Priorities for the Government

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. I concur with her words about the Chief Whip. It feels as if he is having a daily testimonial at the moment, to which he is fully entitled, and he should enjoy it. I regard him as a genuine friend in the House. I have been his shadow in different jobs since I joined your Lordships’ House in 2010. I look forward to his contributions from the Back Benches and will still regard him as a friend in this House.

Dave Evans is also retiring today. His 24 years’ service to this House is a great achievement and shows true public service. I gather there are drinks on the Terrace for those who want to buy him a drink later today. The noble Baroness spoke about Theresa May as Prime Minister. She has had a tough time as Prime Minister, and I suspect she will show more loyalty from the Back Benches to her successor than she received. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness is still in her role, although I have more trepidation about some of her colleagues in the Cabinet. As I heard the announcements being made last night and today, it brought to mind one of my favourite TV programmes, “Yes, Prime Minister” because I could hear Sir Humphrey saying, “That’s very courageous, Prime Minister”. This is the noble Baroness’s first experience of repeating a Statement in the style of her new boss. She might have to work on the hand gestures.

In the first days on the job for any Prime Minister, bluster and bravado must meet reality. The new Prime Minister tells us he is presenting his blueprint for our country. I welcome his apparent change in tone on the value of public services, but he has to realise that despite the hyperbole in the Statement—that is what it is—the threat of no-deal Brexit creates enormous uncertainty. There is no clear plan about how we would cope with the risks to communities, families and British businesses or, indeed, the risk to the union. The Prime Minister says in the Statement that he will put the future of our union “beyond doubt”. It takes more than just words. Noble Lords are aware that there is a very real fear that the impact, particularly the economic impact which will be heavily felt, of no deal on Scotland will lead to further attempts to break up the union that we greatly value. On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said that there are possible arrangements for the Irish border that are compatible with the Good Friday agreement. Can the noble Baroness tell us what they are? What does his commitment to the Good Friday agreement look like in the event of no deal?

On public services, a key part of the Prime Minister’s speech was about the apparently bright—I think he described it as broader and bolder—future of the UK, which appears to involve reversing large swathes of Conservative policy that he was previously in favour of. I am all for reversing Conservative Party policies. The Prime Minister has promised 20,000 new police officers, yet he was part of the Government who cut 21,000 police officers and as a result we have seen an increase in violent crime on our streets. I know the noble Baroness has a particular interest in education. She will know that our schools are struggling to cover basic costs. Some have even been forced into a four-day week. That was inevitable given that there has been an 8% cut in per-pupil funding since 2010. Education funding should not be regarded as an electoral convenience. Can the noble Baroness give assurances today that areas of greatest need will see their funding increased rather than reduced? We are also promised an increase in funding for our health service. Can she confirm that, as previously promised by the Prime Minister, it will add up to no less than £350 million extra a week? I saw it on the bus, so it must be true.

Over the years, many have laughed, some with, some at, Boris Johnson in his various guises. We can all enjoy slapstick buffoonery, whether it means dangling from a zipwire or falling over in a dirty pond. There is always space for a genial comedian, but that is not the role of the Prime Minister. Gaffes may appear endearing when you are an MP on the Back Benches, but in a Prime Minister they are potentially very dangerous. So, as he will have realised—I make special reference to Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe—words must be chosen with great care, for every word of a Prime Minister is a word on behalf of our country. They will be pored over and analysed, and they can, as we saw when he was Foreign Secretary, have great consequences.

Our country is now more divided than ever before. While the new Prime Minister obviously wants to carve out his own style, his duty has to be to try to heal the wounds. If there is to be a vision for our country, it has to be about confidence about our place in the world, being outward looking and being optimistic for the future. That cannot wait until 2050, as outlined in the Statement. Last year, we celebrated the centenary of some women gaining the vote. I remind the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House of the suffragettes’ wise motto: “Deeds not Words”. It is on our deeds that we are judged, not our words. It may come as a shock to Boris Johnson that that applies to him too. In the announcements made so far, it appears that the new Prime Minister is telling us that he rejects austerity and is heralding significant increases in public spending. What he has not told us is where the money is coming from and how we pay for and cope with the disaster of a no-deal Brexit. The true test will be delivery.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I shall begin with a number of congratulations. I congratulate Mr Evans on his retirement. The good news for Members of your Lordships’ House is that, on the basis that Parliament is at some point prorogued and we have another Queen’s Speech, he will reappear in his position as one of the Yeomen of the Guard. He cuts an even more impressive figure in that role than he does in his attendant’s garb here. He has been a huge source of help to Members, not least to new Members, and he will be much missed.

I said my congratulations to the Chief Whip on his retirement yesterday, and I would be very happy to do so again today—but I do not want it to go to his head, so I shall not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, deserves congratulations on being part of a successful minority—she has not been culled. I for one will be delighted to carry on working with her on a range of issues, not least harassment, where she has taken a very firm lead and I and other members of the commission have enjoyed agreeing with her.

There are two reasons for congratulating the Prime Minister. The first is, obviously, on getting elected and becoming Prime Minister in the first place, and the second is on showing the kind of consistency that one wants, in principle, from people. There were some who thought that, on becoming Prime Minister, he would stop inhabiting a fantasy world and would start behaving in a responsible manner and discussing issues with a semblance of reality. That hope has been dashed, and the Prime Minister is showing a degree of consistency in inhabiting his world of fantasy that is truly remarkable.

It began yesterday. He said about Brexit—and, in particular, a no-deal Brexit—that,

“the ports will be ready and the banks will be ready and the factories will be ready and business will be ready and the hospitals will be ready and our amazing food and farming sector will be ready”.

I now have the great pleasure and privilege of living in a rural area. I spent part of last Sunday talking to farmers and food processors about their view of Brexit, bearing in mind that if you produce lamb at the moment you will face a 40% tariff on 1 November. Their view is that the thing for which they are getting ready is bankruptcy, because there is no way that they can survive on their current business model the day after we leave the EU. Is that what the right honourable gentleman has in mind when he talks about them being ready? And, frankly, the same sort of readiness applies to the other sectors that he mentioned.

Even leaving aside that extraordinary Panglossian view of what life is likely to be like in 2050, there are a number of other areas in his Statement today where he exhibits the kind of fantasy that, in fairness, he has been promoting for a long time. The first relates to the Northern Ireland border. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, his views about being able to leave the EU, particularly without a deal, and having no problems at the Northern Ireland border are fantasy. He has said that under no circumstances will there be any checks on the Northern Ireland border. In the Statement he says:

“The evidence is that other arrangements are perfectly possible”.


The truth is that the evidence is that no other arrangements are evenly vaguely possible. So he is very good at asserting things, but their relationship to truth is something that he often struggles with.

The next fantasy is that we will,

“have available the £39 billion in the withdrawal agreement to help deal with any consequences”,

of no deal. One should bear in mind that there will be no deal immediately, but we will have great relations with the EU. We will have a great new arrangement, albeit without a deal on 31 October. Does anybody believe that a British Government will renege on paying a penny to the EU after 31 October? If they did, how would they survive? The Governor of the Bank of England correctly described our position as being reliant on the “kindness of strangers”. We have a massive balance of payments deficit, which will not go away, Brexit or no Brexit. So we need people to trust us so that they will lend us the money to survive. If that fantasy were pursued, our position would be even worse than would otherwise be the case.

Moving on, he says:

“Finally, we will also ensure that we continue to attract the brightest and best talent from around the world”.


