Tributes

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, shortly before Christmas each year, the usual channels rightly and duly pay tribute to the staff of the House who have retired or passed away in the last 12 months.

Before I turn to individual tributes, colleagues from the usual channels will want to join me in acknowledging the work of all those who work for your Lordships’ House. Their skill and dedication, already very well known to us, was shown to the world following the demise of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. From the tributes in the Chamber to the transformation of Westminster Hall and the management of the lying-in-state, all were made possible and delivered by staff of your Lordships’ House. All those who worked to make these events happen were, in my judgment, a living tribute to Her late Majesty. I know all noble Lords will join me in thanking all those who worked so tirelessly over those 10 days in September, and throughout the whole of the calendar year.

Our tributes start sadly. Lee Barnes passed away in May this year. He joined the House in 2017 as a print production assistant—one of those who work in the bowels of this place, ensuring that the papers on which we so rely appear like clockwork. I am told that Lee was the first to start any new work that came in, the first to volunteer for tasks, and diligent in ensuring that your Lordships’ papers were right and on time. Lee’s first passion was his five year-old daughter, Libby, who was a source of immense pride to him, as well as of daily updates to his colleagues. Lee’s love of football and music were also passed to those around him, whether the merits of Chelsea or Leatherhead FC, or waxing lyrical for hours about known and unknown gigs, artists and bands. At his funeral, all were asked to wear band T-shirts as a tribute. Lee’s sudden death was a terrible shock to his team, and he is greatly missed by many in this House.

John Vice, the Editor of Debates, retired just two weeks ago. The Hansard rooms at the top of this buildings are rarely visited by noble Lords—except perhaps by someone desperately wanting to correct the record—but Hansard’s output is integral to our work. John Vice was a Hansard lifer, joining the Commons Hansard team in 1987, moving to the Lords 14 years later, and rising to become Editor of Debates in 2013.

John was fascinated by the history, philosophy and art of Hansard. He could enthral listeners on how Hansard recognises “noises off” and on the subtleties of individual words, but John was also a deeply adaptable Editor. These were qualities seen most clearly in his leadership of his team through the Covid-19 pandemic, when all of us were removed from familiar spots in this Chamber to our homes. Many noble Lords may struggled in making contributions over variable internet connections, and I certainly did as a newish Minister in my back room. Pity then the reporters straining to hear and faithfully record every word. John ensured that his team rose to the challenge.

John’s quiet, unassuming generosity to his colleagues extended beyond this place. He offered guidance to parliamentary reporters worldwide and he was president of the Commonwealth Hansard Editors Association. In retirement, I am told he will continue to spread his wings, and plans to cycle round Australia. There is quite a big desert over there, John. We wish him well.

Akua Konadu worked in the housekeeping team. She started this work in 2007 and retired earlier this year, after 15 years. Akua was a member of a team working in the early hours on the most high-profile and historic parts of this building, including the Library, Peers’ Lobby, the Royal Gallery and the Robing Room. She retires now to spend more time with her beloved family, and we are grateful she was part of our family too, for 15 years.

Julia Keddie had a 34-year career that spanned both Houses. She joined the House of Commons Library in 1988 and worked in a variety of roles, providing information to MPs and managing the decant of the Commons Library collections, which at that point were stored in the Palace basements. Her range extended to supporting committees, as well as digital projects. In the Lords, Julia was the collections project manager, managing the storage of the House of Lords Library’s extensive print collection, making sure it was conserved and preserved, as well as planning for the safeguarding of the collection in the event of a disaster. Julia developed strong links across many offices to do this, bringing expertise gathered across her varied career.

Clare Hook will be best known to noble Lords for her work in the Members’ finance team. During her 18 years in the House, Clare displayed an unending supply of enthusiasm and good humour, answering queries and making sure claims were paid accurately and promptly. She managed the Members’ finance scheme brilliantly. Clare cared deeply about her colleagues and, during the pandemic, their welfare was at the forefront, as she did a huge amount to keep spirits up and help the team manage the transition to working from home. To those around her, Clare seemed to know everyone. Her positivity, laughter and, I am told, supply of edible treats will be sorely missed.

Mark Cooper was a polymath, working across four different offices and more during a 37-year career in the House of Lords. In his early career, he worked in clerical roles in the Committee Office and Judicial Office, supporting the Law Lords, who were then—happy days—based in this House. Mark moved to working on legislation and, over nearly a decade, became a fount of wisdom for his colleagues across the House and in Whitehall. He ended his career in the specialised world of hybrid and private Bills, guiding the confused through the complexities of these sometimes arcane processes. Outside this list of jobs, Mark did much more, frequently taking on extra responsibilities, usually those that would support and assist the well-being of his team—any team. Indeed, as long-standing secretary to the Farmers Club, he supported my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. Finally, Mark was a self-taught calligrapher, and the exquisitely crafted humble Addresses for State Opening, jubilee and following the demise of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth were Mark’s work. He was, according to those who worked with him,

“one of the finest, most professional and most compassionate colleagues”.

We will miss him also.

Finally, before I sit down, I would not wish to leave without thanking the team in the Government Whips’ Office for their support, dedication and good humour through a turbulent year. They provide consummate service not just to my office but, in many ways, to the whole House. I wish them, all staff of the House, and all noble Lords a blessed and merry Christmas.

Cabinet Manual: Revision (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord True Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. I am glad—well, not glad—that I gave the elbow to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I was going to relieve her from doing two debates in succession, but then I find that the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Wallace, are such Stakhanovites and polymaths that they have been doing continuous debates.

I start by saying that the Cabinet Manual is a document of fundamental importance and the report by the Constitution Committee is one of significance and importance, which this Government take extremely seriously.

I will say one other thing in preamble. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who said that this had to be shared across all parties. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was also very strong on that point, rightly. These are principles that we should all share and, in a sense, politics should come into it less. I was particularly fascinated by the speech of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who, from a perspective of enormous experience, spoke of some of the difficulties in codifying matters and some of the problems that can arise from that.

There is this idea that government of good chaps, chapesses or whatever they are has gone and that this era can never return. In my personal belief, most people in Parliament, whatever we say about each other, stand on their honour and are honourable people. Whatever defences, additions or props we put into place, the principle of being good and honourable should not be gone and forgotten. It remains.

I remind noble Lords, some of whom sometimes think there was a Garden of Eden before my right honourable friend Mr Johnson became Prime Minister, that there was a serpent in the Garden of Eden. My Christmas reading will include the latest biography of Sir Charles Dilke, as I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

Let me get on to the matter at hand. A number of specific suggestions and points that should be taken up were made in this debate. The speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, raised some specific issues. Detailed points were made and that has been one of the more precise values of this debate. Given the variety and number of specific suggestions made, today and in various committee reports since the manual was last published—although I know the House appreciates that time is needed to consider the right approach on each detail of the manual, outside the normal convention that one may sometimes write in response to noble Lords—I assure the House that the officials responsible will review the debate in Hansard and consider the specific suggestions put forward to inform the drafting approach and content.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for tabling this Motion in her role as chair of the Constitution Committee. I also extend my gratitude to the other members and clerks of that committee for the report, and to the former chair of the committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for guiding this work. It is clear, concise and comprehensive, and the evidence-taking was also fascinating and brought insightful thoughts to bear on the problem and contents of the Cabinet Manual.

I repeat what I said at the start: it is an important document for Ministers and officials, and the single reference document that sets out the rules, conventions and practice that affect the operation of government. In opening the debate, brilliantly and lucidly, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said it is a work of reference and therein lies its value. That was the general feeling of all who spoke.

I greatly commend the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, for enduring his tenure as Cabinet Secretary and for leading the charge. As Geoffrey Chaucer was to English poetry, so the noble Lord is that process. He himself said that it is primarily a guide for those working in government. In his first preface, he talked about

“recording the current position rather than driving change”.

However, the current position today is not the position that was current in 2011; therefore, an update is clearly needed. The Government have committed to producing an update of the Cabinet Manual before the end of the Parliament—I am conscious that some of that was in either my pen or my words, or probably both—and work is ongoing to achieve that objective.

