my gratitude to speakers from all sides during the course of the Bill and to all those who have had the opportunity to talk to whatever their views are throughout its passage. It has contributed to a good outcome and all who have spoken have done so with sensitivity and clarity.

I also thank the officials and all those who worked tirelessly on the Bill: my private office, the Bill team, Cabinet Office legal advisers, the drafters and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, and all others who have provided me and, more importantly, us all in the House of Lords with the support necessary to respond so ably to the challenging questions that your Lordships posed throughout the Bill’s passage.

On behalf of all of us, I end where I began—with good wishes to my right honourable friend the Attorney-General on her forthcoming child. It seems to be a baby that has provided almost as much occasion for debate in Parliament as any since 1688. I wish the child and mother profoundly well, and for the child a long, happy and prosperous life. I hope we can now move on with the process of reform that the Bill begins.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I can be very brief because a lot of thanks have already happened. I start with the same thanks to the Attorney-General for starting us off on this. I perhaps should not say this, but I doubt that this was the thing in her mind nine months ago when the Bill was triggered. However, where we have got to is very good. I hope we will see the report in due course, as my noble friend Lady Goudie and others said.

I thank the Bill team—I bet they have never had to do one quite like this, with the last-minute adjustments. It is good of them.

I will say personal thanks to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock for the first of her outings on a Bill. I told her it would be simple and short; she will not believe me again.

I thank the Minister. I know it is not good for his career to have thanks from me, but he will just have to put up with that. He really has listened. He has taken time with us and done so with great courtesy and charm. Most importantly, he has made movement.

I thank the House for what it has done. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who said that it has been a good day in the House of Lords. I agree.

Covid-19: Vaccination Passport

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they plan to have with the devolved Administrations about the introduction of a COVID-19 vaccination passport to enable those who have been vaccinated to travel.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government remain committed to restarting the travel industry, as the Prime Minister has set out in his road map. Vaccinations could offer the route to that once we know more about the impact of vaccines on transmission and their efficacy. The UK is working with other countries to adopt a clear international framework on standards and we are committed absolutely to working with the devolved Administrations throughout at both official and ministerial levels.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

Does the Minister agree that it is important to differentiate between a certificate that might allow access to venues in the United Kingdom and one that would allow travel overseas, such as the one I have for yellow fever and malaria? Can he tell us which countries he and the Government are now in discussions with to enable to us to get back to travelling as soon as possible so that the travel industry can return to a financially sound situation?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, but these are two entirely separate issues. I assure him that the UK is working with a wide range of other countries and that the Government will make this a reality through ongoing work not only with other countries, but with the World Health Organization and other multilateral organisations, and through the UK’s presidency of the G7. The point the noble Lord has made is an important one.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

Is it not true that if the Government had not blocked ID cards in 2011—a perfect form of vaccination passport—then we could have avoided problems about vaccination recording by entering annual vaccination data that would have been readable on the card chip, covered the entire population with a track-and-trace system, and, in effect, brought this nightmare of an epidemic to an earlier end? The Government missed a trick that could have saved billions of pounds and perhaps even thousands of lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for ID cards, but it was not shared universally either in Parliament or outside. I am certainly not going there on this issue.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I understand the frustration of the travel, hospitality and leisure industries that want to get their businesses up and running as quickly as possible. However, does the Minister accept that there are some concerns? The first is that with the rollout of the vaccine continuing over the summer, many young people, including students who want to study overseas, may be excluded from the chance to travel. Is there not a risk that the demand for passports, if they were introduced, could create a bureaucratic logjam that could interfere with the vaccine rollout and may unhelpfully aggravate the arguments over which vaccines are the most effective?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I hope very much that that is not the case. The Government’s objective is to see a safe and sustainable return to international travel for business and pleasure. To achieve this, my colleagues in the Department for Transport will be leading a successor to the Global Travel Taskforce. It is important that we work towards that objective.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, much of this debate is around holidaymakers, but there is an important section of the population—businesspeople—who travel in order to increase the prosperity of the companies and countries that they represent. Can the Government give some attention to easing short-term business travel restrictions which mean that, every time you go for a 36-hour trip to the European mainland, you need to spend £200 to get a certificate? This is ridiculous and does no good for business at all. There does not appear to be a business party in this Parliament any longer.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I understand where my noble friend is coming from, but repeat what I said in reply to the previous question: the Government’s objective is to see a safe and sustainable return to international travel for business and pleasure. I put business first advisedly. We have to do this in a safe and sustainable way, and the Prime Minister has set out a road map towards it.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

Does the Minister agree with the well-researched report by the Royal Society relating to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine certificates? It identifies 12 key areas that need better understanding before the introduction of Covid passports for international travel, including: the effectiveness of various vaccines; the nature and duration of the immune response; the ability of variants to escape vaccine-induced immunity; and the transmission or otherwise of the virus by those vaccinated, as mentioned by the Minister. Will the Government consider the scientific advice before any plans to introduce Covid passports?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not the lead Minister on that narrow area, but I note what the noble Lord says and will pass on his comments to colleagues.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, if the certificates or passports were to happen, it would be essential to have just one system across the UK. It must not be just one Government doing it and imposing them on the other countries; they must be jointly developed. The Minister talked about the road map, but that was shared with the Welsh Government only after it had been briefed to the press, on Monday morning. Can the Minister assure us that, if there is work on this, it will be done jointly by all four Governments, so that there is only one system for the whole UK?