As I have said before, the definition of brightest and best does not extend to many of the brightest and best in a whole raft of sectors, such as the brightest and best care workers, agricultural workers, lab technicians, health service workers and hospitality staff. He talks about an Australian points system. We already have a points system for immigration. In what respect will giving it an Australian accent suddenly change the way it operates and deal with the “brightest and best” problem for the rest of the economy?

Fantasies such as these are not a sound basis for government. It is not surprising that there are, in the Prime Minister’s words, some doubters, doomsters and gloomsters who believe that this reckless Government will be bad for the whole country, and that you will not find any group or organisation that will go from strength to strength under Boris. However, they are wrong. Excluding the old Etonians and extreme Brexiteers, there is one group that is already benefiting from Brexit and will continue to benefit as long as Boris Johnson remains in office. The rest of the country is in for a very hard time—but the Liberal Democrats are on the rise.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, with contributions from noble Lords who are new to the subject and from others who have been working on it for many years. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, who was part of the committee that reported in 2012; a number of us who have spoken were involved in the 2016 committee, co-chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell; we had a number of contributions from noble Lords who were on the joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee and from those on the sponsor board; and other noble Lords have experience and expertise. Perhaps there is some good advice we should listen to as we move forward.

I will pick up on something the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said on the subject of this project not having many friends outside Parliament in the press. One thing that was put to us in the Joint Committee in 2016 was how the press accommodation in Parliament is totally and completely inadequate, consisting largely of Portakabins on the roof. That might be a good start if we want to win some friends for the project.

Restoration and renewal is not an easy issue for any Government. The costs are enormous, the logistics complex, and everybody has opinions—usually different and opposing ones. One only has to read of the frustrations of Charles Barry as he tackled the rebuilding of the Palace after the 1834 fire, or Churchill’s efforts after the 1941 bombing, which have not been mentioned today, to understand that these challenges are nothing new. For a Government committed to austerity, it is even harder—although, given the public spending proposed by the Conservative leadership contenders, perhaps that policy is now changing.

A piecemeal approach to repairs, or the make-do-and-mend approach advocated by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, has always been easier than doing something substantial. That is why action now is so critical. The work of the Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny is reflected in the Bill, which is an essential step forward in a long and arduous process.

Previously, we had the substantial report of the 2016 bicameral, cross-party committee, on which a number of us served and which was co-chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the benefit of guidance from the 2012 report. In 2012, the committee considered reports on the condition of Parliament going back over a decade, including the mechanical and engineering systems, the basement and the areas of greatest risk. Unbelievably, some of the services installed by Barry have never been renewed. Many of us have seen the poor working conditions of staff, with basement corridors and ventilation shafts jammed with decaying wires, cables and corroded pipework. It is to the credit of those staff that we are largely unaware of the M&E systems failures, or the work that goes into keeping the building operational.

It is lazy and inaccurate to portray restoration and renewal, as some do, as benefiting only MPs and Peers. In fact, few of the current cohort—including ourselves—are likely to enjoy the benefits. If we consider the timescale for the preparatory work, the decant, the work itself and then re-entry, it is hard to imagine that being completed before, say, 2032. Many will not return.

I was initially a sceptic about decant and returning but have been convinced by the evidence. The 2016 Joint Committee interrogated the information, not accepting any particular view but taking expert advice, including from disability groups and heritage organisations. I learned a great deal—sometimes in greater detail than I enjoyed. I must admit that I had not previously given much thought to the parliamentary sewerage system. Now I probably know too much about it. The committee concluded that it would be more efficient and effective to move out to allow works to be completed in the shortest possible time as the best value for money and, should Parliament wish it, to be the most creative in the renewal aspect of the project.

I have listened carefully to my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes, who would prefer us to move permanently to a new site, possibly out of London. That is not new; it has been considered before. A 1960s proposal was for a national administrative capital on the Yorkshire moors, to be known as Elizabetha. A new location was considered by the committee that reported in 2012. As tempting as it sounds to have different locations, moving around as in the 12th century, we have only to look at the example of the European Parliament moving between Strasbourg and Brussels to understand the disruption and the costs that causes.

I have thought a lot about whether it is possible or desirable to move on to a different site, whether in or out of London. But Parliament is part of a wider system that interacts with government departments, civil servants, charities, campaigners and businesses who engage with policymakers daily. It is therefore hard to see how Parliament alone could move. I agree that the world should not revolve around London, but just moving Parliament would not address regional disparities.

A more effective approach could well include the Labour proposal announced at the weekend to devolve power and funding from the Treasury, with a new £250 million transformation fund for the north. That would be tasked with improving infrastructure and would undoubtedly create new jobs. The cost of relocating Parliament would have to be added to the costs of the restoration and renewal of this building, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as it is part of a wider UNESCO world heritage site with Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s, as we know.

I certainly endorse the argument that although this building respects our traditions and history, time moves on and we must provide for modern ways of working. In 1834, it was not even considered that MPs could have landline telephones in their offices—and certainly not mobile telephones. It could never have been imagined that one day, people would listen to parliamentary debates on the radio, let alone watch them on TV or live streaming. Even in 1997, when I first became a Member of the other place, I did not have internet in my office. There lie the greatest challenges: to respect our heritage and make this a workplace fit for the 21st or 22nd century in a way that allows the UK public fully to engage.

In February 2018, both Houses of Parliament voted for the resolution that required “immediate steps be taken” to establish a shadow sponsor body and a delivery authority and that their “statutory successors” be established by legislation in due course. The sponsor body would have overall responsibility for the building work on behalf of both Houses to underscore that this is a parliamentary project, not a government one. The subsequent delivery authority would create proposals and carry out the building works in a manner similar to the independent delivery authority for the London 2012 Olympics. The pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee supported that government structure in its comprehensive report and called for swift progress so that the sponsor body can start its work with the powers and authority it needs. I support that objective.

One has only to read the excellent book mentioned several times today, Mr Barry’s War by Caroline Shenton, to understand why such a structure is necessary. Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin’s plan faced enormous practical challenges. Barry answered to myriad bodies and appeared before more than 100 Select Committee inquiries. Construction lasted for nearly 30 years, with costs overrunning and delays resulting from difficulties with the ground, the design, the river, the officials, engineering and, dare I say it, the parliamentarians, who remained on site throughout.

All this led to changing demands and pressures that took their toll on them both. Pugin said that he had never worked so hard in his life. He died aged just 40, shortly after being released from the Bedlam asylum and soon after completing the design of what is now known as the Elizabeth Tower. Charles Barry, having originally estimated that it would take six years at a cost just under £725,000, became at times worn down and anxious. The first time the union flag was hoisted on completion of the new Palace, it was at half-mast for his funeral.

In the Bill, as recommended by the 2016 report, the new governance structure emphasises good planning and a sharp focus on delivery. We welcome the Bill and support its objectives, but that does not mean that we do not support improvements. The changes made in the other place are welcome, including ensuring educational facilities and that the delivery authority must have regard to corporate social responsibility when awarding contracts. However, as we have heard today, there are other ways in which we seek further reassurance.

Something that I regret has not been mentioned—except by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—is that the Bill fails to recognise the primary purpose of Parliament. Clause 2 lists areas to which the sponsor body must have regard—the key issues that must be addressed—but the work of Parliament, legislation, the representative democratic function, is not referred to anywhere in the Bill. That is a serious omission. At no point should the sponsor body or delivery authority lose sight of that.