I apologise for the delay in some respects; but, in other respects, there has been a very great deal of change, as noble Lords have said, including very fast change in recent times. There was an aspiration, as has been referred to in the debate, to share updates with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place before the end of June. Since then, there have been two changes in Prime Minister and a demise of the Crown, followed by a period of national mourning, which Cabinet Office officials played a key role in co-ordinating. So there is some pretext for the delay, but I repeat what the Government have said: we will provide an update to the Constitution Committee in the new year and we will provide further details on timelines. Work is going on to identify what needs to be done and where updates need to be. There will be very small amendments on some chapters, whereas some other chapters, as has been referred to, will require major changes and indeed total rewriting on subjects such as the duration of Parliament, relations with the EU and so on.

The original intention was to update routinely and periodically, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, reminded us. There is a case for doing so. Over time, it has historically been a matter for the Prime Minister of the day, acting on the advice of officials, to judge when best to undertake a change. So I am loath to commit future Governments to a decision on their approach; that would be a decision for the Government of the day when assessing their priorities. However, this Government will produce an update of the manual according to timelines which, I have said, will be shared shortly.

In November, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the chair of PACAC in the other place to confirm that the Government will provide an update on that work to the Select Committee in 2023. That will include detailed arrangements on consultation, because I agree with noble Lords that there has to be some opportunity for consultation on such an important document. I can tell your Lordships that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that a similar update is provided to the Constitution Committee in this House so that it is aware of the upcoming stages and timings of that very important project.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Collins, and others asked about the extent to which the Government plan to consult Parliament on the draft that is being produced. Obviously, there was a consultation on the first edition. I mentioned in correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and it is worth repeating today, that there are differences between the project in 2010-11 and today. One was ab initio—sorry, I am not allowed to use Latin in Parliament any more; one was starting off—and this one is updating. Any engagement on the updates will reflect the extent to which significant changes are required or whether the updates are more limited in nature. I very much take the point and will take it back to colleagues. The Government will also clarify this, including which sections of the manual will be shared in draft form, in the new year.

The Government share the view of the Cabinet Secretaries who gave evidence to the Constitution Committee for this report that Parliament should be consulted, although not invited to endorse the updates. The Government also recognise the value of developing a degree of consensus—a word that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to—in the language used in the manual, so that it continues to be an accepted and authoritative source on conventions and practices of government that should be widely shared.

The work to update the manual began in February 2022, when I confirmed to the Constitution Committee that an update would be published before the end of this Parliament. Officials then undertook a scoping exercise to determine where the manual had become out of date, as well as drafting initial updates to address factual inaccuracies. As I implied earlier, the updates will clearly be more substantive in some areas than others—for example, chapter 2 on government formation, chapter 8 on devolution and chapter 9 on relations with the EU and other institutions. A number of government departments and bodies have been involved in identifying and drafting updates. As I said, I hope we will be able to issue more information on progress shortly.

I was asked about the duty of Ministers and Prime Ministers to uphold the manual. The duties on Ministers are laid in the Ministerial Code, which is reflected in the manual. It is something of a circular argument to take one, which is an advisory and descriptive document, and make that the source of discipline. The duty on Ministers flows from the Ministerial Code; the manual is a guidance document rather than a code. When the first edition was published, it was endorsed by the Cabinet and the then Prime Minister made it clear that he would expect everyone working in government to be mindful of the guidance it contains. This remains the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others inquired about the role the Prime Minister has in the manual. As a document owned by the Executive, the next edition of the manual will be approved by the Prime Minister before it is published. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, went to wider questions about the accountability of the Prime Minister, also touched on in a slightly more pacific vein by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. I also am so delighted to see him in his place.

I rebuke nobody, but in our zeal to condemn Mr Johnson, who I still count as a friend, we should sometimes remember—we talk of convention—section 4.50 of the Companion, which says that no MP should be referred to

“for the purpose of criticism of a personal, rather than a political, nature.”

Many noble Lords will feel that there is huge scope for criticising Mr Johnson politically, but in the context of how we behave we sometimes need to think very carefully about those words. By the way, I totally acquit the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on this point today.

The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, raised the idea of an oath. I will not give an extemporary response on this because I might get into trouble, but it is initially unclear to me that taking an oath in itself would go beyond the high levels of accountability—to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—that the Prime Minister has. He is accountable to Parliament and the electorate, and can be brought down by Parliament and the electorate. Like any other of us, the Prime Minister also takes an oath to bear faithful and true allegiance to the monarch, and therein lies a high duty incumbent on the Prime Minister, above all, to act properly as the sovereign’s principal adviser.

It was suggested that the Cabinet Manual might be placed on a statutory footing, but only in passing, I think, in one intervention, which I have forgotten to note—I apologise. The Government do not believe that the manual should be placed on a statutory basis for the reasons that go along with the point that it is not the source of discipline. Also, we are, for the reasons asserted by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, nervous about moving towards a codification of principles.

I thought that a very important strand referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Drake, is that the manual has an important role to play in being a useful and informative guide for the public. That includes schools, as some noble Lords said. I believe, as the conclusion to your Lordships’ committee’s report put it, that documents such as the Cabinet Manual are

“crucial to the wider national wellbeing as well as to the public’s trust in government.”

I agree with those sentiments, which were taken up by others. The manual can and should have a role in educating the public on the operation of government. The Government have noted the idea of producing a more accessible online version and understand the value of having updates available promptly online, while also producing a formal update as a new edition. We are committed to ensuring that it should be accessible to a wider public and that it should be drafted with the wider public in mind as a reader. The Government will therefore consider how best to make the manual acceptable to all.

I was asked by the noble Baroness about the devolved legislatures’ role in reviewing the manual. It was a recommendation in your Lordships’ committee’s report that the Government should formally consult the relevant committees in the devolved legislatures, as well as Parliament, when they produce an update. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised that matter in a letter to the Prime Minister earlier this year; indeed, she referred to it in her excellent speech. Much of the Cabinet Manual is on matters specific to the UK Government and on reserved matters. It is a UK document signed off by UK Ministers accountable to the UK Parliament. We always seek to work constructively with the devolved Administrations, but how the Scottish Government, the Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly—the devolved Governments—will be engaged in the process will be taken nearer the time on the basis of the nature of the proposed changes in particular chapters.

It is time that I closed. I apologise for replying at some length, but that should reflect the importance of this document—it is an important document. If I am allowed to venture an opinion, since I have been a Minister only for a couple of years, I think it is a great pity that it was not revised before. However, I have every confidence because I have now served under three Prime Ministers, and they have all been interested in getting this job done. We will get it done.

This document is important, and I hope that its successor will be equally important in describing our country’s complex and rich constitutional arrangements for the benefit of all. It should not be treated as an optional extra that an Executive might ignore. I agree with the assessment of the Constitution Committee. The manual is a central guide for the operation of government and the Government are committed to ensuring that that remains the case for the next decade. We have been, and remain, committed to producing an updated edition before the end of this Parliament, but I hope to have some updates in the new year on timelines, which may be able to improve on that.

I thank again all those involved in the drafting of your Lordships’ committee’s report, and in the arrangement of this debate. I have seven seconds left—but can I briefly say as Leader that I am conscious that Select Committees have often found it difficult to get debates on the Floor of the House? I am glad that we are debating three today, although I am sorry that it is a Friday, but I hope that with the usual channels we can improve on that. I am sorry about it.

I get my seven seconds back now by saying that I hope that the Government will be able to cement the manual’s place in future as a useful guide for Ministers, officials and the general public. That is our common aspiration, and I believe the common aspiration of all of us across all parties who have spoken in this debate.

Business of the House

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 20 December to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 22 November and, if agreed, will give legal effect to the decision of both Houses, taken in July of this year, to pass Motions endorsing the House commissions’ report for a revised mandate for the restoration and renewal programme.

Since the sponsor body was established by the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, concerns have been raised about the conclusions reached in the initial assessment of the emerging costs and timescales. The House of Lords Commission, alongside the House of Commons Commission, expressed concern about the costs and timescales presented by the sponsor body, and I shared some of these concerns. That is why the Government, with the commissions in both Houses, have supported the development of a revised mandate. I am grateful for the collaborative way in which Speaker’s Counsel in the House of Commons has worked with officials in both Houses, including the deputy counsel to the Chairman of Committees, to draft these regulations and for the ongoing advice we have received from the R&R directors.

The new approach to the parliamentary building works will continue to ensure that, as provided for in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, Members of both Houses will be consulted. Peers and all those who work in this place will have a chance to express their views on the works. When making critical strategic choices relating to restoration and renewal, the R&R client board will keep in mind the principles agreed by both Houses to deliver a new value-for-money approach that prioritises safety.