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Baroness, as always, make a profound point, which is that the best thing that we must wish and work for is that all Administrations work together on this. We do not want internal divides. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is speaking further to First Ministers today, which is another opportunity to reflect on the details of the published road maps. I take what she said: we will continue to work with the devolved Administrations to reflect on the implications of the road maps, and to co-ordinate and co-operate on our response to this and other areas.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I live five miles from the English border, and I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not pressing for a passport, with 15,000 vehicles going one way and 32,000 coming the other way to work, every day. Referring to the discussions that the Minister mentioned, what is the Government’s attitude to people coming to this country who have been vaccinated by a non-approved vaccine, and are they discussing this with other countries?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I confess that I cannot find the answer to that at the moment. I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I apologise for not being able to answer it now.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on international travel issues, but surely the way forward within the United Kingdom is to have as rapid a vaccination rollout, of as many people, as possible. Can the Minister assure us that the devolved Administrations are intimately involved in that rollout programme and that they will all move ahead at the same time?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we wish for the fastest possible progress across our United Kingdom. I can give that assurance. In reply to the previous question, at this stage, the Government are not looking to make it a requirement to have a Covid-19 vaccination to travel into the country.

[Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am not sure what our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is worried about. The way the SNP is going, he will not be allowed back into Scotland, with or without a passport. But he is correct to focus on this issue; it is difficult. The other day, the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that we must not discriminate against those who have refused a vaccine for whatever reason—a medical condition, for example—but we know that there are anti-vaxxers who are refusing the vaccine because they do not like it, cannot be bothered or are simply professional disrupters. Does my noble friend accept that it would be outrageous to hold back the reopening of society, in any way, and to compromise the rights and liberties of everyone else, because of those who refuse to take any step to protect either themselves or others? Should it not be the anti-vaxxers who suffer inconvenience, rather than the rest of us?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said, the Government’s objective is a safe and sustainable return to international travel. By a miracle of science and endeavour, this and other countries have good—outstanding—vaccines. We have a fine rollout programme right across the four nations. Everybody should support and get behind that programme, the vaccines and the people who are working on them.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, which brings Question Time to an end.

Political Parties: Expenditure Limits

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Ministerial Statement by Lord True on 3 December 2020 (HLWS610), what representations they have received in support of their plans to increase the permitted expenditure limits for political parties at general elections; and what will be the uprating in line with inflation for national spending limits.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government engaged with political parties on spending limits last year. A range of views were received and, following that engagement, we uprated candidate spending limits at local elections in England. We have committed to reviewing candidate and party spending limits at reserved polls this year with a view to uprating them in line with inflation. We will not comment on specific figures until after this planned review has been carried out.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

The Minister knows that this Question does not relate to candidate spending or to local election spending. It relates specifically to national election spending. Perhaps I can help him. The figure for inflation since 2000 is approximately 69%. The figures published by the Electoral Commission show that increasing national party expenditure limits would benefit only the Conservative Party across Great Britain. Taking these together with other proposals under consideration, but not widely known, to allow national party spending to be targeted more easily at marginal constituencies, are the Government not now ending any concept of the level playing field in elections?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords. I am not certain whether the noble Lord speaks for his party in his Question or in the rather intemperate letter that he sent to the Minister for the Constitution on this matter. Spending limits have been unchanged for national elections since 2000. Failing to update them is actually changing policy by steadily reducing spending limits in real terms.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, with respect, the Minister did not answer the Question. What representations has he received in support of increasing national spending? Will he now try to answer that Question?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I did reply to the Question, saying that we were undertaking a consultation and that a range of views were received from different parties. When the time comes to make an announcement, we will be able to provide more details to the House.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, given that the friend and family recipients of Covid crony contracts have already poured more than £8 million into Conservative Party coffers, does the Minister acknowledge that this huge increase in permissive spending will encourage more millionaires to think that they can buy government favours, including nomination to this House?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords. I strongly disagree; the noble Lord should think carefully before spreading such charges. If one looks at the record of donations that the Liberal Democrats have received, including those from convicted criminals, it is clear that charges of that kind should not be cast in that manner. The Government are reviewing the matter; local election limits were put up by the coalition Government, in which Liberal Democrats served, in 2014.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as a party treasurer, I know that in 2000 the cost of a second-class stamp was 19p and it is now 66p. Therefore, does the Minister agree that the rules need to reflect reality? Given that all parties were fined after the 2015 election, there is clearly a need to simplify the rules. Perhaps he might point out to the Liberal Democrats that election spending is not necessarily the only issue: late filing of accounts six months after the 2019 election was also reprehensible.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree, but I would not want to give the House the impression that the Government do not think that there are matters that need to be addressed and considered. Notional expenditure is obviously one of them. I am grateful for the support that we received from the Labour Party on examining the rules on notional expenditure.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as we come out of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is important for all political parties to look to new priorities for recovery and for meeting the new imperatives of sustainable development. Does the Minister agree that any increase in political funding limits should not unduly disadvantage smaller parties committed to new and necessary forward thinking?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly agree that any consideration of electoral law and, indeed, electoral practice needs to reflect on the position of smaller parties. The Government have been considering that specifically in relation to the May elections.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, have the Government considered introducing a mechanism to allow for the uprating of local and national spending limits for elections and donation-reporting thresholds at arm’s length from Ministers, which would provide protection for the Government and reassurance to others?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we think it important to engage with the political parties, and we do so. Obviously, the reporting of donations has to be and is transparent; I strongly agree with the noble Lord on that. That is the situation that obtains presently. So far as his broader question is concerned, I reiterate that cross-party discussion of these matters is important and we appreciate the input of the Labour Party on them.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]]

My Lords, why is £12,000 per constituency with an average of 70,000 electors not sufficient? Why is more money needed? What is it going to be spent on—or is it just that inflation has reached such levels under this Conservative Government that money is absolutely essential?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in our judgment, it cannot be right that the limits for parliamentary by-elections have not been updated in more than 20 years. By updating for inflation, as is currently under consideration, the limits would remain in line with the original intent of Parliament in 2000 when they were introduced.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, this Question reminds me of my time as a political organiser in the 1980s. Of course, campaigning has changed a lot over the last decade or so: President Obama was one of the first politicians to use social media extensively to get elected in 2008. The use of social media, including Facebook, bots, online ads and political consultancies such as the defunct Cambridge Analytica, which accessed 87 million Facebook users, is currently unregulated. How do the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government intend to include social media use and abuse in election spending in the future?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord touches on an important point in relation to digital campaigning. We have said that we will introduce a digital imprints regime and we published a consultation on the proposed regime in August 2020 that closed in November. We are taking forward a programme of work on electoral integrity that will ensure that it is fit for the modern age. It will address some of the issues to which he referred.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, is it not time to end the outdated distinction between borough and county constituencies? The latter attract a 50% premium for expenditure purposes per elector. In the age of modern campaigning, when people no longer walk the streets as much as use social media, should we not apply a single formula across every constituency in the United Kingdom?