We will seek assurances on how the public and staff, as well as parliamentarians, will be engaged. The Joint Committee’s recommendation was that the sponsor body should,

“promote public engagement with and public understanding of Parliament”.

This building can sometimes feel very remote to vast swathes of people. Sometimes, it even seems otherworldly. A young friend of mine, an avid Harry Potter fan, Sam Parker, walking around the building exclaimed with absolute delight and wonder, “Oh, it’s Hogwarts!”—great fun, but reflecting the 19th not the 21st century. Why is there no requirement for the sponsor body to engage with the public as it develops the strategy? Surely that body should also have a duty to consult the thousands of staff who work here and their trade union representatives.

On accessibility, the Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s states that,

“the works to the infrastructure of the Palace of Westminster will ensure that the Palace is more accessible for those with disabilities”,

but “more accessible” is not defined. I understand that the shadow sponsor body views accessibility on a “sliding scale”. I hope that the Minister can confirm exactly what that means. Those with disabilities must have accessibility to Parliament with dignity and respect. I use the term “accessibility” deliberately because, as has been said, it is about not just access to the building but accessibility to all of Parliament at any point.

The Minister in the other place said that he expected the sponsor body’s annual report,

“to cover matters such as how it is taking forward questions of disability”,—[Official Report, Commons, Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill Committee, 4/6/19; col. 57.]

and that it should establish a sub-committee. However, the delivery authority will have no remit or requirement to improve accessibility for those with disabilities unless instructed by the sponsor body, and the sponsor body cannot do so unless instructed by Parliament. Is there a gap in the Bill here? Can the Minister be clear about the role of the disability sub-committee?

On Report, the Commons Minister stated that the sponsor body’s annual report could consider the size and geographical location of contracted companies to ensure that small companies and those from across the UK have opportunities to benefit from contracts. I heard what the Leader said in her speech but I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, can say a little more and perhaps confirm that the Government will do all they can to give effect to that and ensure that this principle is adhered to.

On costs, restoration and renewal are undoubtedly expensive, with current estimates somewhere between £3.5 billion and £3.8 billion. We welcome the Government’s focus on value for money but there has to be an acknowledgement that protecting UNESCO world heritage sites comes at a price. I want to add a personal view about heritage. Some of our most interesting and valued buildings have survived because they adapted. We must do the same. If, following the works, this building looks and works exactly the same as it does now, the programme will have failed. That does not permit the programme to force changes on how Parliament works, but it should enable not prevent them. The programme should recognise that technology has revolutionised the way that we all work and will continue to work in future.

The Bill would establish a parliamentary works estimates commission, which will lay the sponsor body’s estimates before Parliament and review expenditure; it can also require a new estimate. Crucially, Parliament will have the final say on the project when the business case is laid in 2021. To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brooke about meeting some of the costs through selling the tiles for restoration, I suggest that my noble friend visits the Westminster Hall shop where, currently, half a tile is on sale for £95, a full tile is on sale for £150 and a high-standard tile is on sale for £200. They look very nice on display. Of course, the sale of some artefacts could contribute to the costs but the scale of what we are talking about, especially of the historical interest in what has been in the Palace, goes far and wide.

Noble Lords were right to mention decant, which the Bill does not cover but is essential. We will continue to seek more detail to ensure that the facilities for Peers are fit for purpose. We also need clarification on what will happen to parliamentary staff, such as our cleaners and caterers, and we seek assurances on their employment status. Will they be given first choice for new jobs arising at the QEII Centre or wherever we decant to? I hope that the noble Earl can confirm that there is, and will continue to be, engagement with the GMB and other unions on this issue.

This is a working building for more than 8,000 people. Importantly, the restoration must provide a better and safer working environment and a better visitor experience. More than a million people visit here each year, enhancing their understanding of how politics and major events play out. History happens here. Alongside that restoration must be renewal that looks to the Parliament of the future. In the 19th century, Barry and Pugin had a vision for a new Parliament rising from the ashes of the old one. In the 20th century, Churchill had a vision for restoration following the destruction of the war. Today, in the 21st century, we need a vision for an engaged, outward-looking Parliament for this century and beyond. After years of kicking the can down the road, we can, and must, get this right. With an emphasis on how we work and a focus on engagement and accessibility, this can be the people’s Parliament for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I did not chastise my noble friend—I am surprised that he should think such a thing.

[Earl Howe]

It will be best if I write to the noble Lord on that point and copy in all noble Lords who have spoken so that everyone is clear about the extent to which this issue has been trawled over.

I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the debate on this issue has effectively already happened. On his further point, even if a decision were taken to relocate Parliament outside London, it would still be necessary to restore and renew the Palace to ensure that its future is safeguarded. This would be required as part of our commitment to the Palace as part of the UNESCO world heritage site. Without accounting for inflation, the independent options appraisal suggests that the minimum that would need to be spent to maintain the Palace’s status as a world heritage site, and to replace or repair systems like for like, would be £3 billion. I will write to the noble Lord further on this issue as I have just been reminded that my time is up.

However, before concluding, perhaps I may emphasise my agreement with the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others on the need for timely progress on these works. I will be happy to put further thoughts in writing on that point. Equally, I will be happy to write on the costs, concerns about which have rightly been raised, particularly by my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The governance arrangements that the Bill sets out can deliver the necessary restoration works and ensure value for money for the taxpayer. I shall be happy to explain why.

I will also write to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about why we disagreed with the recommendation of the Joint Committee to appoint a Treasury Minister to the sponsor body. I am also happy also write on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the need to engage parliamentarians in the R&R proposals.

Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke about the importance of engaging the public. I agree that the public need a voice in this historic project. Indeed, the project provides an unparalleled opportunity to get the public engaged with Parliament and democracy throughout and by providing a lasting legacy. It is the role of Parliament to increase public understanding of its work. Nevertheless, the sponsor body should consider public understanding of Parliament when it engages the public on the R&R programme.

Turning finally and briefly to the Bill, it will ensure that a fit-for-purpose governance structure is in place that will deliver the restoration and renewal of the Palace. I look forward to the Bill’s future stages and to working with Peers across the House, as does my noble friend the Leader, first and foremost to make sure that we get the Bill right but also to maintain a sense of impetus in the parliamentary process. It is important that we progress the Bill in a timely fashion to establish the sponsor body and delivery authority so that the works for the restoration and renewal of the Palace can begin in earnest. I have no doubt that your Lordships, as always, will work to ensure that the Bill fulfils its objective, laying the groundwork for the building works that lie before us and thereby ensuring that we deliver to the nation a Palace fit for purpose and ready to be the home of Parliament for future generations. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House after Questions but I have to raise an urgent and important issue affecting today’s business. Later we will debate an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester on the Government’s secondary legislation amendment to the Climate Change Act that commits to cutting carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. We support that objective and obviously will not oppose the SI. However, we regret that there is a lack of detail as to how the target will be achieved and that shipping and aviation are excluded. Yet again, the Government are avoiding detailed scrutiny of their climate change policies. Still, none of that will stand in the way of the 2050 target becoming law, with our support.

It was therefore with some shock that we heard the Prime Minister, Theresa May, mislead the House of Commons today at Prime Minister’s Questions when she accused Labour Lords of,

“trying to block the net zero 2050 legislation”.

