Coronavirus Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, we meet today in truly extraordinary and worrying times. The pace at which the pandemic has spread and the range of measures which are now widely accepted as necessary to fight it are unprecedented. As a result, we are not just faced with this Bill but must consider how we as a Parliament operate in the weeks and months ahead. If we are to work effectively, we have to reconsider all our ways of doing things.

We on these Benches of course support the Bill but, as we do so, we need to be clear what we see as the role of Parliament in the period ahead. It seems to us crucial that we maintain our role of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. This is partly because the Government are being asked to exercise, on a daily basis, the judgment of Solomon. We fear that they lack a Solomon, so we think it vital that Ministers remain answerable to Parliament for their decisions. But Parliament also has a major part to play in improving public policy development, by feeding into the process and drawing to the Government’s attention what is really happening on the ground across the country, and by probing their responses.

While we on these Benches are fully supportive of the House adjourning early for the Easter Recess, we do not support an extension of that Recess beyond our planned resumption date of 21 April. If by then the situation in respect of self-isolation and social distancing remains broadly as it is today, which seems highly likely, we will need to look at how we conduct our business to ensure that the House can operate effectively.

Many service-sector companies have closed their offices altogether yet are carrying on their business by use of the phone, internet and conference calling. I believe that your Lordships’ House should do the same to the maximum extent possible, particularly as almost half our number will—or should—be unable to attend by virtue of their age, while others have underlying health conditions which makes their attendance impossible or, at the very least, imprudent. We will need to change our ways.

In my view there is, for example, no reason why committees should not sit via videoconferencing straightaway. I believe that we should also look at ways in which the business in the Chamber could be done differently. If a radio station can do it, I do not see why Members should not be able to phone or email in their Questions for Oral Answer, for example, or why some speeches could not be submitted in writing in advance, for inclusion on the record. On our return, to allow us to ask Questions in a timely manner while minimising the demands on ministerial time, we should also have half an hour of Covid-19 questions at a convenient point after the Prime Minister has done his daily press conference. If the frequency or timing of these press conferences changes, we could obviously adapt to reflect this.

The alternative is an unsatisfactory preponderance of coronavirus Questions on the Order Paper and a daily series of requests to the Lord Speaker for Private Notice Questions. We have raised these suggestions via the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels, and are having very constructive engagement with them. I believe the same process is now taking place in the House of Commons.

I realise that for some Members all these suggestions will produce the kind of shocked response associated with a Bateman cartoon but, unless we move in this direction, proper scrutiny will simply be impossible. Scrutiny will be particularly important because of the wide-reaching measures which the Government are adopting. They are measures which we support in principle. As a result of today’s Bill, the Government will gain large new powers exercisable by statutory instrument, which should be debated, and further new powers will need to be taken to implement yesterday evening’s announcement. We have only to look at the extraordinary, irresponsible action of Sports Direct today to see that exhortation of not just individuals but of companies will be inadequate. I too would like to know what legal basis the Government will use to introduce these necessary powers.

Other legislation is already being introduced giving the Government new powers by statutory instrument. For example, on Saturday a regulation was made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to close all restaurants, cafés, bars, cinemas, theatres and virtually every other premises where people meet. They came into force the same day, have a lifespan of six months and, in theory, need parliamentary approval, but such approval obviously requires Parliament to be in session. The same will apply to all the other SIs which are required, and the Government may well find that they need more primary legislation to be introduced at short notice before this crisis is over, so we need to find ways to do this with the country in lockdown and we need to do so quickly.

We accept the need for today’s Bill and the need to pass it speedily. We do not propose to divide the House but this is a very long and complex Bill and, as is always the case, it raises very many specific questions to which no answers have yet been provided. In saying that, I am not criticising the Government. I have huge sympathy for the challenge the Minister faces in explaining an unprecedented raft of business, and I would not want him to think that in making that point I am being critical, but the country wants to know and needs clarity on many issues, and Parliament is the best way of doing that.

However, our proceedings today and tomorrow do not in reality allow us to subject this Bill to the normal scrutiny that we would expect so, like the Opposition, we on these Benches will limit our amendments to a relative handful on which we wish to probe the Government. There are a lot more issues that we would in ordinary circumstances raise, but in the course of a day—tomorrow—it is simply impossible to do so.