[Lord True (Con)]

That is an interesting suggestion. As a former leader of a London borough, I am not sure where I should go in responding to it. It is certainly true that modes of campaigning are changing and may well continue to change. On my noble friend’s specific point, I will take it on advice and refer it to the Minister for the Constitution.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

Apologies, my Lords—I will try again. In recent general elections, the wealthiest and largest political parties have used their very generous national party spending limits—in 2019, it was close to £19 million—to cover a variety of non-national costs, including targeting a lot of individual constituencies with generic leaflets, billboards, et cetera. Independent candidates and smaller rising parties do not have this additional spending option. Will the Government be open to consider rebalancing the two types of spending limit in the interests of fairness as well as to prevent swing seats being barraged with messaging? Will they put far tighter limits on individual contributions to political fundraising, so that we do not all get the politics a few people pay for directed towards a small percentage of the population?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have not noticed the Green Party fail to target its efforts on specific constituencies, but the noble Baroness may be able to advise me otherwise. I do not think it would be sensible practice to seek to reduce donations to levels that might be achieved by the least popular parties in the country. The truth is that many individuals—whether trade unionists or others—contribute a great deal of money to the larger parties, and I think their contributions should be welcomed and esteemed.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill before the House today will for the first time enable Ministers to take paid maternity leave from their job for an extended period. Women who aspire to, and hold, high office will no longer be disadvantaged against other women in this respect. I am sure that representatives of all three parties that have been in government in the last 20 years will agree that this is long overdue.

It is well known that the occasion of the Bill—and the cross-party agreement to accelerate it, for which the Government are grateful—is the pregnancy of my right honourable friend the Attorney-General. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending best wishes to her and her family.

This should not be a reproach to anyone, least of all to my right honourable friend. Sometimes it is an individual case, and the perception of injustice arising, that propels social advance, and let it be so here. The Bill sends out a vital message to encourage more women from every walk of life to enter politics, and to seek promotion in government without the fear of having later to choose between career and family.

I repeat how grateful I am to Her Majesty’s Opposition for their constructive engagement in the preparation of the Bill. Jointly, we have affirmed—and do here affirm again—that this will be the beginning, not the end, of a journey of reform. To date, within government structures, insufficient attention has been paid to the needs of pregnant Ministers, and there has been only limited progress to date. Yes, the Ministerial Code was changed in 2019 to confirm the ability of junior Ministers to take maternity leave, but this workaround—which several Members of the other place have used—relies on another Minister taking on additional responsibilities. We need to go further, and I will return to this issue later, as I know it is of importance to the House.

Clearly, this approach is simply unworkable for Secretaries of State or other holders of individual offices, such as the law officers or the Lord Chancellor, owing to their constitutional role and the volume and complexity of their workload, which gives rise to a pressing need for posts to be filled. The current law does not allow the Government to take on and pay another Cabinet Minister, or equivalent, as maternity cover, as happens in workplaces up and down the country. No fewer than three Acts of Parliament govern the issue of ministerial appointments and pay, and the restrictions on them. It is worth underlining the constitutional importance of these Acts, as they manage part of the delicate balance between the legislature and the Executive, ensuring that the payroll vote is kept in proportion to the overall size of the Commons. This is a serious consideration, and a balance that should not be adjusted lightly. However, we propose modest changes to prevent putting some women off holding high office for lack of adequate maternity provision.

Until now, for someone to be appointed to cover a Minister at this level, or one of the opposition officeholders covered by the Bill, and for that individual to be paid, the pregnant Minister would normally have to resign. The Bill ends this anachronistic and wholly unacceptable situation by providing six months’ paid maternity leave for all eligible Ministers and opposition officeholders.

Turning to the content of the Bill, Clause 1 allows the Prime Minister to designate a Minister who wishes to take maternity leave as a “Minister on leave” who remains part of the Government—able to be briefed on matters and to keep in touch with work, but not responsible for exercising the functions of the office from which they are on leave. It makes clear the conditions applicable to designation as a Minister on leave. It also sets out how the designation comes to an end, either automatically, six months after the Minister has been so designated, or earlier, should the Minister cease to hold that office—for example, due to appointment to a new ministerial role, resignation or dismissal.

Clause 2 sets out the methodology for calculating the amount of the allowance for the period of maternity leave, and how it is to be paid. It sets the allowance at six times the monthly salary of the Minister on leave’s previous ministerial office. The effect is that a Minister on leave continues to receive the same monthly amount in maternity allowance as they would have received had they still occupied their previous ministerial role. It will come from the same source, usually the relevant department in line with money provided for by Parliament. Finally, Clause 2 also sets out the arrangements that apply when the designation as a Minister on leave ends before the automatic expiry after six months, providing for a lump sum payment of the remainder of the allowance. That applies in all situations where the designation terminates earlier than the end of the six months, unless the Minister is appointed to another ministerial role, or has died.

In order to prevent double payment of a ministerial salary, Clause 3 provides that a Minister on leave cannot receive the maternity allowance provided for in this Bill at the same time as any salary set out under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It also makes clear that, where they are a Member of this House, a Minister on leave cannot receive the so-called Lords officeholder allowance under Section 5(1) of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991. In addition, Clause 3 clarifies that, for the duration of the designation, a Minister on leave does not count towards the limit under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 on the number of Ministers who can come from the House of Commons at any one time. However, once the designation ends, the Minister once again counts for those purposes.