Clearly Mrs May has been misinformed. I would have welcomed an apology and correction by now. As that has not yet been forthcoming. I ask whoever is responding to confirm that the Prime Minister has got it wrong, and ask that she is now informed that she should apologise and ensure that a correction is made.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

I am happy to recognise the Official Opposition’s support for our objective to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Of course I understand that Members on the opposite Benches will want to challenge our policies and how we achieve them. On an issue where we agree, though, I have to admit that we are slightly disappointed that we might have a vote this evening. We are absolutely committed to achieving the target and want to work on a cross-party basis on the goal that we all share. My noble friend Lord Henley will have more to say when he introduces the order later, and I very much hope that we will persuade noble Lords that a vote is not necessary.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, that is not good enough. The Prime Minister, albeit possibly inadvertently because she was badly advised, made a mistake. She has put misinformation on the record in the House of Commons. It is quite legitimate to support a target and an aim but to think that there are better ways of doing it. That is not opposing or trying to block something. I repeat: will the noble Baroness make it clear to the Prime Minister that she should apologise and retract her misinformed statement to the House of Commons?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, I am happy to recognise the Official Opposition’s support and I will make sure that I feed that back.

European Council

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for her comments about my noble friend Lord Prescott. I am sure that the whole House concurs. We wish him a full and speedy recovery.

It has been some time since we have had a European Council or Brexit-related Statement, but now we hear that we will have two in a very short space of time. I am sure that the Prime Minister is delighted. It is an extraordinary position, given the urgency of the issue. Perhaps it is a reflection on the state of the Government on Brexit. Back in March, the Government’s request to extend the Article 50 period was agreed by the EU 27. Despite the previous commitment, as we were told, that the UK would not, under any circumstances, participate in the European Parliament elections, the Government were forced to do just that to secure the further extension. The results of those elections were unsurprising, and the issue of Europe has now forced the resignation of a second Conservative Prime Minister in a little over three years.

However, any hope that the Conservative leadership race, including a refreshingly honest campaign by Rory Stewart, would inject a bit of realism into the Brexit saga was short-lived. The man most likely to become the next Prime Minister continues to display a wilful ignorance, asserting that we can leave with no deal in October but still benefit from a transition period and the continuation of tariff-free trade. Either he does not understand the importance of ratifying a withdrawal agreement in order to secure a transition period or he is willing to mislead the country in his quest to enter No. 10. Neither of those possibilities reflect well on him; nor do they suggest that, as Prime Minister, he would be able to negotiate a close and mutually beneficial ongoing relationship with the EU 27. Jeremy Hunt initially pledged that he was willing to take the country out of the EU with no deal and that it was his firm intention that our exit would take place on 31 October, but that, as the slightly more sensible candidate, his preference is for a deal, even if it takes a little extra time. With clarity like that, it is not hard to understand why our European neighbours find British politics so confusing and frustrating.

A no-deal Brexit—the worst possible outcome—is, as the clock ticks down, a real and frightening possibility. I had hoped to hear from the noble Baroness today that Mrs May had emphasised that the UK would do everything possible to avoid that scenario, but we did not. That is why I have tabled a Motion for debate next Wednesday, 3 July—your Lordships can see it in the green sheets of House of Lords Business—to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to explore the costs and implications of a no-deal exit. Our aim is to be helpful to Parliament in investigating and reporting back with hard facts, not just views or opinions.

To return to the matter at hand, this summit provided Mrs May with the opportunity to bid farewell to her fellow leaders and pave the way for the new Prime Minister. However, with Mr Johnson currently most likely to win the keys to Downing Street, perhaps this was the moment of realisation. There were some warm words for Mrs May, including from an unlikely source in the form of President Macron. Perhaps he was recalling a song from Joni Mitchell in which she sang,

“you don’t know what you’ve got

Till it’s gone”.

This summit highlighted that, while Theresa May is still in office, she is not in power. That is not entirely her fault. The UK lost considerable influence under David Cameron, and Mrs May’s authority has been undermined both by members of her Cabinet and by her Back-Benchers. Nevertheless, last week’s meeting made it clear that, although Mrs May had a seat at the table, the UK had lost its voice. In years gone by, the UK has been a decisive player in allocating the EU’s top jobs, including gaining the office of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in 2009—a position held by the former Leader of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. Under the last Labour Government, we were instrumental in advancing collective international action, both within the EU and beyond, to prevent a climate catastrophe.

The outcomes of this summit matched expectations in the run-up to it. There was no agreement on appointments, meaning, as we have heard, further discussions and another summit in the days and weeks to come. Despite the UK Government having been pushed, via an Opposition day Motion in the Commons, into acknowledging the urgency of dealing with the climate emergency and setting a target of zero emissions by 2050, the EU’s commitment is disappointing. I understand that the position was watered down by member states, including Poland, one of Mrs May’s strongest allies. Given the urgency of the issue, I hope that the Prime Minister pressed Poland and others to accept a stronger position. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether the Prime Minister made any attempt to gain support from Poland and whether she had any bilateral discussions with the head of that country.

Whatever happens next with Brexit, the next Prime Minister must recognise the importance of the UK and the EU working together to protect the environment. All the issues raised by this summit—disinformation and hybrid threats, climate change and external relations regarding Russia—are ones on which EU co-operation is absolutely vital and in which the role of the UK could and should have been positive. What could have been an optimistic and ambitious start to a new institutional cycle was instead a sign of a Europe in flux. Populist rhetoric and climate change scepticism are on the rise, and not just in the Conservative Party.

Mrs May obviously wants to secure a more positive legacy, both at home and abroad, than that of her predecessor. She could have tried to use this summit to that end. Sadly, it echoed her premiership: an exercise in mismanagement and missed opportunities, and that, sadly, will be her legacy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and join her in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, a speedy recovery and all our good wishes.

I do not know whether noble Lords saw the interview given by the Prime Minister as she arrived at last week’s Council meeting. It made me wince because she was asked, in effect, what she was hoping to get out of the meeting for the UK. The answer was, in effect, “Nothing”. She went with no authority at home and no locus for intervening substantially on any of the real discussions. I have been trying to decide when the UK last had such little influence in the affairs of Europe as a whole, but I cannot think of such a time. No doubt other Members of the House, particularly the historians, will be able to help me, but I suspect they too will be struggling.

The Council discussed some of the most crucial issues facing us: climate change, the disinformation threat to our democracies and external relations with our neighbours including Russia and Turkey. On all the conclusions reached, as the Statement makes clear, the UK was in agreement. On climate change, for example, the fact that a large majority of member states have signed up to reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 is in no small measure as a result of UK leadership on this issue over a number of years.

But the Council also adopted a new strategic agenda for the next five years, a decision about which the Statement makes no mention at all. Normally, when I see the words, “strategic agenda”, my eyes glaze over, but I have read this document; I wonder whether the Leader of the House has done so too. It is extremely wide-ranging and covers,

“protecting citizens and freedoms”,

economic development,

“building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe … promoting Europe’s interests and values in the world”,

and “how to deliver” on its policy priorities. Everything in this strategy chimes in with the kind of Europe and world which we on these Benches have spent our political lives trying to promote.

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether there is anything in this strategy with which the Government disagree? If not, how do they think the UK can help achieve its aims while outside the EU, outside the negotiating chamber and outside the institutions which will be absolutely key if the strategy is to be made to work? The truth is that the EU’s agenda is our agenda. It is not Trump’s agenda, nor Putin’s, nor Modi’s, nor Xi’s, nor that of any other significant player on the world stage; yet these are the people whom the Brexiteers are asking us to embrace. To be unable to participate in implementing this strategy when we leave the EU would reduce the EU’s effectiveness in all the crucial areas it covers, as well as our own. Both of us would be losers.