The commissions, in a March 2022 meeting, agreed a new approach to the restoration and renewal programme, guided by the principles of prioritising health and safety, ensuring maximum value for money and integration with other critical works on the estate. It is important that all members of the parliamentary community feel that they are engaged on the parliamentary building works, and I am confident that these new arrangements will deliver the required step change in engagement.

In 2018, both Houses agreed that major works to the Palace of Westminster would be essential in order to ensure that this historic and iconic building remains for generations to come. It was decided that the project should be undertaken by a delivery authority and overseen by a sponsor body. The Parliamentary Building Works (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 set out the governance arrangements for the project by creating these bodies and conferring particular functions on them. However, earlier this year, the two House commissions recommended a new approach to the programme whereby a new two-tier in-house governance structure would be established.

These regulations, which are made under Section 10 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, will abolish the sponsor body, which will be replaced with an in-house governance structure. The statutory responsibilities and other functions of the sponsor body will transfer to the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—in other words, the clerks of each House.

The Leader of the House of Commons and I have consulted the corporate officers and the commissions of both Houses, in accordance with Section 10(8)(a) of the Act, and both corporate officers have consented to the transfers to them effected by this instrument, in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Act. Ultimately, both corporate officers will have joint responsibility for the parliamentary building works and will, at least once a year, prepare and lay a report before Parliament about the carrying out of the parliamentary building works and the progress that has been made towards completion of those works.

I am aware that Peers have previously raised concerns that without the sponsor body in place, the project may not have sufficient expertise. First, the Houses will not lose the expertise gained by the sponsor body, and the team of staff with that expertise will be brought in-house, as a joint department, and be accountable to the corporate officers. I also emphasise that the delivery authority will not be affected by the regulations; its role is unchanged, although it will now be closer to the Houses. This ensures that the programme retains its valuable experience and expertise. These regulations will allow for greater co-ordination and engagement between the Houses and the delivery authority, which could in turn allow for the delivery of restoration works much sooner. Similarly, the regulations will not alter the role of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission; it will remain in place and will scrutinise the delivery authority’s estimates.

This statutory instrument is vital to ensuring that this historic building is restored, while making sure that we deliver for the British taxpayer. Our commitment to ensuring good value for money is reflected in Section 2(5) of the restoration and renewal Act, and it is an approach that I will prioritise.

I would like to reassure colleagues that the House’s important role in this project is not diminished by the regulations. Under Section 7 of the 2019 Act, no restoration works, other than preparatory works, can be carried out until Parliament has approved the delivery authority proposals for those works. In addition, further approval is required for any proposals that would significantly affect the design, timing or duration of the parliamentary building works. Bringing this project in-house is an opportunity, as an in-house governance structure should improve accountability and engagement with Parliament by allowing a close interaction with and accountability to the commissions of the two Houses. I beg to move.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his opening remarks. Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Deighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I am a member of the board of the restoration and renewal sponsor body, which is now to be abolished under the terms of this statutory instrument. We were charged with implementing the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, and I have been acting as the spokesperson responsible for reporting to your Lordships’ House on behalf of the board.

Before we go, the board has bequeathed to its successors a synopsis of the lessons we have learned from our experience over the last two and a half years. Our letter to the chairs of the new client board and new programme board will be publicly available on Monday. Perhaps I can draw out that letter’s three interconnected conclusions. First, the governance structure devised by the R&R Act was flawed. The theory was that creating an autonomous arm’s-length sponsor body would mean freedom from political interference and would expedite swift progress after years of delay. This was naive. The reality was that the relevant parliamentarians retained a controlling role. The work of the sponsor body was constantly held back and confused by the views of parliamentarians, particularly those on the House of Commons Commission who were not committed to the large-scale R&R programme envisaged by the 2019 Act.

In particular, there was antipathy towards a full decant of the Palace. We believed this to be necessary if the essential works, most notably to sort out the horrendous underground labyrinth of pipes and cables in the basement, were to be carried out expeditiously and safely. Indeed, a decant was part of the legislative framework we were obliged to follow. Lack of agreement on this fundamental part of the R&R process high- lighted the inherent conflict built into the governance arrangements for a supposedly independent sponsor body.

Under the new arrangements, the work of the sponsor body, with its oversight of the delivery authority, is to be taken in-house, with its functions transferred to the corporate officers: the clerks of the two Houses. Hopefully, this means that an in-built source of disagreement and crossed wires will now be removed. Our successors will be able to act as a single, united client speaking with one voice in championing the programme and progressing the works—I hope.

However, this leads to a second conclusion. There has never been clarity on the budget, timescale or scope of the R&R exercise. That clarity is now needed if our successors are to avoid endless delays and a waste of public funds, with the delivery authority instructed to undertake unnecessary work. If there are maximum or minimum levels, for example of accessibility in the Palace or of its energy efficiency and sustainability, these need to be stipulated. If Parliament is never going to accept a total cost for the whole project of more than X pounds or a decant period of more than Y years, that needs to be crystal clear up front and as soon as possible.

Thirdly, and finally, the outgoing board accepts with the wisdom of hindsight that we should have recognised that the sudden changes to the country’s fortunes meant a course correction was inevitable. It is obvious in retrospect that when the Covid pandemic struck, followed by turmoil in the economy, a retreat from the measures envisaged by the 2019 Act was going to be called for. Our successors and our colleagues in the delivery authority need to be ready for changes of direction and be prepared for fresh thinking as external circumstances alter.

At the end of this frustrating experience, I remain of the view that, although it will cost a fortune and will need everyone to move out of the building for a prolonged period sooner or later, none the less, the restoration and renewal of Parliament is an incredibly worthwhile initiative. Research shows that the wider public hope for and expect a full refurbishment of this much-loved building. Investment in this great endeavour will support skills, crafts and businesses throughout the UK. A proper R&R programme would not only render the building safe from fire, asbestos, the breakdown of services, falling masonry and the rest but actually save money, and possibly save lives, over the years ahead.

However, I recognise the constraints for elected Members of Parliament. I do not face constituents who may well say, “While we’re struggling through a cost of living crisis, Parliament is spending billions on its own comfort”. Also, the dark cloud of moving out for several years to a less amenable base elsewhere colours everybody’s judgment. Nevertheless, although the process may have lost two or three years, I hope that our successors will have the courage and determination to see it through.

What has been achieved will provide a solid basis for the next stages. Most of the excellent staff in the sponsor body and the development authority will carry on, and their work to date, despite operating throughout the Covid pandemic and through times of political and economic turmoil, has produced a vast quantity of data and physical survey work that will now make possible a clear plan. This plan may mean a succession of more modest mini-programmes stretching into the indefinite future, rather than the single major programme that we pursued, but, if the big issue of the basement renewal can be sorted, all is not lost.

In concluding our work today, we all wish our successors well. We hope that, despite the failure of the 2019 Act, progress will now be made in restoring this internationally recognised and iconic Palace for which the nation is right to feel huge pride and affection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We clearly are. I am not saying that we are not. I was hoping to make the case that our responsibility is not limited simply to what we want for now. Our responsibility is to look to future generations as custodians of this place and not simply managers. Even more importantly, we talk about accountability, but I want to keep using the words “political buy-in”, because at every stage of this project we have to ensure that there is consensus and political buy-in. When we start making party-political points, we will fail.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was Chair of the Finance Committee and I was a member of it, we had regular discussions about this. There is perhaps a wider assumption in the world outside that this building needs restoration and that we are planning a restoration programme, but this building is like the Forth Road Bridge: we have not stopped restoring it. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds a year to restore the fabric of this building. The problem, as we all know, is that when this building was built by the Victorians it was full of shortcuts and making do. Since then, we too have been making shortcuts and making do, which has added to the problem. A lot of the difficulties we face are from periods when we have made this innovation here and developed something else there. The mechanical and engineering problems we face downstairs did not start with the Victorians; they have been going on since the place was built. How do we address that?

I agree that we can all be frustrated by decisions being made without proper consultation. When I was on the Finance Committee, what I found most frustrating was trying to pin down the people making the decisions and make them responsible for those decisions. We do not make them accountable by taking responsibility away from them; we have to do the opposite. Making them responsible and accountable means that we, as the custodians, should set clear objectives and policies, so that when they are managing the programme, we can ask whether they have met those objectives and whether they have been successful. Those objectives may be cost objectives or other objectives.