Clauses 4 to 6 make provision for certain opposition officeholders, namely those listed in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, to take up to six months’ paid maternity leave. The arrangements contained are similar to those relating to Ministers in terms of duration, eligibility criteria, amount of allowance and source of the allowance. However, in contrast to Ministers, an opposition officeholder who is to take maternity leave would stay in post. The Bill authorises a payment to a nominated individual who, at the discretion of the Leader of the Opposition in the relevant House, is to cover the officeholder’s role, on similar terms as those for Ministers.

This difference in approach reflects the fact that opposition officeholders are not appointed by the Prime Minister and do not have statutory functions in the same way as a Secretary of State. It is therefore possible for an individual to provide the necessary maternity leave cover while the original officeholder remains in post. Only one person can be appointed to cover an officeholder’s post at any point during the period of leave. However, should the Leader of the Opposition wish to change the appointment, he or she may do so.

As is the case with a Minister on leave, where the opposition officeholder is a Member of the House of Lords, she is not eligible to claim the so-called Lords officeholder allowance provided under the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 while on maternity leave. However, the individual appointed as maternity cover, by virtue of these provisions, is entitled to claim that allowance for the duration of their appointment. This is because the allowance is paid to reflect work undertaken in the House.

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 makes provision for both MPs’ and Ministers’ pension schemes. Both Ministers and opposition officeholders are entitled to pensions under the Ministers’ pension scheme. The original officeholder’s salary remains pensionable during their maternity leave. However, the Bill provides that the individual appointed to cover the post is entitled to the Ministers’ pension scheme for the period of their appointment, in relation to the allowance paid to them for this role. The Bill comes into force on Royal Assent, and thus will be of immediate benefit and effect.

I turn to some issues which the Bill has given rise to in the other place and outside. First, on future work to broaden this reform, I have already made clear that the Government recognise that the Bill does not go as far as most will desire. There will understandably be many who would have wanted to see a Bill to resolve wider issues of parental leave such as paternity, adoption and shared parental leave. The Bill also does not address absences for sickness and other reasons, or the question of unpaid roles, which I know is an issue of particular interest to Members of this House. These are complex issues that require careful further consideration, taking into account modern working practices and the wider constitutional context.

The House will be aware that the Government recently consulted on parental leave and pay for employees, and they are due to respond to that consultation in the near future. This work will provide us with a valuable perspective, and any future proposals for Ministers will be developed with those conclusions in mind. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, the Government have undertaken to look into broader proposals, both in the round and in detail. The Government also welcome IPSA’s recent announcement that it will be consulting on some of these issues. We look forward to working with them, and with Members across both Houses, on this work. The Government are committed to building more widely on the progress this Bill represents and will present an update to Parliament by the Summer Recess.

Several Members of the other place raised concerns about the use of the word “person” in this Bill in referring to pregnant women. I know that a number of noble Lords share that concern, and I have, of course, noted the amendment from my noble friend Lady Noakes, who I look forward to hearing shortly. I understand the strength of this feeling, but I will come back to this point in my closing speech in more detail so as to respond more completely to the points raised by all noble Lords on this issue in the course of the debate.

Briefly, I should point out that the language used in the Bill is in line with current drafting convention and guidance; it is legally accurate and achieves the aim of ensuring that female Ministers can take paid maternity leave. Of this there is no doubt. The Bill’s drafting also provides flexibility in the event that the future work programme that I have just spoken of gives rise to the need to revisit its provisions. Nevertheless, the Government have already responded to the concerns from both Houses that this drafting could be misinterpreted, and have updated the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which now detail how the Bill is intended to support women, and explains the drafting practice. It will continue to be the policy of this Government to refer to “pregnant women” in government publications. As I said, I will reply to the amendment in full in my closing speech, when I have listened to all Members of this House, but I wanted to make this point clear at the outset, and to make clear that the Government are listening to the strength of feeling in this House on this matter.

For the reasons outlined above, I commend this reforming Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to the debate, which I have listened to intently and with deep consideration for what everybody has said. If I may be allowed a personal comment, I too was moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, because the reason there were seven years between my late brother and me was that my mother was one of the women to whom he referred and, of course, never forgot that. In my life, I have tried to follow the example of that remarkable woman. Part of that example was always that you should listen to the other person and that bullying and hatred have no place in personal life or public life. I echo very strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said on that in her intervention. No one should have fear in expressing any view. We have heard contrary views in this debate—although there has been an overwhelming voice on one side, we have heard countervailing voices—and I assure the House that I respect all those.

I thank everybody who has taken part. The contributions have been insightful if, from the Government’s point of view, sometimes challenging. I have rarely heard the House so unanimous, or near unanimous, in its expression of concern on the two main points that have come out of the debate: first, what we do next in broadening the work, which I spoke about in opening; and, secondly, the issue of language, on which many have spoken.

Before I come to that, I shall answer some of the other points raised in the debate. We could begin on one point on which I think we are all agreed: although the Bill is specific and limited, it is a significant reforming measure for women and points the way to wider reform. I welcome that that has been recognised by most of those who spoke. The Bill makes an important and long-overdue change to existing law by for the first time enabling senior Ministers to take paid maternity leave. The prior situation—that such a woman had to resign—was unacceptable and, frankly, shameful in the 21st century.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for her heartfelt contribution at the outset of the debate. The very fact that she has tabled an amendment demonstrates her feeling on the subject. If she and other noble Lords will permit, I will address some of the other concerns first and come to the language later in this speech.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her support for the Bill. She rightly highlighted the past injustice of women having to make a choice between having children and pursuing a career. That is entirely wrong. It is why the Bill and what I hope will follow are so important. The Government acknowledge that the Bill does not resolve wider issues, and we will present a report to Parliament. I shall say more about that later, setting out considerations and proposals.