The issues that we will raise are as follows. On social care, we want to ensure that the Government provide local authorities with the resources necessary to provide appropriate levels of care for those discharged from hospital, particularly those with complex needs. On social security, we want to suspend the sanctions regime, which we believe could bear down unfairly on those who are ill. We want to give local authorities the power of direction they will need if they are to implement government policy effectively. We want to scrutinise the civil liberties implications of the increased detention powers. We want to examine the scope for providing much better levels of support for the self-employed, and we want to ensure that your Lordships’ House plays its full part in considering the extension of the emergency powers beyond the initial six months. My colleagues will explain our detailed concerns on these points during the course of today’s debate.

This is an unprecedented Bill to deal with an unprecedented crisis. Over the coming months, every aspect of the way that we do things in Britain will come under strain. As in wartime, we will have to change the way that we do things, and when it is all over things will not revert to business as usual. Some things will have changed for ever, and the way that we do business here will assuredly fall into that category. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House wishes the Government well as they grapple with coronavirus. But democracies never give the Executive a blank cheque. As a Parliament, we must retain our critical faculties and, if we do so, it will help the Government and the country to get through this crisis together.

Coronavirus Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th March 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

7: Clause 89, page 58, line 21, leave out “2 years” and insert “3 months”

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill introduces across a whole range of public policy areas significant powers, some of them quite draconian. The noble Lord just said that the proposal in respect of abortion was unacceptable because it would have made a fundamental change. The truth is that we are making fundamental changes across the board. The proposed changes on mental health are, in my view, at least as fundamental as that on abortion proposed by the noble Baroness. Although the Minister might have reasons for not wanting to make that change, he cannot pray in aid that it was a fundamental change. This is happening across the whole of what we are doing and, frankly, that was not his best moment.

Because the changes being made in the Bill are so powerful, we believe that they need to be in place for as short a period as possible and that they need regular and effective review and renewal. Therefore, the amendments in my name raise two related issues. The first is how often that review should happen. Obviously, we welcome the fact that the Government have moved from a position where there was to be no review for two years to one where there will be a review after six months. However, we believe that the period should be shorter. The Civil Contingencies Act has a renewal date of 30 days. Some of the measures in the Bill could probably have been exercised under that Act and they would have been subject to that 30 days. We are not going as far as that, but the end of September is simply too late for Parliament to have its first chance formally to decide whether this very wide-ranging legislation should continue.

As to the form, we have several concerns. As the Bill stands, there is no role whatever for your Lordships’ House in respect of the legislation’s continuation and renewal. That is certainly unprecedented and completely unacceptable. The normal way of dealing with legislation that is time-limited and needs renewal is via the statutory instrument route, which obviously applies to both Houses equally. That was the case with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Terrorism Act 2006. The House of Lords and the House of Commons had exactly the same powers and they worked perfectly well. Your Lordships’ House is an extremely responsible body.

An exception to the principle of the two Houses having the same powers in respect of legislation was the EU withdrawal Bill—subsequently the EU withdrawal Act. It was agreed that, although there would be a meaningful vote in the House of Commons, there would be a meaningless vote in the House of Lords. That was on the basis of the circumstances being exceptional, as we were following the democratic mandate of a referendum. I opposed it at the time on the basis that it set a doleful precedent, but that view did not prevail.

Now, a second set of exceptional circumstances is being brought before your Lordships’ House in a very short period. I believe that the more often we see exceptional circumstances occurring, the less acceptable it is, if your Lordships’ House is to perform the function that it has done until now in respect of the renewal of legislation. We therefore propose that the former precedent of renewing a Bill by statutory instrument should be followed in this case.

However, in Amendment 12 we also suggest an alternative method of achieving the same involvement of your Lordships’ House by proposing that it mirrors what is proposed in the Commons. Personally, I would prefer us to go back to the traditional SI route but, in a spirit of generosity, if the Government would prefer to do it the other way, we are, reluctantly, prepared to accept that.

The other amendments in this group have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. They have our full support, and no doubt they will be spoken to more eloquently than I could, so I will not attempt that.