The other thing that the Council covered was who should occupy the top posts in the EU for the period ahead. There were—indeed are—some excellent Liberal candidates, such as Margrethe Vestager for Commission President and Mark Rutte for President of the Council. It was one of the most oft-repeated arguments during the referendum that we had such people foisted on us, with no say; of course, as full participating members, we did have a major say. The irony is that, if and when we vote to remain in the EU at some point over the next 12 months, we will, for the first time ever, be a member state that will have had no say on who occupies these top posts.

This, however, is the least of the challenges we now face as a country. We have a Government with no effective majority, a potential Prime Minister who is the laughing stock of the world, and a Commons which cannot agree on any form of Brexit. The only way out of this shambles is a referendum on whether to remain in the EU followed by a general election to sweep out this Government. Only when we have done so will a British Prime Minister again be able to hold their head up at a future EU Council meeting, and in the world more generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I agree with the noble Viscount. There will be a further opportunity at the G20 later this week for us to talk to our global allies about some of these extremely difficult and dangerous issues.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as we have a few minutes to spare, may I press the noble Baroness on my point about Poland? Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to discuss climate change with Poland and put pressure on it to take a better position than that taken by other EU countries?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid I cannot talk about private conversations. What I can say is that the Prime Minister led the advocacy for countries to adopt the target and was disappointed when that did not happen. We will continue through all our forums and in all our discussions to advocate that task because it is the right thing to do. I believe that a number of countries wanted further information and that the EU is doing further work to allay some of the concerns raised by countries that did not feel able to support the target. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will continue to put forward our view that the EU needs to make this move. To achieve what we want in tackling climate change, there must be a global effort.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, while the Leader of the House is dealing with business, will she confirm that, whichever Minister is speaking from the Dispatch Box in the House of Lords, they are answering on behalf of the whole Government, not one particular department? If a Member of this House asks a Question about, for example, non-disclosure agreements across Government, the Minister should answer right across Government, not just for his department.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this may be helpful to the noble Baroness when she is answering questions. My noble friend Lord Hain made a pertinent and important point. Does she accept that if we did not spend so much time on legislation for a no-deal Brexit—which has been ruled out by both Houses —we would have time for these other crucial issues?

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the example which the noble Lord gave. It sounds as if he has also spoken to my noble friend Lord Duncan about these issues. I can assure him that they are taken seriously and will take back his comments. I believe that my Front Bench speaks extremely well for the whole Government from this Dispatch Box.

Leaving the European Union

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I listened carefully but I do not think that any of us are any the wiser having heard it for a second time. I am not clear about the purpose of today’s Statement. As we have come to expect, the Government have precious little to report.

Like many noble Lords, I remember the days when Prime Ministers made Statements of substance that genuinely updated Parliament and provided new information—Statements that showed true leadership. In today’s Statement, the Prime Minister has not told us anything that we do not already know. We already know that in opening the negotiations, Mrs May set out a series of unhelpful and unrealistic red lines; for example, in ruling out a new comprehensive and permanent customs union. We already know that she sought legally binding changes to the backstop, replacing it with alternative arrangements to prevent a hard border—but the only reason for the backstop is that the Government were unable to identify any viable alternative arrangements. We already know that the EU emphatically rejected reopening negotiations on the agreement signed by the Prime Minister in November. We already know that Mrs May consistently and irresponsibly refuses to rule out leaving the EU without a deal, even though her own Government’s economic analysis shows that this would be hugely damaging.

Today’s Statement confirms that the Prime Minister has made no progress other than holding a series of further meetings to debate the exact same issues she has been debating for nearly two years. If media reports are accurate, the EU is totally bewildered that she seeks to return to the negotiating table while refusing to budge even one inch from those Lancaster House red lines. How many deadlines has the Prime Minister now missed? The agreement was supposed to have been reached in October; the original vote was pulled in December; and now there is not even a guaranteed vote on the revised deal before the end of the month. Each week MPs are told to expect a meaningful vote the following week, only for it to be delayed again and again.

Having seen off most of the amendments that she considered unhelpful last time, the Prime Minister’s request for another two weeks might just about give her Whips something to work with. But that all too familiar mantra that the only way to avoid leaving the EU without a deal is to support her deal points to a strategy to just run down the clock until the only options are her deal or no deal. As I and other noble Lords have said countless times, that is grossly irresponsible. The Prime Minister tells others to hold their nerve while she engages in her favourite pastime—it used to be played in the playground when I was 12—of kicking the can down the road. While she tells business and industry to hold their nerve, they are losing patience and being forced to make decisions factoring in the worst possible scenario—as we have seen from the Nissan decision on investment in Sunderland.

Part of me really wants to believe that the Prime Minister, a former Home Secretary, is simply too smart and too patriotic to be responsible for a catastrophic crash out of the EU, but we all know—though it is not in the Statement—that intense and expensive preparations are now being made for a crash-landing no deal. Can the Leader remind us of the Government’s budget for no deal? Can she tell us how many meetings she has personally attended with other Ministers and/or officials where no-deal preparations have been discussed? Can she confirm that, despite there being just 45 days to Brexit, with firms hired for no-deal contingencies being stripped of their contracts and police forces hiring personnel for crisis centres, this topic was not even discussed in any detail at today’s Cabinet meeting? Can she tell us why the legislation that the Government tell us is so necessary, deal or no deal, is being held up by the Government? The Report stages of the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills have not even been scheduled in the House of Commons, despite the Government cancelling the February Recess.

The Opposition have provided a clear alternative that we believe could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU. It is all very well the Minister laughing, but his alternative proposals—the proposals from his Government—have been soundly rejected by the House of Commons, and nothing further has come back from the Commons that can gain the confidence of Parliament. This is far too serious to be laughing about the situation.

Let me repeat that. We have provided an alternative that we think could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU—despite the Minister’s smirks. The Prime Minister has ruled out that alternative in favour of her rejected deal and the hopeless aim of reopening a closed legal agreement. This is my final question to the Leader of the House: if the EU 27 refuse to shift and the Prime Minister is unable to get agreement from Parliament for her deal, what will she do then? Will she accept the need to extend the Article 50 period, or will she simply march the country off the cliff edge?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, given that we are now only six weeks from the date on which we are due to leave the EU, this is a most remarkable Statement. It basically says that, despite her trips to Brussels and Ireland, her hard stare at Juncker and dinner with Varadkar, the Prime Minister has made no progress whatsoever in offering—far less negotiating—credible new terms on which we might leave the EU.

The Prime Minister’s cricketing hero is Geoffrey Boycott, who had a test average of 47.7. By comparison, I am afraid, the Prime Minister’s Brexit negotiations average is close to negligible. It seems that, rather than the somewhat pedestrian Boycott, her real hero comes from Dickens. I wonder when she first read about Mr Micawber and his optimistic but desperate philosophy that disaster would be averted simply by something turning up. This has clearly been adopted by the Prime Minister as her guiding principle. Of a more positive agenda there is no sign, and in two areas in particular this calamitous lack of leadership is seriously irresponsible.

