16:24 - Division on Lord Tunnicliffe’s Motion - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 168 - Lord Tunnicliffe’s Motion agreed.
16:43 - Division on Lord Forsyth of Drumlean’s Motion - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 316 - Lord Forsyth of Drumlean’s Motion disagreed.
17:21 - Division on Lord Stoneham of Droxford’s Motion - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 173 - Lord Stoneham of Droxford’s Motion agreed.
17:36 - Division on Baroness Deech’s amendment to the Motion (1) - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 310 - Baroness Deech’s amendment to the Motion (1) disagreed.
19:36 - Division on Lord Harris of Haringey’s Motion - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 131 - Lord Harris of Haringey’s Motion agreed.
19:53 - Division on Lord Marlesford’s amendment to the Motion (2A) - Ayes: 103 / Noes: 284 - Lord Marlesford’s amendment to the Motion (2A) disagreed.
21:16 - Division on Lord Harris of Haringey’s Motion - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 121 - Lord Harris of Haringey’s Motion agreed.
21:31 - Division on Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2B) - Ayes: 94 / Noes: 272 - Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2B) disagreed.
22:00 - Division on Lord Harris of Haringey’s Motion - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 104 - Lord Harris of Haringey’s Motion agreed.
22:15 - Division on Lord Framlingham’s amendment to the Motion (2C) - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 273 - Lord Framlingham’s amendment to the Motion (2C) disagreed.
22:45 - Division on Lord True’s amendment to the Motion (2D) - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 272 - Lord True’s amendment to the Motion (2D) disagreed.
23:08 - Division on Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2E) - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 258 - Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2E) disagreed.
23:22 - Division on Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2F) - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 257 - Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2F) disagreed.
00:02 - Division on Lord Willoughby de Broke’s Motion - Ayes: 253 / Noes: 94 - Lord Willoughby de Broke’s Motion agreed.
00:17 - Division on Lord True’s amendment to the Motion (2G) - Ayes: 88 / Noes: 252 - Lord True’s amendment to the Motion (2G) disagreed.
00:48 - Division on Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2J) - Ayes: 69 / Noes: 241 - Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion (2J) disagreed.
01:09 - Division on Amendment 2K - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 242 - Amendment 2K disagreed.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down and amendments are called, I will say a few brief words about the Motion. I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Baroness’s description of it. I am afraid the Government will strongly oppose the Motion before the House today, because in our view it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of this House. I ask noble Lords and noble Baronesses across this House to reflect on how they would react if they were in government and faced such a Motion.
Under the terms of the Motion, I am afraid our ways of working and procedures are undermined. It limits the number of Members able to speak at Second Reading and changes the way amendments are considered and decided on, for instance. The scrutiny function of this House, which we rightly take pride in, is all but removed. Scrutinising and amending legislation is what this House does best, so the guillotining that the Bill prescribes prevents the House fulfilling its fundamental duty.
I have no doubt that, as the noble Baroness said, we will hear many concerns raised during the debate today, but I ask the House to think carefully about supporting a Motion that overturns the proven and widely respected ways in which this House operates and prevents noble Lords properly fulfilling their scrutinising role.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, there are two points there. I put to the noble Baroness that the Prorogation is the guillotine. The second point I make is that, if the Government would guarantee that the normal conventions of the House would apply and we could conclude our business on this Bill in time for Prorogation, my Motion would be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Motion
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I will just make my position clear on behalf of these Benches in returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am very much in sympathy with the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. All I will say is that I am willing to play my part as the leader of these Benches in trying to reach an accommodation as to how we resolve these proceedings without having to go through all the amendments one by one. However, I stress that this will happen only if those on the Government Front Bench are prepared to engage with, no doubt, the Bishops’ Benches, myself and the Opposition. It will not work without the willingness of the Government Front Bench.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will very briefly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord True, but before that I will clear up a point in the light of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. As both rightly pointed out, in her opening remarks the Leader of the Opposition alluded to the prospect of her Motion becoming unnecessary if the Government were to guarantee safe passage for the Bill, should it arrive. I need to put on record, lest there be any misunderstanding, that no such prospect was raised prior to today’s sitting with my noble friend the Government Chief Whip. That was the first time we had heard of that proposal. By that time the noble Baroness had already placed her Motion in the hands of the House. All I can say is that the usual channels, at least in so far as the Government are concerned, are always open.