The Clerk of the Parliaments has heard me say many times that I want to ensure that he can measure his activity against the clear policies we set. The arguments against decanting are about the big costs and that, in decanting, we are being too extravagant. Actually, one can make the case that decanting could save money. The QEII Centre was built some time ago and its own mechanics and electrics are in desperate need of renewal. That has been postponed, because we may move in and help it to do the work, so the process that we immediately think could cost a lot of money could save the public and the taxpayer a substantial amount of money. The issue is how we define those objectives and look at what we are doing as a whole.

One other thing that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said was absolutely right. When we look at R&R, we must integrate properly what we are doing now in restoring this building. When I was on the Finance Committee, I thought, “Do we delay that to fit it in with R&R? Do we move forward on it? Is it taken into account in R&R?” All these issues have not been properly addressed.

We all have a responsibility—in particular, for the new governance structure, which I support. I should declare an interest, because I am going to be a member of the programme board; hopefully, I will be able to keep expressing the opinions I am expressing today. I will not be saying, “Tell me to make this decision”. I will be saying, “I want you to make the decision, but based on the clear policy objectives set by both the programme board and the two commissions”. That is what I hope to see but I am not fixed, by the way. If someone can persuade me that not decanting fully could work, I will go with it, but I like the idea that setting clear objectives, budgeting properly for them and having proper buy-in is a better way of doing this.

I support the regulations. We have made the decision anyway; we have already had a debate. I think that we will make this project more transparent with more accountability. I support that.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. I must say, as a fairly recent tenant of the office of Leader of the House of Lords—it is a tenancy—I am finding it interesting trying to find out why and where things happen. Having experienced the horror of a powerful earthquake, as I have in my life, I sometimes feel like the little boy trying to find the butterfly that flapped its wings to cause all these things to happen in the first place.

However, we are where we are. As all those who have spoken in the debate have said, this is an extraordinarily important building. It is a palace of the people. As Leader of your Lordships’ House, I submit that its most fundamental importance is that it provides a place, and should provide an environment, in which Members of Parliament can carry out their fundamental democratic duties to hold Governments to account, consider legislation and discuss both between themselves and across the two Houses how things should be accomplished in the best place and in the best way. However we take this project forward—having listened to this debate, I know that an enormous amount of expertise and thought has been and will be given to this, and I pay tribute to the members of the sponsor body—we must never forget that this is a House of Parliament, and one that cannot simply say, “We can send these people away”.

I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose work on this and contribution to our House have been outstanding. We cannot avoid interference in a House of Parliament, as it was put by parliamentarians. That is why we are here: to make judgments and choose priorities. It may well be true that talk of a decant—the noble Lord was right in what he said on this—did cause some people to be troubled by what was proposed. But I assure your Lordships that the commissions have asked for a wider range of options to decant as we go forward, with Members and staff from areas of the building affected by the works being considered. The House will have future opportunities to take decisions, and it will be informed by full analysis and wide consultation and engagement. As someone said—perhaps it was my noble friend Lord Forsyth—it is important that Members feel engaged and informed as we go forward. The word “transparency” was also used by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I am very pleased that the Minister said that there will be more transparency. That is very welcome. I wonder whether he would consider how the figures could be more transparent, because the whole of the spending on both the delivery authority and the sponsor body has been shrouded in secrecy—not for those of us on those bodies, but for everyone else. It would be much better if there was a process—I am not suggesting what it should be—whereby vast expenses are much more open and transparent, so that we can see what the money is being spent on before it is spent.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, that is an important challenge. On the local authority that I once had the honour to lead, one of the first things I did was ensure that items of spending over a certain level were put on the web immediately, which was not then current practice. I am sympathetic to the aspiration. I am only Leader of the House of Lords; I am not commanding this process. As Leader of the House of Lords I will try to ensure that matters are as clear as they should be.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

On the point about my noble friend not commanding the process—in many ways, I wish he was—there is a real problem, to pick up on what he said about the most recent project. It is a cultural thing. It is a culture of, “We are here to be done unto by people who know what’s best”, and consultation consists of telling us, “This is what is going to be done.” When you say that it is not such a good idea, the response is that it is all decided. If my noble friend can change that culture, it would make it so much easier to make progress.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I fear that I have trodden too widely. This is not a debate about me personally—God forbid. Nor is it about the wider culture that my noble friend asserts exists. I have heard that said by others and I am conscious of it, and as a relatively new Leader of your Lordships’ House, as I said, I am extremely concerned that every Member of this House feels involved and engaged with all that is happening. To repeat my opening remarks, which were personal rather than from my draft, this before all else is a place where democratic work has to be done. Therefore, the role of Peers and Members should be pre-eminent in that.

On accountability, the process is being directed not by me but by the new in-house client team, in which I will have a part as a member of the commission on the client board, and it will be required to hold the delivery authority to account for the costs it presents. As I have said, the new head of the team is aware of the need to increase capability. The costs will be presented to the programme board in the way I have described. There will be extra expertise on it. All costs will be presented to the client board composed of the two commissions. I have described the process and will not go over it again. I am conscious of the noble Baroness’s challenge, and I am sure that those who read the debate will be too.

At this point, and with these regulations, we are simply seeking to wind up the sponsor body and launch the new ship, which I hope, despite the scepticism of noble Lord, Lord Best, who also expressed hope, will take us forward in an effective way, allowing Peers and Members to feel involved when considering options that will be presented next summer and which will come before both Houses for decision at the end of the year. We are just starting this process. I submit that we should allow and support it going forward. For all the proper scepticism that some noble Lords have expressed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to say that, ultimately, we have to do our duty to make sure that this building is fit for purpose and for future generations. That is the challenge.

It is clear that most who have spoken and others I have spoken to are committed to ensuring that this remarkable building, which we can proudly call our place of work, is protected for future generations. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations, which will come into force on 1 January 2023, as well as in supporting the delivery authority and those involved in programme going forward. All parties are represented on the boards involved, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that there should not be politicisation of the process. It is important that those from all parts of both Houses should come together to ask challenging questions and to put themselves in a position to make decisions next year.

Motion agreed.

Draft Mental Health Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That, notwithstanding the resolution of this House of 4 July, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill that it should report by 13 January 2023 instead of 16 December 2022.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 5 December to allow the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day; and that, therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.

Motion agreed.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I again place on record, as I did at an earlier stage, my gratitude to His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their support in expediting this measure. We have heard important arguments put forward in the House. I believe that we have acquitted our responsibility in responding to the message from His Majesty. I thank all those who have been involved in putting this measure together at such short notice.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his comments. This Bill has been a learning curve for many in your Lordships’ House. In conducting our debate, we have reached a sensible conclusion which concurs with the wishes of His Majesty the King. This Bill is a proportionate, moderate measure, which has the support of this House. Other issues may arise in due course that the House will wish to look at. This is not something that happens every day. I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in engaging with the Opposition at all times about the detail of the Bill. We greatly appreciate it. We also thank those officials who have worked on bringing this Bill to the House.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported on the Bill in terms that are regrettably rare nowadays. It said:

“This Bill contains no delegated powers.”


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has not had the opportunity here to complain about delegated powers, and I am very pleased about that. I should be very sorry to see a delegated power introduced at this stage, particularly a delegated power conferred on His Majesty. In 1867, Walter Bagehot wrote that the monarch has three rights—the right to consult, the right to encourage and the right to warn. The monarch has no right and no power to produce delegated legislation. I can think of no precedent for the Crown having a delegated power—certainly not since 1689.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, presses his amendment with good intent. He has expressed his views at every stage of this process with the utmost civility and courtesy. I thank him for that.

I understand that, from his perspective, he seeks to add a certain flexibility or, as he would see it, some insurance to the system. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, implied in his important intervention, it would add further rigidity, novelty and potentially delay to the procedure. The steps in the amendment are not required and they are unwelcome. The amendment goes considerably further than the limited modification proposed in the Bill. As I submitted to your Lordships at Second Reading, the nature of this Bill flows from a message from His Majesty. I think it was the feeling of the House at Second Reading that the Bill is appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

The noble Viscount is proposing a wider change to the underlying architecture of the legislation. As indicated in the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, it would grant the sovereign a new authority—one which was not referenced in the King’s message—but does not indicate on what basis any such decision would be made. It would also introduce a novel parliamentary process into these matters. In this respect, it is a departure from the current framework and the proposition before us, and the Government do not believe that it is necessary or desirable.