First, it is now clear that it is impossible to get through all the necessary Brexit-related legislation by 29 March. Even if a deal were eventually agreed by the Commons, an extension of the Article 50 period would be necessary, if only to get this legislation through. By all accounts, the Prime Minister realises this. But instead of being open and asking for an extension herself, she is waiting to be defeated on this in the Commons, at which point she will go to Brussels, blame the Commons, and ask for one then. She is adopting the example of the French revolutionary leader, who, pursuing the mob, exclaimed, “I am their leader. I must follow them”. It is a complete and abject abrogation of leadership.

Secondly, there is the impact that lack of any certainty is having on the business community. Noble Lords may have read in the Sunday Times of the Wiltshire-based cheesemaker who sells a third of her product to Canada, and who is now having to suspend further shipments because she simply does not know on what basis they might be allowed into Canada after 29 March. Hers is one of thousands of businesses in the same boat. Talking of boats, there are ships ready to sail to and from the Far East which are not due to reach their destination until after 29 March. What advice on tariffs, labelling and standards are the Government giving those contemplating putting their goods on these ships?

More generally, the impact of the Government’s indecision is crippling the economy. Yesterday’s GDP figures, the fall in manufacturing output, the collapse in investment and the inevitable worsening of the public finances mean that you can forget windy rhetoric about the end of austerity. The public finances will inevitably weaken now, whatever Brexit path is chosen.

The only suggestions which the Prime Minister took to Brussels were either non-negotiable, such as a legally binding time limit or exit clause to the backstop, or non-specific: the so-called alternative arrangements. There was zero chance of these being acceptable to the EU. At one level, therefore, it is no surprise that she is putting off meaningful votes for another fortnight—there is nothing new to vote on. It is, however, somewhat depressing that it looks as though the Commons will not seek to force any of the issues on Thursday of this week. The clock will simply continue ticking, ever louder, for another fortnight. With 29 March so close, this brinkmanship is damaging and dangerous.

The Prime Minister, and I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, will be well aware that Geoffrey Boycott had a reputation for running out his batting partner in order to save himself. It seems that the Prime Minister is willing to leave the country stranded in order to save the Tory party. It is a demeaning strategy and one which deserves to fail.

Leaving the European Union

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I concur at the outset with the Prime Minister’s comments about Northern Ireland. It is an ongoing situation. As a former Minister in Northern Ireland, I know the impact that this will have on local communities. With all the work that has gone in over the years to bring peace to Northern Ireland, this will be devastating to so many. It proves how right it was that, across both Houses and across all parties, people worked together to get the Good Friday agreement and bring peace and stability to local communities.

We requested that this Statement be taken earlier in the day and that the time for Back-Bench contributions be extended. I am sorry that the Government were unable to accept that and rejected that request. However, after reading the Statement, I think I understand why. There is not much that is new or of any real substance. The Prime Minister made her Statement today as a direct result of Dominic Grieve’s amendment, which accelerated the timescales previously laid down in legislation, giving her three days to respond to the decision of the House of Commons.

This Statement is another reminder for your Lordships’ House of the value of the meaningful vote provisions in the withdrawal Act, which originated from an amendment passed in your Lordships’ House that required the Prime Minister to return to Parliament if her proposed deal—her “plan A”—was defeated. It was—overwhelmingly. But while Brexit remains Brexit, plan B does not mean plan B. It does not even look like an A+, perhaps more like an A-.

Following a historic and unprecedented defeat for the Prime Minister’s agreement, Mrs May offered to talk to MPs from all parties, with the Government approaching those meetings in what she called “a constructive spirit”. Yet it appears that the constructive spirit lasts only as long as it takes to agree with the Prime Minister. Despite having been challenged by the parliamentary leaders of all opposition parties—excluding the DUP, of course—to take a no-deal exit off the table, Mrs May has held firm and refused to do so.

We know that, under Article 50 and the withdrawal Act, no deal is the legal default, but the Government can change that. The Prime Minister should certainly acknowledge that it would be a calamitous outcome for the UK and therefore that it is of no value at all as a bargaining position. If the threat of a no-deal exit was being used by Mrs May to shore up support for the plan A deal, it was a spectacular misjudgment and failure. She rightly promised a change of approach, including a greater role for Parliament in setting the mandate for future trade negotiations. But, once again, within days we find out that nothing has changed. The Prime Minister said in her Statement that she had,

“listened to colleagues across Parliament from different parties and … different views”.

She might have listened, but she is clearly not truly hearing what people are saying.

A constructive spirit means willingness to compromise from all parties. In any negotiation that must be the starting point or there is simply nothing to be gained. It is no good the Prime Minister meeting the hardliners in the European Research Group and the DUP while sending her de facto deputy and her chief of staff to meet others on the other side of the argument. It is no good ruling out an option—an EU-UK customs union—that the Opposition support and the EU appears to be willing to negotiate while continuing to risk a chaotic no-deal exit that would leave citizens, businesses and communities with no certainty whatever.

Yet, rather predictably, the Prime Minister has today presented a so-called plan B that, as I have said, looks extraordinarily similar to her plan A: go back to Brussels for further talks, even as the clock ticks down; ask again for concessions on the backstop, even though the EU has been clear that it is not up for renegotiation; and then blame others for holding up Brexit, even though it is the Government who have negotiated an agreement that has been comprehensively rejected by all parties. In this House, we passed a Motion by an overwhelming majority, believing that the agreement would weaken our prosperity, security and global standing.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness can confirm this, but according to media reports on Friday Mrs May held a series of crisis phone calls with EU leaders, including Chancellor Merkel, in the wake of her historic defeat. Despite her offer to hold talks with opposition parties and build a cross-party consensus behind a new deal, EU diplomatic sources said that the Prime Minister’s demands were in fact completely unchanged—something that was “greeted with incredulity”. She has clearly made a conscious decision to reject common-sense solutions that could bring politicians and voters of all colours together in order to have another attempt at securing concessions and assurances that she has already failed to win back in December. It appears that this is simply an effort to keep her premiership alive—or, if not alive, at least on life support.

The Prime Minister ignores at every step of this process the fact that her hardliners have shown that they will not be swayed. They have undermined her authority at every turn and taken her right to the brink. Their opposition to the deal is as strong as Mrs May’s stubborn determination not to cede any ground to others, even if this could gain wider support and prevent a no-deal or a blind Brexit. This was highlighted at the weekend when a former Downing Street adviser was asked by Andrew Marr whether he had ever seen Theresa May compromise. His response? “I can’t think of one off the top of my head”. In other words, everyone—the Opposition, the EU 27, Cabinet members and Back-Benchers alike—has to shift position: everyone except Theresa May. That is no way to run a Government or a country and it is no way to conduct one of the most important and complex negotiations that a UK Government have ever participated in. If the Prime Minister’s objective is to deliver a Brexit that can bring the country back together, I have to say to the noble Baroness that that approach is doomed to failure.

While I disagree with much of the Prime Minister’s approach on Brexit, I welcome the clarity offered on the Good Friday agreement. I am sure I am not the only noble Lord who was concerned—we heard earlier that many noble Lords were—by the comments reported over the weekend. It surely must always be inconceivable that the Government would seek to reopen that agreement as a way of trying to break the impasse on the EU issue. Doing so would be completely unacceptable. It will be good if the noble Baroness could reinforce that in her comments.

I also welcome Mrs May’s announcement relating to the waiving of fees for EU citizens applying for settled status. That is another issue on which your Lordships’ House spoke early in the Brexit process and the Government should have acted months ago. We also welcome the commitment that we have asked for before that Ministers will brief Select Committees in confidence, rather than the only option being for MPs to force an issue by action on the Floor of the House of Commons. Could the Leader of the House confirm that this briefing will extend to our own EU committees and that they will also be briefed in confidence? I welcome the belated recognition that the Prime Minister needs a negotiating mandate from Parliament.