I will make some brief remarks on the amendment of my noble friend. I focus, as other noble Lords will do, on the practical effects of this Motion. Its main effect, as has been said, is a guillotine. Setting aside the issue of precedent, I do not think that one can dismiss this as some kind of run-of-the-mill measure. The practical effects of the guillotine will be wide ranging and deeply damaging to the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation as fully as it needs to. Many of us have observed over the years how much the House prides itself on the scrutiny of legislation and how seriously it takes its role in the legislative process. My noble friend Lord Forsyth was quite right in all that he said earlier. The Business of the House Motion as tabled would shackle noble Lords to procedures that only the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who I understand will pilot any Bill that arrives from the Commons, would have any control over. What does that do to the principle of self-regulation?
The House as a whole must be free to take important decisions about how and at what speed it conducts its business. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said earlier, the Motion would limit the number of noble Lords who could make meaningful contributions at Second Reading. It would mean that amendments not reached before the guillotines could be agreed only on a unanimous basis, meaning that noble Lords, no matter what experience they bring, would be unable to have their amendments debated or decided upon fairly. This Motion means that the House is being asked to agree that, should the Commons send us a Bill, that Bill should be passed without full debate and proper scrutiny, and that the role of Members of this place should be bypassed. No noble Lord, in my opinion, should find that even remotely acceptable.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise to the noble Earl—I caught him on the television and came in urgently to hear the rest of what he was saying. I understand the points he is making, and the Motion in my name is designed to ensure a full debate—far more so than in the House of Commons. But if the noble Earl could say that the Government would be prepared to ensure that the withdrawal Bill, if passed by the House of Commons, would be guaranteed to complete its stages in your Lordships’ House prior to Prorogation—that is, by Friday—there would be no need for my Motion, because the Bill would be guaranteed to leave the House in good time. I think that that is all that anybody in your Lordships’ House wants to achieve. Are the Government prepared to have those kinds of discussions to ensure that that can be achieved? That might deal with a lot of the issues of concern to noble Lords here today.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am extremely glad to hear that, because I made that suggestion earlier today to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. My understanding, which I hope was a misunderstanding, was that there could not be such discussions. What the noble Earl has said is extremely encouraging. I would be happy at the conclusion of this debate to talk outside the Chamber to progress those discussions.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, may I propose that the House do now adjourn but that we return no later than 7.30 this evening?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition has, very helpfully, proposed an adjournment. The difficulty I find myself in is that any discussions that we have through the usual channels will be predicated, at least from our point of view, on discussions with others in another place. At present, I cannot therefore accede willingly to her proposal to adjourn although in principle, as I said earlier, we are of course open to discussions at some point in the evening.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am slightly confused by what the noble Earl says. I sense that, across the House—I will talk for a moment so that the Chief Whip can catch up—we want to conduct our business in a timely, sensible and ordered manner. Perhaps we can do so through adjourning briefly. I hope that the noble Earl is not saying that officials and Ministers in this House are unable to come to an agreement; however, I appreciate that we must understand what happens in the House of Commons first, which is why I suggested adjourning until 7.30 pm. I would appreciate the views of the Chief Whip on this issue.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, it may be helpful to the House to know that the House of Commons has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Act by 327 votes to 299, a majority of 28. Given that we now know the views of the House of Commons on this piece of legislation, it would be helpful to open discussions with the Government as soon as possible on how our business may proceed. I have already told your Lordships’ House that I am happy to have those discussions as soon as possible. We want to have a timely, ordered approach to business between now and Prorogation to ensure that we give effect to decisions taken by the House of Commons. So I propose that we adjourn during pleasure until 8.39 pm.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, without any commitment at all on the part of these Benches, we do not seek to oppose the Motion for an adjournment for the period indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, because I think that it would be helpful to have those discussions. I know that he said, “no commitment”, but I am sure that he will have heard the mood of the House earlier today—from his own Benches and everyone else—that discussions should open up and would be very helpful for the interests of the House. So I am grateful to the Government for not opposing this.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am pleased to say that we have concluded our usual channels conversations. Subject to confirmation by the Leader of the Opposition, we have agreed that consideration of the current Business of the House Motion will be adjourned and a new Motion tabled tomorrow to allow the Bill to complete all stages in this House by 5 pm on Friday 6 September. We have also received a commitment from the Chief Whip in the House of Commons that Commons consideration of any Lords amendments will take place on Monday. It is the Government’s intention that the Bill be ready to be presented for Royal Assent.
This agreement also has implications for noble Lords who have tabled amendments to the Motion today. I hope that they will support the agreement reached in the usual channels and not seek further to frustrate the process at either Second Reading or at the amending stages on Friday.