I repeat that the Government believe that the approach suggested in the Bill is a reasonable and practical solution in the current context. The Bill as currently drafted will create a sufficient pool of counsellors who will hold this role for their lifetimes. As the noble Viscount will understand, with the effluxion of time, the order of succession will evolve and so will the situation once this Bill becomes an Act.

Although I acknowledge the spirit in which this amendment is tabled, the history of the Regency Acts demonstrates that it is a challenging task for Parliament or any legislator to predict the future. I suggest that we do not seek to do so here but seek rather to respond to the task at hand and proceed in the light of the message that the sovereign has sent us. It indicates his wishes and, I feel, the wishes of the House, that this practical, limited and moderate approach should be taken at the present time. I urge the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I would say only that it has almost been worth it to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I hope that this Bill will succeed in its intention. Time will tell how events will turn out in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, listening to noble Lords talking about the definition of working royals, I sometimes think we ought to look at the definition of working Peers, over which similar anomalies arise. Monday’s significant debate made it clear that very few of us have considered this issue before. It is not something that we deal with every day. We debated the Bill at length but it is wrong to chastise those who want further debate. I would have thought, however, that His Royal Highness, the palace authorities and Parliament would have given considerable thought to whether the Bill would deal with the problems that may occur if there were not adequate members to fulfil the responsibilities of Counsellors of State.

I appreciate that my noble friend is not pressing his amendment to a vote; I think the House is quite anxious to see this legislation go to the other place and get on to the statute book. We quite like the idea of Bills that start in your Lordships’ House and then go to the other place, rather than the other way round. Therefore, we should send the Bill to the House of Commons, as it is now, unamended, as the noble Lords who proposed these amendments have suggested.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for putting this matter before us. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate at the start to thank the Official Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Newby, for their support on behalf of their parties, which I am sure will be noted and much appreciated.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who always likes to bowl a different ball, as it were, that if he had been here at Second Reading he would have known that no one has ever sought to say that this matter should not be discussed. In fact, His Majesty’s Government have presented a Bill before Parliament for the single purpose of enabling Parliament to consider the matter. His Majesty the King himself has invited us to discuss the matter, so it is 180 degrees away from the position that the noble Lord sought to represent. I cannot go into the point about the future of your Lordships’ House, but it was not my party that recently put that matter before the newspapers.

We believe that this amendment is a disproportionate step. What the Government are doing, as referenced in the King’s message, is a practical and limited modification that allows royal functions to be delegated to a wider pool of Counsellors of State. It is a practical and proportionate response. The Bill follows established precedents. There is no precedent for a measure to exclude individuals from acting as Counsellors of State. Any further changes to the pool of Counsellors of State by, for example, removing certain individuals, would require more fundamental amendment to the Regency Act 1937. These arrangements have been in place for 85 years and have, in my submission, served us well.

The Bill follows the precedent, as I said at Second Reading, of 1953, when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was added, and adds the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex to the pool of Counsellors of State. I must remind my noble friend Lord Balfe, who suggested that this was a very narrow pool, that he did not mention the fact that Her Majesty the Queen Consort and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are Counsellors of State, so the pool is slightly wider than he suggested. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to exclude individuals would be a substantial change that departs both from precedent and the approach set out in the King’s message to both Houses. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the approach set out in His Majesty’s message is appropriate and effective. I follow the noble Baroness opposite in saying that your Lordships should respect it, having considered it and reflected on it as we have.

I intend no disservice to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I have the very highest regard, but I have noted criticisms in your Lordships’ House of the fact that the office of Lord Chancellor is now held by a Member of the House of Commons. I have heard that often at this Dispatch Box. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to allow the Lord Chancellor to exclude those individuals who have not undertaken royal duties in the preceding two years is, in our submission, an unnecessary addition, introducing complexity into the scheme where it is not required.

The amendment proposes a significant change to the underlying Act and shifts the decision-making to a member of the Government. It would now be for the Lord Chancellor to make a judgment on what counts—and what does not—as regularly undertaking royal duties. The word “regular” is subjective, and that is a lot to load on one individual. It might be asked “What is regular?” I remind the House that there are working members of the Royal Family, some very senior, who undertake public duties but have never been Counsellors of State and are not intended to be. As was wisely put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson, this approach would add complexity where previously there was none and impose an unnecessary duty on the Lord Chancellor.

The amendment must be regarded as practically unnecessary if the Bill is to pass. The Regency Act already includes provisions—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was kind enough to allude to our debate at Second Reading—whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas. I repeat what I set out at Second Reading: the Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on to act as Counsellors of State and diaries will be arranged to make this practicable. I think it is well known and understood who those persons are. The Bill as it is drafted and the flexible constitutional arrangements in place ensure that the effect of the amendment is already achieved. In my submission, and I believe this is the view of most noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading and today, that is sufficient and nothing more is required.

The underlying structure provided by the legislation has proved effective and it would be a mistake to seek to modify its effect in response to short-term contexts which are, of course, subject to evolution and change. To conclude, for the reasons I have set out and those set out by other noble Lords who have spoken helpfully in this debate, I hope I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that his amendment is redundant and disproportionate. In fact, it would add complexity and subjectivity to the system and is not suitable to the intent of this practical and precise Bill. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to so many noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Clearly, the amendment as it stands had many defects in it and I apologise for that. I spent a lot of time talking to people about what the right solution was, but I think the key thing is we have had a good debate. Many different noble Lords have expressed their views, and from my point of view I think the Bill is fine for the moment—of course I support it. I think it is an issue which we will have to look at in not the short term but in the longer term, as it may be useful to come back and review it again in a more structured way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I know that all noble Lords will be aware of His Majesty the King’s message to both Houses of Parliament and I am confident that there is a strong desire across your Lordships’ House to support His Majesty to undertake his ceremonial and constitutional duties at home and overseas.

As your Lordships will be aware, the sovereign performs a significant number of functions which form a key part of the machinery of government of the United Kingdom, including indicating assent to legislation. The sovereign also performs a similar role in relation to the Crown dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It is essential that these functions, which are a core part of our constitutional arrangements, can continue to be performed if the sovereign is unable to perform them personally by reason of absence or otherwise. This Bill will add that necessary resilience by modifying the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953.

Therefore, I am sure that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships as being an effective and simple provision supporting His Majesty’s Government to continue as required, and that noble Lords will share my belief that it is our honour and duty to be of service to His Majesty in this matter, which will enable him to give the fullest service to the nation.

Section 6 of the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953 provides for Counsellors of State, to whom royal functions can be delegated where the sovereign is absent from the UK or is ill. It has always been important to ensure that government business can continue in these circumstances. As Section 6(1) of the 1937 Act explains, this is

“to prevent delay or difficulty in the despatch of public business”.

I will briefly set out the functioning of the Acts specifically with regard to Counsellors of State. The delegation of royal functions is made by the sovereign through Letters Patent for the period of the illness or absence. The sovereign may revoke or vary the delegation by Letters Patent, which set out the statutory limitations of the delegation. The sovereign will also usually specify in them which functions are and are not delegated. In practice, the Letters Patent create a pool of all the Counsellors of State to whom functions can be delegated. Counsellors of State exercise royal functions jointly or by such number of them as may be specified in the Letters Patent.

Generally, Counsellors of State have acted in pairs. Those who are absent from the United Kingdom during the period of delegation may be excepted, as per Section 6(2) of the 1937 Act. The Counsellors of State are currently the spouse of the sovereign, if applicable, and the four persons who are next in the line of succession to the Crown, excluding those who are disqualified under the Act. Counsellors of State were routinely appointed when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth travelled abroad. In fact, they have been appointed over 30 times in the last few decades, and of course, as we recall, during the State Opening of Parliament earlier this year.

The functions Counsellors of State undertake can include, for example, indicating assent to legislation, formally approving appointments, and providing authority for the affixing of the Great Seal to documents, such as royal proclamations. The role can also include convening Privy Council meetings where necessary. The Bill represents a practical solution and safeguard to ensure that the machinery of government can continue. The Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members—I repeat that—of the Royal Family will be called upon to act as Counsellors of State, and that diaries will be arranged to make this practicable.