I turn to some other points raised in the course of the debate. On the constitutional aspects of the Bill, particularly the royal prerogative and how the Bill operates in that space, several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Hain and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Jones and Lady Hayman, asked why the Bill does not grant a right to maternity leave and why it remains within the Prime Minister’s discretion to appoint a Minister as a Minister on leave. As my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General said in the other place during the Bill’s passage, Ministers are not employees and therefore do not enjoy employment rights. They are officeholders appointed by the sovereign on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day. The Bill is careful to ensure that the arrangements put in place to allow Ministers to take maternity leave do not interfere with that prerogative in relation to the appointment of Ministers.

Noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Grey-Thompson, and many others, said that while the Bill is welcome, it does not go far enough. I agree, as I said in my opening speech and just now. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the Bill does not resolve wider issues such as ministerial adoption and parental leave, absences for sickness and other measures—we heard about some in the debate—or unpaid roles and that we should proceed to consider them too. I will come to that in more detail later.

Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, also raised maternity provision for Members of the other place. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work as part of the APPG on Women in Parliament, which advocated paid cover for Ministers in 2014. In respect of Members of Parliament, it is a matter for IPSA, which is entirely independent of the Government, and for Parliament itself. I note and welcome the fact that IPSA has launched a consultation on funding for MP parental leave cover and I encourage all those with an interest to make their views known to IPSA.

Others raised wider issues affecting pregnant women across the country. That was the gravamen of the wind-up speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, whom I welcome to her position on the Front Bench opposite. Pregnancy and maternity discrimination is already unlawful, but the Government have recognised that pregnant women and new mothers continue to face challenges in the workplace. They have consulted on this issue previously and published their response in the summer of 2019. We are looking to bring forward reforms to the current statutory framework, as was committed to in our manifesto. It will provide security for expecting and new mothers, and flexibility for employers.

I thank noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Bourne, for their advocacy on behalf of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House. I recognise that this is an issue, and, understandably, a number of noble Lords feel strongly about it. I am happy to confirm that the Written Ministerial Statement laid by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister specifically envisages the use of unpaid roles as being within the scope of further work that the Government have committed to, following the Bill. The Government will present a report to Parliament setting out considerations on this matter, alongside the other matters that I have explained. I paid careful attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Bourne and others, and I hope to be able to update my noble friend and the House on the progress of that work by the Summer Recess, as was stated by my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General in the other place.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, who made a powerful speech, and others for their points on equalities impact assessments. It is absolutely right that the Government should give proper consideration to the equalities impacts of a policy underlying any legislation. Although the provisions of this Bill are of narrow scope, they apply to all ministerial offices and the opposition officeholders who are paid under the ministerial salary legislation to allow for maternity leave. This means that, for those women who are Ministers or are considering accepting appointment to ministerial office, there is now less of an impediment or barrier to doing so when considering starting a family at the same time. This improves equality and removes an injustice. It is part of the wider work that I have referred to before, which will look at, among other things, parental leave, adoption leave and the position of people in public life who are not Ministers. The Government have undertaken that, as part of that, they will take into account the equalities issues. The starting point will be to consider the impacts of the current legislation, as well as work from relevant Select Committees.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, raised the Law Officers Act 1997. He is of course right to say that, by virtue of that Act, which he helped steward through Parliament, the functions of the Attorney-General can be exercised by the Solicitor-General. That provides important flexibility on a day-to-day basis. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that that is not a solution for a planned and ongoing leave of absence.

In addition, the office of Attorney-General, as chief law officer for England and Wales and chief legal adviser to the Crown, is an important part of our constitution. Advice on the most serious and sensitive issues is provided to the Cabinet by the Attorney-General, who attends Cabinet. In those circumstances, it is not about the possibility of the Solicitor-General deputising but about ensuring that there is clarity about who discharges the role of Attorney-General.

I would now like to address the concerns raised in the other place and so strongly and repeatedly in this House today regarding the language used in this legislation. In the debate, almost all noble Lords raised the fact that the Bill refers to “persons”, rather than “women”, who are pregnant. What others see as neutral language, many of your Lordships have perceived as rejecting the special role of women in childbirth. Questions have been raised about whether this is the application of extreme gender ideology. It is not. The overriding drafting principle for all legislation is that we must create the legal conditions to deliver the policy intent.

I will address the specific issues directly and hope to be able to give the House some reassurance, but it is important to disentangle the broader issue of non-specific language on the one hand and how it is perceived and operates in the Bill. I submit that few would want to go back to the situation before 2007, when, for example, “he” was regularly used in legislation to embrace women. That, as many have argued, was seen as demeaning. The changes introduced by the then Labour Government and supported by successive Governments of all parties have sought to avoid gender-specific pronouns and usages when drafting legislation. Whatever the concerns expressed in this debate—I heard them and will come to them—I have not heard any call for the wholesale overthrow of the inclusive drafting conventions used since 2007. The Government continue to believe that that change was right.

I will come to the specific context of the language of this Bill. However, the Government do not—this reflects our discussions with the Official Opposition—propose to amend this Bill, for several reasons. First, the specific circumstances of the Attorney-General’s pregnancy mean that there is some urgency to secure Royal Assent to allow her to go on maternity leave. Secondly, in that context, the current drafting achieves its purpose in legal clarity and certainty.

As I said in opening, the Government have committed to return to the House with a report on furthering the reform begun in this Bill, looking into wider issues including adoption and parental leave, sickness and unpaid roles. If that review leads to this Bill being revisited, the way it is now constructed will facilitate further additions for other forms of ministerial leave.

The Bill is legally accurate and will allow women to take maternity leave. To disturb that by amendment now might lead to unfortunate delay or unintended confusion in drafting. I acknowledge, having heard the debate, that this is not a satisfactory position for this House, but we will return to these matters in due course.

