Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Margaret Beckett Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

I have heard it said that on occasions such as this most of us talk about ourselves, and that is inevitable because we are talking about the links that we have with and the memories we have of the person who is gone, but I think I am one of the few in this House who remembers when the Queen’s father died. I must admit that my memories are twofold: first, how surprised I was that people thought 25 was young; and, secondly, how when she came to the throne we all got a bar of chocolate.

I first encountered Her Majesty at one remove soon after I was first elected to this House in October 1974, and I do recognise that many hon. Members here were not born then. By 1975 I was a junior Government Whip, when we had a small majority and a large legislative programme. There was a duty that usually fell to a very senior Whip, one of writing every day by hand directly to Her Majesty the Queen to tell her what was happening in her Parliament—I was told this had probably originated with the first Prime Minister, who wrote to the King to tell him what was happening in the House—and I was asked to undertake this duty to help my colleague. By the way—this is very important—I was told that this was a personal message from a member of the Government to Her Majesty for her eyes only. There seemed little point in telling her the things that she would know from her red box or that she had probably read in the chat column in The Daily Telegraph, so I wrote to her about the stuff I thought she would not get from either of those sources. I wrote to her about the gossip in the Tea Room—occasionally slightly edited—and about the rows that people were having behind the scenes in the Committee Rooms and corridors. There was no feedback, but there was no rebuke either.

A day then came when the Queen went on an overseas visit. I knew, of course, that official correspondence always goes through official channels when the Queen is out of the country, but I was a very new MP, and thought that no one would have the impertinence to read something that was marked from me personally to the Queen personally. Some busybody in No. 10, however, did.

Perhaps a little unfortunately—this is not unknown to Members in this House—there was something of a dispute going on at the time about the issue of our relationship with the European Community. [Laughter.] I told the Queen what we thought about it, what we were saying about it, and where I thought the Ministers of the day were sometimes getting it wrong. The House may not be surprised to learn—I will not sully your ears—that there is a short, pithy phrase in common usage that encapsulates exactly what happened next. Suffice it to say I was summoned to the Chief Whip, and after a brief and spirited discussion, the job returned to the person to whom it had originally been assigned. [Laughter.] Many years later—this is rather typical—I heard very indirectly and subtly that perhaps Her Majesty had slightly regretted the return to normal service, and that was comforting, and I was pleased.

Many more years later, after a short involuntary break in my service in this House, I was returned for my present constituency. We have had the great honour of entertaining Her Majesty on many occasions, not least—it is in everybody’s memory—when she opened our new football stadium and, indeed, our brand-new hospital. She was gracious enough to agree that we could give it the title of the Royal Derby Hospital, in which it rejoices to this day.

Over the years, including three as Lord President of the Council, I was fortunate enough to have many encounters with Her Majesty, and I can absolutely endorse everything that has been and will be said about her intelligence, awareness and attitude. I was also fortunate enough to be present, after the death of our colleague John Smith, at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-day, and to be in the Queen’s company and to observe her utter respect for the veterans and the sacrifices of those days. I had many encounters with her as Lord President of the Council and, indeed, as Foreign Secretary I accompanied her on state visits, like the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), where I heard the Queen’s observations about the comments made to her by the mother of a former President about the then incumbent, and very interesting they were. [Laughter.]

I testify to the qualities of which everyone else has spoken and to which I am sure everyone else will give testimony: her intelligence, her knowledge and her sense of humour. One of my abiding and favourite memories of recent years is a clip that hon. Members will probably recall and that has often been on the news. The Duke of Edinburgh was being chased by a persistent bee, and there is a picture of the Queen coming through an archway, giggling uncontrollably and clearly quite unable to suppress how hysterically funny she found it. That very much sums up the person we could see and admire. She was a remarkable person and a remarkable monarch. We are the poorer for her going.

Standards in Public Life

Margaret Beckett Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

I am speaking as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life but not on behalf of that committee, as that is the job of the chair only. I simply observe to the Minister that there is a fatal flaw in the observations he has just made about the greater degree of freedom to be given to the independent adviser, because everything still depends, fundamentally, on the decision of the Prime Minister in office.

[Michael Ellis]

As it should, constitutionally. The reality is, as I think the right hon. Lady will confirm, that this does strengthen the position—certainly it does not weaken it. The Committee on Standards in Public Life first made recommendations on the ministerial code and the role of the independent adviser on 15 April 2021, prior to the appointment of Lord Geidt later that same month. At that time, or roughly at the same time, Lord Evans called for greater independence for the independent adviser in the initiation of investigations and publication of findings; and for there to be a “proportionate range of sanctions” available for breaches of the code.

That is not unreasonable. It is perfectly reasonable to have a proportionate availability—a range of options—for someone who has been found to be in breach of the code, just as this House has when Members of Parliament are found to be in breach of the standards expected of this House and just as a military court martial or court of law would have. Currently, the ministerial code does not allow for that range of options, so punishments can be disproportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I did not reach that conclusion, which is why I waited until I saw the Prime Minister’s reply justifying his view of his approach to the ministerial code, which he published last week and on which I intervened on the Minister earlier. That was what then led me, very sadly and with great regret, to resign my post yesterday. None the less, I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my broader point about the way in which the independent adviser’s powers should be further amended. I am afraid that that has only just become apparent in the course of the past week or so, but it is a further important omission. Without those changes, the entire process remains toothless if in future we have a question over whether the Prime Minister him or herself has adhered to the ministerial code.