With each Statement and each vote, we continue edging towards 29 March and the disaster that would be no deal. I have a couple of questions for the Leader of the House. First, if, when the House of Commons has its debate next Tuesday, it instructs the Government to take a no-deal outcome off the table, how will the Prime Minister respond?

Secondly, however Mrs May responds to next week’s Commons votes, can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be the opportunity to consider the outcome in your Lordships’ House? I know that a formal Statement will be repeated, but she will recall that last week the Prime Minister made a point of order at the end of business. However the Statement is made, it would be helpful if this House could consider the outcome and Mrs May’s comments.

Finally, with so few legislative days available between now and 29 March, will the Government build on their commitment to engage with Select Committees and release the relevant clauses of the draft EU withdrawal agreement Bill to the Constitution Committee to enable some form of pre-legislative scrutiny? When the noble Baroness comes to answer those questions, I urge her to bear in mind her oft-repeated assurance that the Government are planning for all eventualities. As always, the House remains ready to be helpful to the Government, but we have stressed time and again that that can happen only if we have the relevant information at our disposal.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and echo the comments in it about Northern Ireland. This is a truly remarkable Statement, following the largest ever defeat of a Government on a major policy issue. If one loses a vote by 230, common sense dictates that there is something very flawed with the proposal that suffered the defeat, and that to get support for a replacement proposition some considerable changes will be needed. What magnitude of change does the Prime Minister think is required to turn things round?

The Prime Minister was very clear. “My sense”, she said, is that three changes are needed—just three. Here they are: first, being more flexible in involving Parliament in negotiating the future relationship with the EU; secondly, embedding the strongest possible protections on workers’ rights and the environment; and, thirdly, finding an alternative way to deliver no hard border in Northern Ireland. That is it; problem solved. But involving Parliament to a greater extent has been forced on the Prime Minister and will happen whatever she says or does. Workers’ rights and the environment are very important, but so are myriad other issues. The Government have never said that they would dilute protections in those areas anyway, so why is that a change? If there is a more universally acceptable alternative to the backstop for Northern Ireland, it would surely have been found ages ago. The Government’s proposal for a bilateral treaty with Ireland—today’s latest wheeze—was killed off the moment it saw the light of day.

Of the more substantive changes that the Prime Minister could have advocated but has ruled out, three stand out. First, there is ruling out no deal. The Prime Minister summarily rules this out, despite knowing that a large majority in the Commons, and probably in her Cabinet and Government, is strongly opposed to it. This just seems foolhardy.

Secondly, there is suspending Article 50. I suspect that if there is any proposition that would gain overwhelming support in Parliament, it is that Article 50 has to be extended, come what may. Even in the unlikely event of the Government gaining support for the deal, the idea that they could pass all the legislation required before 29 March without invoking emergency powers is completely fanciful.

Thirdly, there is a referendum. The Prime Minister has at least stopped repeating the nonsense that it would take a year to organise such a poll, but has said that it would be difficult to do so before the European Parliament elections. As my colleague and noble friend Lord Tyler has shown with his draft Bills, it would not be difficult in the slightest to have a people’s vote in May. As for the Prime Minister’s assertion that such a vote would threaten social cohesion, it is surely much less of a threat than trying to force through a deal which has neither the support of the Commons nor, more importantly, of the people as a whole.

It must be clear to everyone except the Prime Minister herself that her sense of what will secure a Commons majority is simply wrong. It is unsurprising therefore that Back-Benchers are seeking methods to take the initiative. There has been much criticism of plans by Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper and others to allow the Commons to decide its own business, as this would require a change to Standing Orders. It is obviously up to the Commons to decide how it runs its affairs, but it is worth recalling that the Standing Order which gives government business priority was introduced by Gladstone in the 1880s to stop filibustering by Irish MPs and allow decisions to be taken. It was a straightforward political fix. It has, however, like many things in Parliament—such as the Barnett formula, possibly—metamorphosed over time from a fix to a sacred constitutional principle. It is no such thing. As a political heir to Gladstone, I am pretty sure that the grand old man would now be arguing for the rules to be changed, and I hope that they are.

As for your Lordships’ House, we will have a debate next Monday—presumably on a take-note Motion. As was the case last week, however, this hardly seems adequate, and I suspect that we will need to reconsider a Motion which again firmly opposes no deal and possibly covers other issues.

I know that Jean-Claude Juncker is not everyone’s favourite, but he surely got it right today when he said: “Don’t look for answers to Brussels. This is the moment for London to speak, not for us”. Today’s Statement shows that, if he awaits the Prime Minister for a viable way forward, he will be waiting for a very long time. We simply do not have that time.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Lisvane set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Baroness Kidron to 2 hours.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to assist the House. Your Lordships will be aware that, normally on a Wednesday morning, the future business of the House for the following week is published, and yet here we are at almost 20 minutes to 12 on Thursday and we have not yet had sight of the business for next week. This is quite extraordinary and, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. I appreciate that the Prime Minister is highly likely to be making a Statement on Monday that will require a debate within seven days, which may require some change, but I fail to understand why the business for next week is not available. Can the noble Baroness or her colleague the Chief Whip enlighten the House as to the problem?

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that all our business next week has been tabled in the greens and has been available to noble Lords. We shall be publishing Forthcoming Business as soon as we can today because, as she may not be aware, the House of Commons business has just been announced through the business Statement, which we felt was likely to have an impact, and we wanted to discuss it through the usual channels to ensure that the House of Lords business matched. We will be talking through the usual channels as soon as we leave this Chamber in order that we can publish Forthcoming Business as soon as we can afterwards.

Leaving the European Union

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. The Prime Minister so often tells us that nothing has changed. As the clock continues to run down to 29 March, it is worth reminding ourselves that, while Mrs May’s red lines have not shifted—with tragically predictable results—plenty of other things have. We were told that there would be no “running commentary” on the Brexit talks, as that would undermine the national interest, yet a prime ministerial EU statement has become an almost weekly event. We were told that “Brexit means Brexit”, but, even now, the Government still have not got an agreed definition. And we were told that,

“no deal is better than a bad deal”,

yet the Prime Minister has warned MPs that voting against her deal, as we heard just now, risks the UK crashing out without a deal—which, she finally acknowledges, “would cause significant disruption”. We know that it would be catastrophic.

However, there is one area where nothing has changed. As the Leader said, today we were given the opportunity to read an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister, President Juncker and President Tusk. What did we find out? First, that the backstop is still a backstop; and, secondly, that documents continue to have the legal status they have always had. The Prime Minister promised to obtain legally binding changes to the deal, in order to address the concerns of her Back-Benchers and the DUP. The advice of her Attorney-General shows that she has failed. He confirms that, though the December Council conclusions have legal standing,

“they do not alter the fundamental meanings of”,

the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol. He is clear that today’s letter from the EU is only useful in terms of making a “political”—a political, not a legal—

“judgment as to the likelihood of the backstop coming into force”.

I have two questions for the Leader of the House. Does she accept, as it says in the letter, that the backstop remains,

“unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement”?

Does she agree that that comment, in the letter from Tusk and Juncker, is accurate? Secondly, more than a month has now passed since the first meaningful vote was pulled. Does the Leader of the House really believe that it has been worth the wait?