I would like to ask the Minister about a practical point, which I hope he will be able to accept. At Second Reading yesterday, my noble friend Lady Barker suggested that the Government should produce a grid to explain which clauses of the Bill have been implemented, and exactly how. That is a very good idea and I hope the Government can accept it, but could they go slightly further by having, as part of that grid, a list of all the other provisions introduced to deal with the coronavirus, but not necessarily under this Bill? I cite, for example, the power to close restaurants and all other places where people congregate, which was introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That would be helpful not only for specialists, as it were, like us, but for those who want to find and then look at the legislative basis for decisions. For others, who just want to see where a particular provision that might affect them comes from, if the Government have a single source saying, “Here’s the whole raft of provisions that have been made and this is exactly where you can find them”, that would be extremely helpful for public information. Obviously, I hope the Government will agree to our more substantive amendments but, at the very least, I hope they can do this. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

.My Lords, I support Amendments 11 and 12, which I think means that I support the idea of six-monthly reviews with debates in both the Commons and in the Lords. However, I rise to speak in particular to Amendment 10, tabled in my name. Regardless of how often the reviews take place or precisely who conducts them, surely one needs a degree of information from the Government. Clause 97 provides for that, but in an absolutely minimalist form. As I read it, all that is required is that the Government should explain which provisions have been switched on or switched off in the previous two-month period and that they should certify that they are content with the switching on and the switching off.

I have two points to make. The first concerns effective review in Parliament. As I said yesterday, my experience of reviewing exceptional counterterrorism powers suggests that one really needs at least some basic information from government on how the powers are being applied and how effective they are judged to be. There is also a point for the Government in this. Reports of this kind will provide them with an excellent opportunity to communicate to Parliament and to the wider public what they have done, why they have done what they have done, whether they believe that the measures are having some effect on the disease and, if so, why. I was encouraged to hear the Minister say yesterday in introducing the Bill that the Government would update Parliament regularly on how these powers have been used across the UK, but I suggest that that does not go far enough. In the Bill as written, things are not provided which go even that far.

My Amendment 10 is very modest, and deliberately so. I have sought not to invite the riposte that I am requiring some new power to collate or put forward statistics or that I would overburden an already burdened Civil Service. The Government will of course make their own assessments of whether these powers should be switched on or off and how effective they are. All I ask is that that assessment should be shared with Parliament in an appropriate way. It is a document that the Government will control, so it is very much up to them to decide in what form that communication should be made. If the amendment cannot be accepted, I ask the Minister at the very least to give an undertaking today that these reports will provide information about how the powers have been used across the United Kingdom, what measures may have been necessary to ensure compliance, and whether and why the various powers have been judged effective.

I have saved perhaps my best point until the end. Yesterday, the Minister raised by proxy the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who sits beside me in spirit, if not physically. He contacted me this morning and has authorised me to say that if he had disregarded his own advice not to attend today, he would have supported my amendment. If I have not persuaded the Minister, I hope that the spirit of my noble and learned friend will have done so.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that these remarks are helpful. None of us wants to see the wrong balance struck between the powers conferred on government and Ministers’ accountability to Parliament. However, we believe that the balance struck in the Bill is the right one, with the safeguards that we need to bring it about. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press the amendments.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurances about the website and the comprehensive information that it will contain. That is extremely helpful. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, let me say how grateful both he and I are for that half-assurance, which we think is more than half an assurance, on the justification that the Government are about to give on a two-monthly basis.

On the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I loved the Sir Humphrey argument that it could not be changed because everybody had agreed what was in it. Well, they agreed what was in it; no doubt the Scots and the Welsh did not, with the following breath, say, “But don’t you dare suggest that parts of it can be disapplied, or give the Commons such a vote.” It was an argument, but I am not sure that I found it completely convincing.

On the amendments that we put forward, the fact that there is an SI provision for the end of the two years only makes the case for having an SI provision after six months. The Minister did not seek at any point to explain why the Lords should be treated differently from the Commons. I see that the concern in the Commons was to get a better position from the Commons; our position is to make our arguments. I am afraid that I am not convinced by those arguments but, equally, I realise that this is not the point at which we should test the opinion of the House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.