[Margaret Beckett]

I have been thinking about what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, when he said that he differed from the views of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Perhaps I did not follow exactly the terms of his observations, so I would be grateful if he would correct me, but I got the impression that he was saying that he could not go all the way with the committee because he thought that we were giving the power to the independent adviser to decide whether a Minister came and went. That is not the case. In the committee’s recommendations, the independent adviser is to advise on whether there has been a breach, but it is for the Prime Minister to make the decision.

[John Penrose]

I can reassure the right hon. Lady that I meant what she just said. My point about departing from the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is about whether to make some of these bodies statutory and to allow court oversight, which is a constitutional point rather than the one she is making. I was entirely content with the point made by the committee that she has just clarified.

My final point about the role of the independent adviser on the ministerial code is that if we make the two changes that I have just described, we will make sure that the process has teeth, but one further change will still be required. If the Prime Minister is found by the independent adviser to have made a material breach of the ministerial code, it will then be necessary for this Parliament to sit in judgment on that report, because no one else can do it. The Prime Minister certainly cannot because he or she would be judge and jury in their own case, which is fundamentally never going to work. We will have to do that in a democratic way—we are ultimately the high court of Parliament; that is what we are here to do. At the moment, I do not think that our Standing Orders allow us to address that point—not about the Government, which I remain strongly in favour of and I support, but about the Prime Minister as an individual. The provision to censure or introduce other motions is, I believe, insufficiently clear and easy in that one specific and important case. Without it, the process will not have the necessary teeth and claws. We hope that they will never have to be used, but they have to be there just in case they are needed. With that, I will leave the debate to go on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

I welcome the initiative of my right hon. and hon. Friends in calling this debate, and I welcome the terms of the motion, which calls on the House to implement the report and to follow up that implementation, which is often as important as the initial decision. I declare an interest as I have been a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life since November 2013. I should say at once, as I said earlier, that I am not speaking on behalf of the committee—I never do, as innumerable journalists can testify. Our independent chair, and only he, speaks for the committee as a whole.

I am grateful to the Minister, and I think other committee members will be too, for the terms in which he spoke of the committee members. For my part, I have great sympathy with our heroic independent members—there are three political members and only four independent members; at the moment, as he will know, we have a vacancy—who face a very heavy workload. They carry out the taxing and time-consuming work of analysing and studying things to give strength to the committee’s reports. One of our independent members said the other day that the committee and its members are committed on a cross-party basis to protecting and promoting standards, and that our focus is always on the impartial interpretation of evidence and the long-term measures necessary to protect standards.

I also say briefly to the Minister that, if he looks on his desk, or somebody else’s desk, he may find some observations from the committee suggesting that the decision made, as I recall, under David Cameron’s premiership to reduce the committee’s size—its numbers and the resources available to it—should be reconsidered. Those independent members carry a heavy burden and he spoke sympathetically about their work.

Our chair, very properly, regretted the Prime Minister’s decision to adopt one—only one—of the committee’s recommendations. Speaking for myself, as I said, I thought that was outrageous, particularly because the Prime Minister, and the Minister, used the committee’s report to justify the decision to weaken the penalties for breaching the ministerial code.

I am not speaking on the committee’s behalf, but the statement that it issued following the Prime Minister’s decision about the ministerial code said:

“There still needs to be greater independence in the regulation of the Ministerial Code, notwithstanding”—

I say this because the Minister emphasised, and I wholly understand why he did and I have some sympathy with his circumstances, how much the Government were following the terms of the committee’s recommendations —“the changes announced” to the terms of reference of the role of the independent adviser. It went on:

“The new process for initiating investigations does not create the degree of independence we called for. Whereas previously the Adviser could only conduct an investigation into an alleged breach of the Code at the Prime Minister’s request, the Adviser can now initiate their own investigations ‘having consulted the Prime Minister and obtained his consent’. So no longer a direct commission by the Prime Minister, but still dependent on the Prime Minister’s permission. This is a step forward, it is an improvement”—

the Minister quoted the chair of the committee saying that—

“in process but it does not fundamentally change the powers of the Independent Adviser.”

I think the Minister, wholly understandably, sought to create the impression that perhaps it did.

I want to set the discussion about the ministerial code in a wider context and look at events elsewhere. I often read these days about events in the United States where many people are concerned about whether the former President is likely to be re-elected. There is much talk about the work of the Republican party in discouraging voter involvement and participation. I am afraid that, when I look at the legislative record of this Government, I see similar steps being taken here, although without much fanfare.