Privileges and Conduct Committee

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

The system this House has in place is inquisitorial in character and provides none of the safeguards I have identified. There is no effective representation of the accused. There is no oral representation by counsel. There is no cross-examination of the relevant witnesses. These defects—and I regard them as defects—are especially important when, as in the case of Lord Lester, the allegations relate to events some 12 years previous. The consequences for him were self-evidently serious. Credibility was the central issue. The standard of proof was the civil one—namely, on the balance of probabilities—which is of course lower than that found in the criminal courts.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has complained about the process not being one of cross-examination. I do not know if he heard the noble Lord, Lord McFall, explain at the beginning of this debate why this is an inquisitorial, not a cross-examination process. In normal practice, victims of sexual harassment would not be cross-examined. He might have found it helpful if he—and others— had examined the transcripts of the commissioner’s inquisitorial process by which she questioned the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera. Has he taken the opportunity to read them?

[Viscount Hailsham]

In the end, of course, it is a matter of opinion, but I practised at the bar for 50 years, and I believe very strongly that cross-examination is essential if you wish to find out the truth of matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham]

I have not read the entire transcript of the evidence but I have read the entirety of the first and second reports. Furthermore, I have read all the appendices to them.

I come back to the central issue. We have set in place an inquisitorial system and we have to ask ourselves a very serious question. Does it measure up to the requirement in the Guide to the Code of Conduct which requires us to address and respect the principles of natural justice and fairness? We need to ask ourselves if there is a good reason why we do not. I am bound to say that I cannot identify a plausible reason for this. Moreover, our procedures do not comply with the recommendations made to Parliament by committees appointed to consider our procedures.

It is true that some of the recommendations to which I am about to refer were made in different contexts, but I suggest that they set out principles of fairness and natural justice which are general in application. I simply do not accept the arguments for not applying those principles, which appear on page 18 of the further report. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege reported in March 1999 and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, recited—

Is the noble Baroness trying to intervene?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

No, pouring water.

[Viscount Hailsham]

I am so sorry; I did not mean to embarrass the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, recited the chief recommendations of the 1999 committee, which included a recommendation that the person alleged to have committed the wrong should have the opportunity to call witnesses at the appropriate time and to examine other witnesses.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise to noble Lords for intervening again. Does he accept that that particular committee in 1999 was not looking at an internal disciplinary process but was in fact looking at how to deal with contempt of Parliament, which is a much more serious matter than an internal disciplinary issue?

[Viscount Hailsham]

It was laying down general principles of natural justice and fairness—that is the point. I believe that they have an application for all these proceedings. The recommendations in the 1999 report do not stand alone. Incidentally, the membership of that committee was extraordinarily distinguished. It included not only Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead but a former Lord Chief Justice, a former Attorney-General, a former Solicitor-General and two former Home Secretaries. Their views were not lightly to be disregarded.

In substance, they were repeated in the 1995 report on standards in public life. Again, they are substantially the same as those made in 1967 by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege—again, a different context, but with principles of general application. That committee recommended that the rights granted to a person against whom a complaint is made should include the right to examine, cross-examine and re-examine witnesses and to make submissions to the Committee, including by an authorised representative. In the spirit of due diligence—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as noble Baroness the Leader of the House said at the start of this debate, I had not intended to intervene, and I strongly support the committee’s report. However, I must publicly dissociate myself from some of the comments made, particularly, I am afraid, by my noble friend—my old friend—Lord McNally. I strongly support the complainant and would not wish her to believe that the sentiment of the House is anything other than to give her support at this time, rather than criticism.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I sense the mood of the House is that we should be drawing the debate to a close. I appreciate that it probably was not easy for the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to make those comments; I think the House is grateful that he did.

As my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, this is not a court of law. We are dealing with an internal disciplinary procedure of your Lordships’ House. I would like to place on record, and I hope the House will concur with me, our thanks and appreciation, to the commissioner for undertaking what has been a long and detailed inquiry, to the sub-committee that first looked at this and said it was appropriate that the committee address the issues—I know from my own work the amount of time and effort they have taken to read the reports and to look at the information—and to the Senior Deputy Speaker. I hope not one iota of anything he said at the Dispatch Box today—which I strongly support—will be retracted.

In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords, raised issues of process. Contrary to his disappointing assertions that they were ignored by the committee, they clearly were not. The House voted by 78 to 101 that the commissioner had failed to comply with paragraph 21 of the Code of Conduct, which requires her to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, but gave no direction on what should happen next, other than that it should be remitted to the committee and it was for the committee to look at the matter. The committee did, at length and in full, and it has produced a further report, which endorsed our previous recommendation after further and detailed consideration, and which it asks your Lordships’ House to consider and accept today. These issues were re-examined by the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said that the committee investigated. No, it did not; it was an independent investigation by the commissioner appointed by this House.

I was extremely disappointed by the comments made about the qualifications and experience of the commissioner and I am glad that they have been redressed today. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he considered such criticism of the commissioner appropriate. To criticise her qualifications and experience is not appropriate. I was on her appointment panel, as was the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If people have concerns about those aspects, they should criticise the noble Lord and me, who continue to have full confidence in the commissioner and her work.

The debate of 15 November has been given extensive consideration today, but it went way beyond what many of us considered appropriate or necessary for the matter being discussed. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, Lord Lester was referred to several times during it. Lord Lester has an enviable professional reputation and his work is held in high regard, as was rightly referred to in the debate. However, the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera, also has an excellent and impressive professional reputation, but that was not acknowledged and it must be today.

I want to reflect on two or three things that have been said in your Lordships’ House today. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws correctly identified the problems of sitting in judgment on friends and colleagues. That is why we have a process of independent, thorough investigation by the commissioner. We have also to consider our role in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who criticised the commissioner’s report, has not only been a personal friend of Lord Lester—we all understand the pressures that brings—but acted as judge and jury on the decision, was a lobbyist for him, wrote newspaper articles putting the case for him and was an advocate for him in this House. There is an issue about process and procedure that has to be questioned: being judge, jury, advocate and lobbyist for an individual who is a friend and a Member of your Lordships’ House does not seem appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a somewhat embarrassing speech, talked about the wrong process. What else was the complainant to do? How else is somebody supposed to make a complaint? If the process is not perfect, are they to stand back and not make a complaint? It is right that people should feel that they can come to your Lordships’ House and make a complaint when appropriate. Comments have been made both today and previously about how women who have been the victims of harassment or abuse should behave. There is no blueprint that says, “If this has happened to you, this is how you must behave”. The commissioner has used a process in her investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to a book being signed affectionately. Women across this House will tell you that such behaviour is not abnormal where people feel uncomfortable after somebody has harassed them or behaved inappropriately towards them but go on to have a professional relationship with them, particularly if it is in public. Others said, “I’ve never heard anything like this before”. Sometimes our friends behave inappropriately. That is exactly why professional investigators are required; it is not a decision just of your Lordships’ House.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the 1999 committee on parliamentary privilege. I said in my intervention on him that the report was on a matter relating to the contempt of Parliament, which is an imprisonable offence. That is why the standard of investigation should be higher than for an internal disciplinary matter.

We came back to the cross-examination or inquisitorial process. The noble Viscount eventually had to admit that he had not read all the transcripts, I think he said. My understanding is that only two Members of your Lordships’ House asked to see the transcripts at all. The transcripts, which members of the committee and I have read, clearly indicate an inquisitorial process by the commissioner to do justice to the evidence and test the information given to her.