Lord Keen of Elie (Con)

My Lords, as we begin Committee on this important and complex Bill, I say briefly, if I may, that I look forward to working with the Minister, who has already taken great care to engage with the Official Opposition and noble Lords across the Chamber. I hope that that constructive engagement will continue as we scrutinise the Bill in Committee. This is clearly an important Bill, which was promised in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and we will continue to work with the Government to scrutinise the Bill in detail. Although we may have concerns about the approach taken by the Government, we recognise that the Bill is covered by the Salisbury/Addison convention. Perhaps more importantly, we recognise the immense pain felt by the Hillsborough families, who have waited far too long to get to this point. Recognising that important context, we will move as quickly as possible in our work to improve the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for moving his amendment, which makes a number of specific points to which I hope the Minister will respond clearly. My noble friend’s amendment would clarify that the effect of the public interest test in Clause 1 is limited in its legal effect to the proper understanding of this purpose of the Bill, rather than, for example, imposing a wider duty on public officials to abide by a public interest test or the creation of a power for public authorities and officials to act otherwise than on a lawful instruction or direction that had been given to them. I hope that the Minister will rule out the possibility that Clause 1 creates a public interest standard against which the conduct of a public authority official is judged, except in respect of the provisions of the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment speaks to recent instances where Ministers and former Ministers of the Crown have felt that their instructions to officials have not always been carried out in a timely way or, in some cases, at all. The core principle which has been mentioned, and which should be reinforced, is that advisers advise and Ministers decide. I hope the Minister will agree with me on that. If so, I think it follows that he should respond to the concerns of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton by categorically ruling out the possibility that Clause 1 creates a wide, cross-government public interest test that would allow public authorities or officials to ignore lawful instructions or directions from a Minister. Perhaps the Minister could begin his response by giving that categoric assurance.