Although the drafting of this Bill in the context of maternity has been criticised by many, I repeat that it was neither novel nor intended in any way to denigrate women. I and the Government have heard today the concerns of both Houses on the “erasure of women” from public discourse and legislation. It is not intended to do this. The overriding drafting principle is that we must meet the legal requirements to deliver policy intent. The use of “person” in relation to pregnancy or childbirth matters in legislation is in line with current drafting convention and guidance, but, having heard the debate today, I will make the following points in reassurance.

First, I repeat that it will continue to be this Government’s policy to refer to pregnant women in government publications. That point has been made very strongly by many who spoke. Secondly, the Government have already responded to concerns that this drafting could be misinterpreted, and have updated the Explanatory Notes, which now detail how the Bill is intended to support women and explain the drafting practice.

The Government recognise the continuing strength of feeling on this issue in both this House and the other place. We are clear that the drafting is accurate and effective, but we recognise the concern expressed today that meeting legal requirements in drafting legislation does not mean that there is only one drafting approach available. In addition to committing to make myself available to noble Lords who may wish to discuss this matter further before Committee—I express my gratitude to those noble Lords who have taken the time and engagement so far to enter into discussions with the Government and me—I also state that the Government are open to further discussions on this issue. I will reflect with colleagues whether we can commit to doing more on this wider issue as we approach the later stages of this Bill.

Following my undertakings on this, many noble Lords expressed a wish to see reform go further to resolve wider issues around ministerial parental leave. The Government acknowledge that the Bill does not resolve these wider issues. That is why we have committed to further consideration. These are complex issues which require careful further consideration, taking into account modern working practices and the wider constitutional context. While respecting the independence of IPSA, the Government will present a report to Parliament setting out considerations and proposals.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the Government’s work will consider how the issues are resolved in other contexts, including for MPs, other officeholders, workers and employees, to draw up proposals for how they can be made to work in the context of ministerial office.

I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that as part of this work, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to consult with the leader of the Opposition on the development of the proposals in advance of publication. The Government will continue the work following passage of this legislation with a view to laying the report before Parliament as soon as is practicable, and will in any event update Parliament before the Summer Recess.

I hope that I have been able to address some of the issues raised by noble Lords, including those raised by my noble friend Lady Noakes and others throughout this debate. I urge her to consider withdrawing her amendment, and repeat my offer to have further engagement between now and the next stages.

The Government agree that Parliament and Government should seek to lead from the front on working practices, providing as much flexibility as possible to officeholders to aid the effective discharge of their duties. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out in his Written Statement on this topic two weeks ago, the Government have undertaken to look into considerations and proposals, both in the round and in detail.

Returning to the essential, this Bill will end the unacceptable situation where a pregnant woman would have to resign from Cabinet to recover from childbirth and care for her new-born child. For this reason and for the reasons outlined above, I again beg to move that the Bill be read a second time, and urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Border Controls

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of (1) the withdrawal of local and European Union officials from border control posts in Northern Ireland, and (2) the suspension of inspections on goods entering Northern Ireland at the Ports of Belfast and Larne.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True)]

My Lords, I know that the whole House will join me in strongly condemning all threats and intimidation. These will never guide the actions of Her Majesty’s Government. But there has been strong concern right across the community at the EU’s actions on Friday. Urgent action is now needed to restore confidence and address outstanding issues with the protocol, which we will take forward urgently with the EU next week.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, while all intimidation by members of paramilitary groups must be totally condemned, does my noble friend agree that the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland is the entirely predictable consequence of the one-sided approach adopted by the European Commission, which has only ever seen these issues from an Irish nationalist perspective? Indeed, I warned Monsieur Barnier directly of this when I saw him in June 2018. Does my noble friend agree that the time has come for the Commission to show flexibility, pragmatism and sensitivity over the implementation of the protocol, respecting all parts of the Belfast agreement and the constitutional and economic integrity of our United Kingdom? If it does not, then surely the Government must consider more robust measures.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I underline what I said in my first Answer. It is clearly hugely disappointing and surprising to many that the EU proposed to take such a significant step without any notification—indeed, without even notifying the Irish Government. I profoundly agree with my noble friend that it now behoves us all to take appropriate and lasting action to address the questions of concern.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Michael Gove has said that the problems with the protocol are not just teething problems. What did he mean by that? Does he now recognise that the protocol was a flawed document in many ways but that repudiation would be a political disaster and, indeed, a longer period of grace on its own would not resolve the problems? What is needed now is not a blame game but an intense period of co-operation between the officials of all four jurisdictions to make the total system work, north-south and east-west.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that we need practical and urgent action. I certainly do not engage in any blame game; I simply draw attention to the fact that it was the EU that invoked Article 16.

[Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the threats against port staff in Larne and Belfast are totally unacceptable, as is the graffiti that has been sprayed on Alliance Party offices, including on the office of my friend Stephen Farry MP. Does the Minister agree that it is time for calm language and concentrating on finding practical solutions to make the protocol work for all, such as working to achieve an EU-UK veterinary agreement, which would genuinely UK food producers?

[Lord True (Con)]

I strongly agree with the noble Baroness’s remarks about violence. The safety of staff at our ports is our top priority and we are engaging actively with the PSNI to understand and follow the situation. Again, I would agree with her that it is now incumbent on all parties, including the EU, to address practical and lasting solutions to the issues that remain.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]]