In my childhood, children played a game called grandma’s footsteps. The main player is in position and those behind try to draw close and touch them while the main player looks over their shoulder and hopes to catch somebody moving. The whole idea is that, if they do not catch them moving, they can continue. Of course, the effect of the game is that gradually, stealthily, inexorably the players draw closer to their main target. Stealthily, there is movement, and that seems to be exactly what is happening in our public life and to our democracy.

This morning, Lord Hague was reported as saying that nothing

“matters more than the health of our democracy.”

I strongly agree. Unnecessary bureaucratic regulation of exactly how people are allowed to vote is a good example of something that everyone knows will effectively discourage those who the Conservatives perhaps assume are less likely to vote for them.

That is part of an attack on one after another of the institutions of public life, whose principal characteristic is, or has been, their independence. The Electoral Commission will now be guided by a Government Minister, which should be quite unnecessary for any independent body. I have referred to the practice that occurs, as I understand it, in the United States, but I am conscious of more recent examples in Hungary and, indeed, in Russia. People in this country often express surprise at the degree to which it appears that the public in those countries accept, virtually uncritically, the version of events retailed to them by their Governments. To that surprise, the response here is often that independent voices in their media were first undermined and then, in effect, silenced.

Again, what has the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport announced? There are cuts, pressure and threats to the independence of the BBC, and the privatisation of Channel 4. The independence of the independent, sometimes critical media—I assure the Minister that they are critical not solely of Conservative Administrations—is being undermined under this Government.

What about public appointments, which were mentioned earlier? Concern was expressed in the committee when, under David Cameron’s premiership, a greater role and greater power for political input to appointments was allowed, but it was still assumed—perhaps the correct word would be “hoped”—that no Minister would abuse such a role. The whole atmosphere of such appointments has now changed dramatically. The more important and influential the appointment to be made, the more likely it is to be preceded by heavy briefing from No. 10 as to who exactly the Prime Minister would prefer to see appointed. So even those considering applying for such an appointment would be discouraged before the process even starts. Now we know that blatant political interference may follow. At least twice in fairly recent times an independent process of appointment has been halted and replaced by a Prime Minister who seems to be indifferent to somebody’s capacity to actually carry out the job for which they are seeking appointment as long as he thinks they are on his side. It is right in this debate to stress that that is exactly the purpose the appointments process is intended to frustrate. It is intended to ensure both that people are up to doing the job they are applying for, and that they are independently appointed and will not display a political bias.

I can see why there has been so little response to our report, with its 34 recommendations, because of course, from the Government’s point of view, it has one critical, fundamental flaw. At its heart is the belief that in independent scrutiny lies a process that conveys high standards, and that is precisely what this Government appear not to believe. It has always seemed to me that one of our strengths as a country has been that we have an unwritten constitution, because that gives us a degree of flexibility that others may lack. One of the things I deplore about the present handling of standards matters is that it strengthens the case for a written constitution, although I have to admit not sufficiently to make me accept it.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, go on.

[Margaret Beckett]

I hear my hon. Friend’s representations on that point, but I simply say to him that what perhaps the American experience may have demonstrated is that a rogue Prime Minister, like a rogue President, can ignore a written constitution as easily as they can an unwritten constitution, so I remain unconvinced. But what I also remain is absolutely clear that we need greater emphasis on the need for high standards in public life and that that emphasis can be sustained only through a process that is rooted in independence and ensures greater scrutiny of all those who exercise responsibility on behalf of our electorate.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Margaret Beckett Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) [V]]

Today is the day on which the Prime Minister promised us that he would get Brexit done, in one of the many sermons and catchphrases that have not illuminated but rather obscured this debate. At the weekend we had a good example of that obscurity—the Prime Minister mentioned it today—with the £660 billion deal that enables us to trade with the European Union with zero tariffs and zero quotas. I am sure that many fairly casual observers get the impression that this is some kind of negotiating triumph that we have wrung from the European Union. The fact is, however, that these are privileges and rights that we already had. The £660 billion is what we have salvaged—it is what we have left from what was a much greater package of rights and freedoms. I am not knocking it—it is a good thing—but it is important to recognise that it is not a net gain.

That is not all that is obscure and misleading. The Prime Minister spoke today about fishing rights—I think his phrase was that we would be able to catch whatever we like. If we look at this agreement, we see that that is not the case. He said that there were no non-tariff barriers, as well as the tariff agreements on trade, but that is not true either. The agreement makes it clear that there is much more bureaucracy and many more rules and regulations—the very things that the Prime Minister claimed we would be escaping. Littered throughout the agreement are working parties, specialist committees and the partnership council, to negotiate when there are differences.

Even for the stuff that has been agreed, a great deal of bureaucracy and negotiation surrounds it, and there is much that is left out, including the protection of designated products such as Stilton so that quality can be maintained and we can be assured that our producers have their rights in the market—that is all put on one side. It has already been mentioned in the debate that the huge issue of financial services has been left on one side and will have to be addressed in the future. This weekend, a blogger described the provisions in the treaty as “negotiations without end”.

Today, we have a Hobson’s choice: we are for or we accept this deal, or we have no deal. That is why my vote will be cast to accept the passage of this legislation to the statute book. I do not accept that that means we cannot criticise it in future; I certainly intend to do so.