The Bill proposes a very precise and limited modification to the provisions in the Regency Acts in respect of Counsellors of State. In line with the King’s message to both Houses of Parliament, the Bill will add His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex and Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal to the list of Counsellors of State. They will undertake those roles for their lifetimes. By doing so, the Bill will provide greater resilience in our constitutional arrangements by widening the pool of Counsellors of State. As His Majesty undertakes engagements abroad, this is an expedient step, helping His Majesty’s Government plan for contingencies. Furthermore, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex have extensive experience—over 50 years between them, I believe—of supporting the sovereign with their official duties, having previously served as Counsellors of State during the reign of Her late Majesty.

The Bill follows the precedent set by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth when, shortly after her accession in 1953, she asked Parliament to consider legislating for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to be a Counsellor of State. The Queen Mother had previously acted as a Counsellor of State but had ceased to be one following the death of her husband King George VI in 1952. Seven decades ago, Parliament passed the Regency Act 1953 to deliver on Her late Majesty’s wishes. Today, as we bring the Bill before this House, reflecting His Majesty’s wishes, we are guided by precedent in the substantive approach and procedure.

I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a prudent and expedient modification to the long-tested provisions for Counsellors of State that will offer the necessary resilience to our constitutional arrangements and be of great support to His Majesty. I am confident that the Bill will command considerable support, and I know that this House and this Parliament will wish to be of assistance and support to our sovereign as he undertakes his vital duties. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. There have been some very interesting contributions, and some with ambitions to range quite widely, even to include inclement weather in Scotland. We should recall that this legislation follows a message from His Majesty the King to Parliament. It reflects the wish of His Majesty the King. Most who have spoken in this debate support the legislation and wish to enable that to be enacted. I am very grateful for the broad support.

I accept, of course, that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is entitled to her view. I am sure that, as and when the Green Party forms a Government, it will not only abolish the monarchy but join with the view of Sir Keir Starmer on abolishing your Lordships’ House. However, we are a long way away from a Green Government, and it was heartening to hear from all other noble Lords who spoke the genuine affection, admiration and high regard that your Lordships’ House holds for His Majesty. I am delighted to reiterate, on behalf of all noble Lords, our support and gratitude.

It was heartening also to hear your Lordships’ warm support for the broad Royal Family, as expressed by my noble friend Lord Cormack, and the great admiration expressed—rightly, in my judgment—including at the end by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex, who have been and are so outstanding in their continuing public duties.

I was asked about the order of the names in the Bill. I do not think that there is anything sinister in it. I note that it is in one order in the Long Title, in a different order in the preamble and in another order in Clause 1. I believe the drafters of the Bill have sought to reflect equality.

The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, who spoke from a position of great and unique authority, told us about the necessity of the legislation, how it touches mostly the routine nature of everyday government, and the case for fast-tracking. In some of the things he said he expressed a very strong view about how the nature of government should ideally be conducted, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, courteously acknowledged. There is always room for innovation, of course, but I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said on these matters.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has taken a great interest, said that this was a necessary Bill and should pass. I agree.

My noble friend Lord Balfe asked what would happen if somebody turned up and sought to exercise the role. With respect, as the noble Baroness opposite said, this seems a little far-fetched. Counsellors of State have been undertaking royal functions for 85 years under this scheme with no such problems arising. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, wisely reminded us, it is ultimately for the sovereign to determine who undertakes these functions.

My noble friend also asked why not others. The approach proposed is a limited modification to the Regency Acts, whereby two individuals are added to the list of Counsellors of State. Although it would have been possible to add others, this proposal provides the right balance between giving additional flexibility and maintaining the underlying structure of the original Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who has intimated his intention potentially to raise these matters in Committee, proposed that individuals be removed from the pool of Counsellors of State. He will have noted—indeed, I am grateful that he acknowledged this—that, as I set out, the Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on to act as Counsellors of State. As he acknowledged, the legislation already contains provisions whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas. I hope that addresses his concern.

The noble Lord also suggested in the amendments that he has put before your Lordships’ House that perhaps some other person might decide on people’s suitability to be Counsellors of State. He might reflect that this would introduce complexity into the scheme where it is not required.

The noble Lord also raised transparency. I am a strong supporter of the principle of transparency. I point out that the list of Counsellors of State is already available on the royal website, so there is no need for a legislative requirement to do this. In addition, the legislation is already clear as to who the Counsellors of State are. Moreover, when Counsellors of State are appointed the current practice is that Letters Patent are made public. It is therefore clear. I hope I have addressed some of the noble Lord’s concerns and that he might not feel it necessary to return to these in Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whose reading slightly differs from my reading in my library, raised a number of significant and interesting points. I think I have dealt with the issue of bad weather. The weather would have to be truly exceptional to interrupt the conduct of the Government’s affairs.

On videoconferencing, this idea is always before us and was in the age of Covid, but I believe the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, addressed that point.

The noble Lord also asked about the scope of powers of Counsellors of State. In recent years, going back to 2010, the practice has been that Privy Council meetings, which can be one of the roles of Counsellors of State, have been arranged around visits by the sovereign, but looking at the past practice of Privy Council meetings—for example, in 1987, 1991 and 1994—Counsellors of State undertook the following tasks; this is also in response to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. They have approved Privy Counsellor appointments, amended charters, agreed Channel Island orders, agreed university orders, approved statutory instruments and, an unusual task which falls to the Privy Council, closed burial grounds. In 1999 the then Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal convened a Privy Council meeting required to approve a Prorogation of Parliament at the request of Mr Blair while the monarch was unavailable overseas. Counsellors of State can also undertake non-Privy Council business such as, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, reminded us, receiving the credentials of ambassadors. The powers of Counsellors of State have been used, but it is not the norm. Wherever possible, diaries are organised such that Privy Council meetings revolve around the diary of the monarch.

I noted the noble Lord’s suggestion and indeed that of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for a wider review. At this time, the Government are not persuaded of the necessity of that, and I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there are perhaps more pressing issues at this time. While some Members of the House may feel this is an opportunity to make wider changes, in our submission it is not the appropriate place to undertake wider revisions. What we have before us is a small and focused Bill. The proposals in the Bill are modifications of the provisions that will ensure that there is a greater pool of Counsellors of State when needed, reducing any potential risk of delay in public business. Any further reforms of the nature suggested by some who spoke would require consideration of any wider constitutional significance and implications. We are here responding to a specific context in response to His Majesty’s message and seeking practical steps to add further resilience and support to His Majesty’s capacity to undertake his official role. That is where, in my submission, we should rest at present, and I rather agree, therefore, with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as I have said.

As many of your Lordships noted, there are good practical reasons for the provisions proposed, and I welcome the support shown for the Bill today. Your Lordships will be aware that Committee is on Wednesday. Therefore, I am ready to discuss any questions or issues that any noble Lord might wish to raise before then. I remind the House, as so many who have spoken have done—and I reiterate my gratitude for the welcome given to the legislation—that the purpose of the Bill is very simple and straightforward, and I am confident that this loyal House of Lords will respond to His Majesty’s message and support this legislation, and I submit that this legislation commends itself to the House.

Bill read a second time.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip informed the House last week, the deadline for amendments for the Marshalled List for Committee on this Bill is in 30 minutes’ time. Therefore, amendments should be in by 5.19 pm.

[Lord True (Con)]

Obviously, time has been allowed for the laying of amendments. I am grateful for that reminder to the House.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

G20

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G20 summit in Indonesia, but first I would like to address Russia’s missile strikes on Ukraine this week.

On the very day that I and others confronted the Russian Foreign Minister across the G20 summit table with the brutality of his country’s actions, and on the very day that President Zelensky addressed the G20 with a plan to stop the war, Russia launched over 80 separate missile strikes on Ukraine. The targets were innocent people and civilian infrastructure; the aim, to cast the population into darkness and cold. Once again, Russia has shown its barbarity and given the lie to any claim that it is interested in peace.

During the bombardment of Ukraine on Tuesday, an explosion took place in eastern Poland. The investigation into this incident is ongoing and it has our full support. As we have heard the Polish and American Presidents say, it is possible that the explosion was caused by a Ukrainian munition which was deployed in self-defence. Whether or not this proves to be the case, no blame can be placed on a country trying to defend itself against such a barrage. The blame belongs solely to Russia.

I spoke to President Duda yesterday to express my sympathy and pledge our solidarity. I also spoke to President Zelensky on a joint call with Prime Minister Trudeau to express our continued support, and I met my G7 and NATO counterparts at the sidelines of the G20. We will help our Polish allies to conclude their investigation and we will continue to stand with Ukraine in the face of Russia’s criminal aggression.