I applaud the Minister’s answers. I am sure he is right. I am also sure that the joint committee could agree and will agree extensions of the grace periods until trusted trader schemes are up and running. However, SPS checks, which we agreed, and some supermarket shortages cannot possibly constitute the exceptional circumstances that annexe 7 to the protocol says would be required before Article 16 action was envisaged. Yet we have—the Prime Minister has, on 13 January and again yesterday—clearly threatened Article 16 action. Does the Minister believe that, if we were to destroy the protocol, the European Parliament would proceed to ratify the trade treaty?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord in a litany of “what ifs”. We should address “what now”, and the EU has a responsibility to help to address that.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the red tape of the protocol has made much business between GB and Northern Ireland uneconomic. EU spokespersons have publicly advised that the way in which to avoid the cost of the checks is to source more goods, particularly food, from the south. Is not the risk that the Northern Ireland economy will gradually drift away from the UK single market and east-west trade will be increasingly replaced by north-south trade? That will have potentially profound political implications. Is it not that which is alarming people? I ask my noble friend to confirm that, if these matters cannot be sorted out through the joint committee, the Government will not rule out unilateral action.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the position of businesses and the impact on them are obviously something that the Government monitor and watch with concern. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has told Vice-President Šefčovič that our focus must be on making the protocol work in the interests of people and businesses in Northern Ireland. As to the last part of my noble friend’s question, I do not resile from, indeed I support strongly, what the Prime Minister said in the other place yesterday.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, cool heads and dialogue are needed in such difficult circumstances between all the institutions of the UK, Ireland, Northern Ireland and the EU. I welcome the joint statement’s commitment yesterday to the Good Friday agreement and to avoiding disruption to the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. What further changes to arrangements for the movement of goods arising out of the joint committee agreement of 17 December are still to be enacted, and when will they be?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is an ongoing process and obviously, as the noble Earl will know, my right honourable friend sent a further letter to Vice-President Šefčovič this week embracing a wide range of matters that we believe need to be addressed. However, I certainly agree with the noble Earl’s original remark that cool heads are required in this situation.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, while condemning the intimidation aimed at border control staff and deeply regretting the European Commission’s attempt to invoke Article 16 or, indeed, any attempt to do so, does the Minister agree that what is now needed is calm negotiation between the Commission and the Government and, above all else, between the political parties and their respective leaders in Northern Ireland itself?

[Lord True (Con)]

I strongly agree with the tone of the noble Lord’s remarks and recognise his experience and wisdom in this area.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, some of the disarray of recent days is a result of the insistence of the EU and the acceptance by the British and Irish Governments that all significant bilateral issues must be dealt with by UK-EU meetings instead of British-Irish meetings. How many times has the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference established under the Good Friday agreement met since the triggering of Article 50? What were the dates and venues of those meetings? If the Minister is unable to provide that information at the moment, which I would understand, will he write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library?

[Lord True (Con)]

I certainly undertake to do that. The noble Lord has asked a number of detailed points and I will write to him, but while I am on my feet, I will say that I believe that the Irish/UK strand is an important one that might help in assisting to resolve some of these problems.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

Is the recent imposition by the EU of a land border between southern and Northern Ireland, for however brief a period, by invoking Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol and without even informing the parties to the agreement, including the Irish Prime Minister, a serious violation of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, to which the EU claimed to attach so much importance during the withdrawal negotiations?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that it is highly regrettable, and this point was made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday. We should all attach importance to the Good Friday agreement and I hope that the Commission will now give lasting attention to that point.

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I join other colleagues in condemning the intimidation. Northern Ireland has been used shamelessly by the EU and others as a political football during the recent negotiations. However, to what degree are Her Majesty’s Government prepared to look at genuinely at alternatives that can be negotiated with the European Union and with the parties in Northern Ireland, and will those parties be properly consulted about the way forward? I ask this because many feel that they have been ignored.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point and he is quite right about the involvement of the parties. One of the sad aspects of this has been the bypassing of the parties in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend set out a detailed set of proposals which are in the public domain, and he has indicated in those that if it is not possible to agree a way forward in the way we have proposed, the UK will consider using all the instruments at its disposal.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Irish protocol does of course contain the flexibilities that can resolve this impasse and it is a treaty that is backed by Parliament. Surely the Government must accept that the chaos facing many Northern Ireland businesses trading across the Irish Sea is the predictable consequence of their hard Brexit stance, which is backed enthusiastically by the DUP, coupled with the Prime Minister’s ludicrous promises of unfettered access from day one. It is no good complaining about the protocol when it is the consequence of the very hard Brexit that the Tories and the DUP wanted, despite Northern Ireland voting decisively against that.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have moved from “what if?” through to “what now?” to “what then?” The fact is that a decision was made by the British people to leave the EU customs territory and the single market, and we must proceed having accepted that solution.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Will the Government follow the precedent they set after our formal withdrawal from the EU with regard to the transition period and lay down with the EU a firm deadline for the reform of the protocol as a stage towards its replacement by arrangements that are capable of commanding the confidence of our fellow country men and women in Northern Ireland, as the protocol patently cannot?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will not anticipate from this Dispatch Box what might be the progress of negotiations. I take note of the point made by my noble friend, given his great experience. In the first instance, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Maroš Šefčovič must get together to address, we hope, the substantial range of points set out in the Chancellor’s letter.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]]

I too condemn all threats made against anyone in Northern Ireland, including the previous threats made by republicans against those working on the Irish border. Last week, the European Union showed no regard for Northern Ireland. It demolished the rationale behind the Northern Ireland protocol, lowered the bar for the triggering of Article 16 and demonstrated its one-sided, pro-nationalist approach by disregarding the Belfast agreement. Does the Minister agree that the problems are real, having been brought about not by the Government and the parties in Northern Ireland but by those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, advocated the Northern Ireland protocol? They need to be fixed either through renegotiation or through action by the Government. Will he robustly defend the need for this Parliament and Government to protect the internal market of the United Kingdom?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I will end as I began, by condemning all violence and threats of violence. Flexibilities have been invoked. They are required on both sides, as are pragmatism and proportionality. In the negotiation, we need to provide a reassurance that all parties will respect the basis on which the protocol was agreed. That includes full recognition of Northern Ireland’s status as an integral part of the United Kingdom, respecting its place in the UK’s customs territory and internal market and recognising the integral social, economic and cultural ties that bind the UK as a whole, and safeguarding the streamlined flow of goods between Britain and Northern Ireland on which so many lives and livelihoods rely. We are also respecting the need to maintain the support of both communities. That is our objective and it is the one to which Her Majesty’s Government are dedicated. I hope sincerely that our counterparties in the European Union will address the same agenda.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, all the supplementary questions to this Question have been asked.