The Bali summit took place amidst the worst global economic crisis since 2008. The G20 was created to grip challenges like this, but today’s crisis is different, because it is being driven by a G20 member. By turning off the gas taps and choking off the Ukrainian grain supply, Russia has severely disrupted global food and energy markets. The economic shockwaves will ripple around the world for years to come. So, together with the other responsible members of the G20, we are delivering a decisive response. Almost all G20 members called out Russia’s actions, declaring that

‘today’s era must not be one of war.’

We will work together to uphold international law and the United Nations charter, and we will act to protect our collective economic security. The G20 agreed to use all available tools to support the global economy and ensure financial stability. That means international financial institutions mobilising more resources to support developing countries, it means continuing to call out those who exploit their lending power to create debt traps for emerging economies, and it means tackling the causes of rising inflation head-on, including by delivering fiscal sustainability.

We pledged our support for the UN-brokered deal to keep grain shipments moving in the Black Sea. I am pleased to say that that deal has now been renewed. Two-thirds of Ukraine’s wheat goes to developing countries. With famine looming, it is desperately needed and Russia must uphold its part of this deal.

We agreed action to improve energy security by accelerating the transition to clean energy. We launched a new Just Energy Transition Partnership with Indonesia, which will unlock billions in private finance for new green energy infrastructure. Finally, we committed to maintain free markets and free trade and to reform the World Trade Organization.

Yesterday, I held my first meeting with President Biden. We pledged to redouble our support for Ukraine and to continue deepening our co-operation, including on energy security and managing the challenges posed by China. I met Prime Minister Modi, where we reviewed progress on our forthcoming free trade agreement. I discussed our accession to the CPTPP with the Prime Ministers of Japan, Canada and Australia, and I met with almost every other leader at the summit, with the exception of Russia. In each of those discussions, there was a shared determination to restore stability, deliver long-term growth and drive a better future—one where no single country has the power to hold us back. In just a few moments, my right honourable friend the Chancellor will build on those international foundations when he sets out the Autumn Statement, putting our economy back on to a positive trajectory and restoring our fiscal sustainability.

By being strong abroad we strengthen our resilience at home, so we will continue to support Ukraine and to stand up for the rule of law and the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination. We will build a global economy that is more secure, stable and resilient, because that is what the gravity of the moment demands. That is how we will ensure that our country emerges from this crisis stronger than it was before. I commend this Statement to the House.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I thank the Leader of the House for delivering the Statement. I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Newby, who cannot be here this evening. I welcome the outcome of the G20 meeting, with its near unanimous support for Ukraine, our Polish allies and condemnation of the illegal actions of Russia. The determination to uphold international law and the UN charter has our full support, as does the commitment to collective economic security.

If a deal to sustain grain shipments moving in the Black Sea can be secured this weekend, this will have special significance, at least for the developing world. The recognition by the Government that our own economic stability depends on a firm international foundation is welcome. The Statement says:

“By being strong abroad we strengthen our resilience at home.”


The problem is that everything that the respective Governments of the past six years have done has been to weaken this position abroad, and it is not surprising that this weakening is reflected in our own intolerable domestic economic situation, made worse by the last Conservative Government’s own actions.

The missile incident in Poland should perhaps remind us of our history: an attack on Poland led us into the Second World War, and, for the next two years, Churchill spent his life trying to ensure that we did not stand alone. Polish troops were some of the bravest who supported us then. This should demonstrate to us that, whatever happens in Europe, whether it is a security issue, energy shortages, economic problems or the impact of climate change, this all impacts on us as a nation. Every day, our sovereignty is weaker by being outside the European Councils. Gatherings such as the G20 and the G7 are actually now very important to us because we have fewer opportunities each year to meet world leaders. They are of course even more important to us now that we are outside the EU, where we had so many opportunities to meet leaders of our neighbouring countries in Europe to get to know how we could work with them, which we were very good at doing.

I want to ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, there is lots of talk about defence issues arising from the conflict in Ukraine, and that is obviously our focus, but are we and other nations prepared to support Ukraine economically as well as defensively? Will we be supporting its move into the European single market, and what involvement will we have in the equivalent of a Marshall plan for that country, either before or certainly when the war has ended?

Secondly, there seems to have been little discussion at the G20 on the problems of population growth across the globe—particularly in Africa, where half the growth is now expected to occur, according to UN projections—and its implications for water, food and migration pressures on Europe in particular. It needs international attention, particularly the line from Lagos to Shanghai, where resources are needed to counter the growing pressures of population growth and the shortage of world resources.

Finally, once again, there is a lot of attention to the discussions with President Biden on the edges of the G20 meeting. I suspect that his position and probable involvement in any celebrations in March on the Northern Ireland peace agreement were discussed. So is March now the new deadline for sorting out the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure that he makes this visit, and was it discussed?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, a range of questions have been raised. I begin by expressing my sincere sense of gratitude, on behalf of the Government, to both noble Lords who have spoken for the sense of solidarity they expressed, both in support of Ukraine and in the face of the quite appalling aggression by the Putin regime. I can say, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Sir Keir Starmer said in the other place, that “we stand as one” on this. There has also been very powerful affirmation of that in this House, for which I am extremely grateful. I join with the noble Baroness opposite in offering particular personal condolences from this House to those Polish citizens whose loved ones were killed as a result of what happened, as well as to those who suffered in the latest atrocious bombardment by Russia of Ukraine.

It was provident that a number of important NATO elements were there at the G20, and, as the noble Baroness said, it was possible for them to gather, make an assessment and reassert the sense of NATO support for Ukraine. I share the satisfaction expressed by the noble Baroness in the calmness, good sense and measured way in which NATO responded to what was obviously a deliberate provocation. It is not the first time that Russia has done this sort of thing during an international conference.

On the attacks on civilians, we know that, given the climate in the central part of that part of eastern Europe in winter, this is frankly a despicable attempt to freeze people to death and cause suffering by the weapon of cold.

On help to Ukraine, of course this Government will continue to give support, in both military and financial terms. This year we have given £2.3 billion of military support to Ukraine; we are training Ukrainian armed forces as part of our plan to train 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers every 120 days. Eight other countries have signed up to our programme, and we are providing further military aid, including another 1,000 surface-to-air missiles and more than 25,000 extreme cold winter kits for troops. That is on top of past packages.

I so much agree with what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said about grain supplies and food security. There are ongoing discussions about the Black Sea grain initiative. The simplest way to stabilise global food and energy prices would be for Russia to end its illegal and unjustified war. The most immediate important step would be for Russia to renew the Black Sea grain initiative and stop targeting attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure. The UK and its allies are working tirelessly through diplomatic channels and help from President Erdoğan and others. We have made steps forward already this week and, as the noble Lord expressed, I hope that, as the week goes on, we will see a return towards normal operation of that agreement.

We need an end to the war, but the noble Lord is quite right that we need to tackle famine and reduce world hunger. This Government are doing a lot bilaterally in that respect—for example, in our support for Somalia. We are committed to protecting children in the countries most affected by food insecurity. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to give very close attention to famine relief and support.

The noble Baroness asked about the Global Fund. It is true that she made some criticisms; on the other hand, we have confirmed that we will commit £1 billion to the Global Fund for its work over the next three years, which we believe will help save more than 1 million lives at risk from deadly diseases. We are the third-largest donor to the Global Fund; we have invested £4.4 billion to date to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria around the world. The pledge comes at a time of significant pressures on the UK’s aid budget, with domestic budgetary constraints, famine risk in the Horn of Africa, where we need support, and conflict in Ukraine.

The noble Baroness asked about China. Yes, the challenges posed by China are systemic and long term. China is a country with fundamentally different values from ours, and its leadership is intent on reshaping the international order. A precondition for any part of our relationship will obviously be our national security; we will continue to call out human rights abuses, such as the appalling issues in Xinjiang, which have often been discussed in this House. As for whether our IR refresh will designate China a threat and so on, I cannot give a timescale, for which the noble Baroness asked, on a specific China strategy. We want to continue dialogue with China, but I assure her that we have our eyes open on that point.

On India, we have achieved our ambition to conclude the majority of the talks towards an FTA by the end of October this year. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the other place earlier, there is a lot of interest in the various aspects of the deal, and the quality of deal is more important than the date when it is signed. However, negotiators continue to press ahead to secure a deal that is fair, reciprocal and will deliver for the UK economy—and, as in any reciprocal deal, also for India. The Prime Minister had a very positive meeting with Prime Minister Modi.