National Risk Register

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, a range of documents has been published that provide an overview of preparedness for major risks, including the national risk register, which provides information on those that have the potential to cause significant disruption. The Government do not currently have plans to publicly share further reports on this matter due to the confidential nature of the information.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, of course there are some preparations that it would not be right to reveal publicly, but that is what the Intelligence and Security Committee is for. Covid has already cost us more than half a trillion pounds, but at the start of the pandemic, of the emergency stockpile of 26 million NHS respirators, 21 million were past their use-by dates. Neither the lessons from Exercise Cygnus, nor the recommendations from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, have been acted on. To govern is to choose, and the choice was to leave us underprepared. Is it not in the public interest for Parliament to know how ready we are for the other serious risks on the national risk register?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have said repeatedly at this Dispatch Box that lessons from Covid planning, and other planning, will be learned and are being learned, and will be communicated. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. He will know that the Government regularly respond to requests from that committee on risk assessment to inform its work, and they are currently responding to the recommendations in its report Biosecurity and National Security.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Government on their approach to maintaining the national risk register, but, following the recent severe flooding in Yorkshire and elsewhere, is my noble friend satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between the national risk register and community risk registers in identifying and meeting such risks?

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend touches on a very important point. In all candour, I think that one is never satisfied with anything; one always wishes to learn from what happens to do things better the next time. However, I assure him that, to support their planning for emergencies, local resilience forums are provided with full support to develop local resilience plans. They have direct contact with the Cabinet Office, should specific questions on risk assessment be raised—I assure the noble Lord that this ongoing dialogue is strong and will be strengthened.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Should the national risk register be about risks that are longer than two years and those over the next 10, 20 or 30 years? Also, the committee that was supposed to look into pandemics was closed down six months before the pandemic started: is that not a sign that perhaps we are a bit closed and not looking out in a real way to the great risks that face us now? Of course, the greatest risk is that of poverty.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a strong point with which I agree, having chaired one of your Lordships’ Select Committees that looked into longer-term planning. His point is important. The NSRA certainly takes into account the impact of risks on the most vulnerable in society in its methodology.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, emergency planners readily accept that the wider the input there is to a national risk register, the better it is, by its very definition. What plans have HMG to extend that input?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as I say, the Government are in contact with a range of people. We have just discussed the issues of flooding and vulnerable groups, and, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question, the Government are obviously in contact with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. We cast our interests and our ears—if you can cast your ears—widely.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Professor Dame Sally Davies, the UK envoy on anti-microbial resistance, is calling on academics, Governments and not-for-profit organisations to work together to tackle this global health risk, which is a threat to both lives and economies. What action have the Government taken and what are their plans, following the recent update of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, on his 2016 review on this issue?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have a detailed response to the O’Neill report, but I can make sure that the noble Baroness gets one. However, I assure her and the House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has personally made clear his commitment to this Government being in the lead internationally in the fight against all manner of disease threats.

[Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the national risk register tries to identify both malicious and non-malicious threats, including misinformation. No one would ever suggest that President Macron’s recent rubbishing of the vaccination science was malicious, but it most certainly counts as misinformation that, unfortunately, plays into the hands and maliciousness of the anti-vaxxers. As such, might my noble friend, as an ardent European himself, be tempted later today to send Monsieur Macron this country’s very best wishes, gently remind him that the glorious state of France has nothing to fear from British success and suggest to him that the greatest danger facing all of us in this chaotic world is ignorance, to which the President has, sadly, unwittingly contributed?

[Lord True (Con)]

With his normal ingenuity, my noble friend encourages me to make about five diplomatic gaffes in five seconds. I am certainly not going to fall into that trap. Those who advise best on disease and on the safety of vaccines are the professionals. The British Government have total confidence in the advice that they have received on vaccines.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, how do we know whether the £5 billion programme for flood relief is sufficient and proportionate to the flood risk? Should not Parliament be able to debate this and have input into it? The more minds involved, the better our preparedness will be.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the lead government department concerned with flooding is the major one that should respond on that. Any debate on flood risk in your Lordships’ House would benefit not only the Government but the nation.

[Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the 2020 national risk register refers to planning to tackle Covid-19. It says that

“the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy covers strategic planning, response and scientific evidence for many emerging infectious diseases.”

Is not one of the lessons of the pandemic that the level of planning—for flu only—was totally inadequate? Is it not the case that there was simply no government planning for a coronavirus pandemic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord may understand that Covid was a novel virus that emerged. He under- estimates the importance of the pandemic planning work. The NSRA was a vital starting point for the Covid-19 response. We have discussed that in a number of ways, but there is no doubt that the fast preparation of the Coronavirus Act was the result of effective planning for a pandemic.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, one of the great successes of the vaccine programme has been bringing our level of manufacturing capability back onshore. Do the Government have similar plans for generic medicines, microelectronics and power generation equipment? All these sectors are vulnerable should, say, China choose to go to war with Taiwan.

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend raises an important point. Again, I am not going to write an industrial strategy from this Dispatch Box any more than I am a diplomatic policy. We have seen the value of the co-ordinated response to Covid. The creation of a national capacity has been greatly to our benefit. I am sure that his comments will be widely noted.

[Lord Scriven (LD) [V]]

Having a good risk register is not the same as having a good system of risk management. Despite pandemic being mentioned as a significant risk in the national risk register, why did the Government’s response to Covid not follow the department of health’s approved contingency plans for dealing with a SARS-type outbreak?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as I said before, in my judgment—and in that of the Government—it is too early to draw all the lessons from the Covid emergency. Some tend to underestimate its novelty and gravity. This Government and all Governments in the world have sought to respond in the best interests of their peoples. We have drawn on the lessons from the pandemic review, as will be seen when any examination or inquiry takes place.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.