As far as the United States is concerned, the Prime Minister had a good meeting with President Biden. At this short notice I have not had the full debrief of what was said in their personal conversations, but there was a strong commitment to work together, both in terms of Ukraine and the relationship with China. It is true that the United States is not focused on free trade agreements generally at the moment, but we stand ready to engage with it. The US is our largest trade partner and bilateral trade with it is worth £234 billion annually.

I do not agree with Mr Eustice about the Australia trade agreement. Our landmark trade agreement with Australia will unlock £10.4 billion of additional bilateral trade, support economic growth in every part of Britain and deliver for 15,000 businesses already exporting to Australia. We will remember UK farmers in every aspect of our relationship as we go forward.

On Ukraine joining the EU single market, I cannot answer at this Dispatch Box. That remains a matter for our friends in the European Union.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my noble friend Lady Smith’s question directly as to whether a trade deal with the United States was raised in the meeting with President Biden. Will he confirm that it was not raised?

On the Ukraine issue, where we all stand in solidarity in this House, there have been two alarming developments. Was the use of Iranian drones by Russia in Ukraine raised and is there any international action that could be taken which might limit the capacity of Iran to provide assistance to Russia?

Another issue that was not raised in the Statement at all was a further strengthening of sanctions, particularly against key Russian individuals, too many of whom still appear to be—how can one put it?—disporting themselves on the international scene at the moment. Could there be a further strengthening of sanctions? Since President Putin appears to be indicating that he is intent on creating a hard winter for the people of Ukraine, maybe we should be creating a rather harder winter for those owners of Russian assets in London who have alliances with the Putin regime.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am sorry, but I did say to the noble Baroness that I could not give a detailed readout of what went on in the personal conversation between President Biden and the Prime Minister. I cannot give a speculative answer in this House on something so important. As soon as I get information on that point, I will of course supply it.

The noble Lord makes a very important point about Iran. Obviously, Iran is not present at the table. We continue to make very strong representations to Iran on a number of fronts—its international responsibilities, its responsibilities not to support terrorism and, indeed, terroristic violence in any place, and its atrocious abuses of human rights within Iran.

As far as sanctions on Russians are concerned, this is something that the Government constantly keep under review. We have designated more than 1,200 individuals already and over 120 entities, and frozen the assets of 19 Russian banks with assets of £940 billion since the invasion.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords, I was encouraged to hear that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister affirmed that we will not sacrifice quality for speed when it comes to trade deals. Obviously, the Minister has emphasised again that today. Can he give us any more detail about G20 discussions with Prime Minister Modi? In particular, I note that there are substantial synergies when it comes to the UK and Indian life sciences sectors, some of the most productive in both our economies. This goes from research and regulatory collaboration to establishing much more secure medicine supply chains to having excellent export opportunities for some of our most innovative healthcare companies.

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend makes some very important points. It is no secret that the Prime Minister considers this relationship to be extremely important, and my noble friend is quite right to say that it goes beyond our aspiration for a free trade deal. There was a good personal meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr Modi, and we are deeply committed to strengthening our comprehensive strategic partnership and to discussing collaboration across all five pillars of the UK-India road map, and not only on the bilateral relationship but on aspirations within the Indo-Pacific. Discussions on digital and intellectual property matters are part of that. We are very confident that this relationship will go forward very positively.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, do the Government support President Macron’s apparent intention to persuade his Chinese opposite number to mediate with Russia, to try to ease the conflict in Ukraine and possibly pave the way for peace talks? If the Government do support him, what action will they take to manifest that support?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness in her wisdom will know, concluding a war and bringing warring parties together is a very difficult and delicate matter, not all of which can be conducted in public. China certainly has a potentially important diplomatic role, and it has influence. Obviously, we will use our diplomatic influence with China and in other places to lead it in a direction that would help to secure peace. It was positive that the G20, including China, made the very clear declaration that nuclear war—and the threat of nuclear war—is absolutely inadmissible. That is a long way from where the noble Baroness wishes to get, but I assure her that we will continue to engage with all parties, including President Macron, in efforts to secure an end to this terrible conflict. In the interim, we will be unstinting in our support for Ukraine.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Further to his answer to my noble friend, I say that summits are of course tremendously important, because you meet people—and that is particularly important for a Prime Minister who is new on the international scene. Yet, as I understand it, an unfortunate casualty of the incident involving the missile in Poland seems to have been a planned meeting between the Prime Minister and Xi Jinping that was not able to take place. Can the Minister confirm if that is the case? If it is, what arrangements might the UK be making to bring about a meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of China? After all, we are both members of the Security Council, and it is just as important for our Prime Minister to meet President Xi Jinping as it is for him to have met President Biden.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Viscount makes a fair point. It is a fact, as is attested, that the G20 summit was interrupted by the unfortunate events in Poland. Certainly, both President Xi and the Prime Minister were present at the discussions. The reality is that—as was implicit in what the noble Viscount said—none of the global challenges that faces us, whether the global economy, the impact of war in Ukraine on food and energy security that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, reminded us of, climate change or global health can be addressed without co-ordinated action by all the world’s major economies, which include China. The noble Viscount is quite right to say that we are both permanent members of the UN Security Council; we need a frank and constructive relationship and we will go forward in that way. There has to be frankness about China’s failures, as well as encouragement about China’s positive impact.

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

My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip for arranging for this Statement to be repeated so soon after it was made in the other place; that is very helpful. I also add my total support for Ukraine and its president. No one is perfect, no country is perfect and mistakes happen, but Ukraine and President Zelensky are fighting for democracy for all of us and they should have our 100% support.

Turning to what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, it is a pity that this meeting took place at a time when our commitment to the international development effort has been reduced so substantially. I had the privilege of being one of the first Ministers when we set up the Department for International Development. The Labour Government were very proud of it indeed, and it is a great pity that it has been incorporated into the FCO and our achievement of getting to 0.7% has been cut back so much.

I want to ask a specific question. The Leader of the House, like the rest of us, will have heard the speech made by the head of MI5, Ken McCallum—a really chilling speech in which he warned about the co-operation between Iran, Russia and China. He made some very interesting football analogies, about sharing people between teams. He painted a really frightening prospect. Will the Leader of the House, as a member of the Cabinet, make sure that the warnings from the head of MI5 are taken very seriously and that action is taken on his advice?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, of course, the advice of our security services, which are of unparalleled quality—I praise their ability and their deep patriotism—is taken extremely seriously by the Prime Minister and indeed the whole Cabinet. I thank the noble Lord again for what he said about Ukraine: it reinforces the message going out from this House and the other place that we are absolutely united.

I acknowledge that some disappointment has been expressed, but I repeat that we have confirmed that we will commit £1 billion—£1,000 million—over the next three years to the global fund. We are the third largest donor, and we will continue to be one of the largest global aid donors. We spent more than £11 billion last year on overseas aid and the Government have already made a £1 billion pledge, as I said, to the global fund. We are also providing additional resources, as was made clear in the Statement today, of £1 billion in 2022-23 and £1.5 billion in 2023-24 to support Ukrainian and Afghan refugees. A lot of money is being committed, but difficult decisions do have to be taken.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on a far-ranging series of meetings at the G20. In my mind they certainly set the spirit for future co-operation, but I will turn briefly to trade. The noble Lord will not be aware of this, but there is an incoming Indian delegation in town today. I have just hosted a meeting upstairs, of which the upshot was that we will form a British-India chamber of commerce—covering all India, broken down by its four regions—with a focus on mid-size SMEs and not just the large organisations that are so often the focus when there is dialogue between India and the UK.

The Commonwealth was raised today. Will the Government consider a pan-Commonwealth free trade agreement template that can be tweaked by member nation states—bar the two that are members of the European Union, which would be excluded? Will they drive this initiative forward and discuss it with Commonwealth states? The idea was put to me by the Americans, who wish to join a free trade agreement with the Commonwealth, which would include the UK and might break the dialogue impasse with the US.

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount for his contribution in sustaining and developing this vital relationship with India, which we have discussed and other noble Lords have referred to. The Commonwealth is of fundamental importance to the United Kingdom; we value all those relationships and look forward to the imminent state visit of the President of South Africa. It will bring great joy to many people who have watched the travails of that country in my lifetime to see that happen. I note the noble Viscount’s wider point about the Commonwealth, but I cannot commit to going in that direction from this Dispatch Box.

House adjourned at 6.25 pm.