Business of the House (Virtual Proceedings relating to the Committee stage of public bills and to Messages and First Readings)

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the first part of the amendment provides that:

“All bills considered in a Virtual Committee shall be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration in the Chamber.”


It may be convenient for the House if I speak to the second part of the amendment too, which is that this order—the arrangements that the Leader has just proposed for virtual Committees—

“shall expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”

First, I echo every word the Leader said about the staff of the House. We pay tribute to them and recognise the great sacrifices they have been making and the intense pressure they have been working under. We fully accept that—in so far as Virtual Proceedings need to take place, which is the key proviso in this respect—special arrangements need to be put in place. I in no way question what the Leader said in that regard. The point that goes to the heart of the matter on Committee stages—and the reason Committee stages are so important—is that this is the House’s role in making the law, which is the most important function we undertake on behalf of the people.

The key issue is how far we need to consider Bills in these virtual Committee stages anyway. We are in a crisis. The overwhelming object of our public duties should be focusing on resolving the crisis. Looking at the legislation it is proposed that we take in Committee next week, it is not clear to me why any of this needs to be considered until the crisis is over. We are considering this legislation at the Government’s behest. The Government are imposing these requirements on the House, not the House itself.

The House’s duty is this. If the Government believe that legislation needs to be considered during the crisis—it is the Government’s decision that the legislation should be considered—our job as parliamentarians is to put in place proper arrangements to see that parliamentary scrutiny takes place in accordance with our constitutional requirements. The problem with the virtual Committees as currently proposed is that this is not the case. The Leader said that Members can take part, but in order to take part—as she said in her remarks—they have to give advance notice of the specific amendments they wish to participate in. This is a radical breach from the House’s normal procedures. Members cannot vote in Committee; there are no arrangements for voting. There are no arrangements at all for spontaneous contributions, and at the moment there is no automatic procedure for recommittal.

I therefore press the Leader: what will happen to these Bills after their virtual consideration? What is the procedure, if noble Lords are dissatisfied with the consideration that has taken place in virtual Committee, for recommitting? My understanding—the Leader can correct me—is that the House itself has to vote for recommittal; it is not an automatic procedure. In this amendment I propose an automatic procedure of recommittal to a Committee of the whole House, which would be either the House itself or the hybrid House, if by then we have the hybrid House. It will not otherwise happen. I would be grateful if the Leader could confirm what the arrangements are in respect of recommittal. If noble Lords are dissatisfied with the consideration that has taken place in virtual Committee, what arrangements will there be for recommittal? If they are not adequate, will she accept my amendment?

The other point of great importance is the temporary nature of these proceedings. If they are to be temporary, the Government should accept a sunset clause. That is the reason I have included the second part of the amendment—that these arrangements for virtual consideration will

“expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”

I would like to press the Leader on one or two specific points. She said that the detailed arrangements for Committee stage were published on Monday. I confess that I have not had a chance to read them, so maybe they are in there. It is not easy to find a lot of the documents being referred to at the moment unless they are pointed up from the Front Bench. Currently, because it is not possible to vote in Grand Committee and decisions can be taken only by unanimity, if noble Lords are not content with proceedings they can object to decisions being taken—I have myself—and they are therefore returned to the House.

In a Committee stage, if a noble Lord online objects to a clause standing part, what happens? Does the clause stand part or not? This is a fairly fundamental constitutional issue. If it stands part, it means that the proceedings in the virtual Committee are of no account, because noble Lords have expressed dissatisfaction and are not prepared to agree to the proceedings, yet the proceedings are still deemed to be agreed. That would be an extreme departure from acceptable parliamentary practice. If Members are allowed to object to clauses standing part, what happens if they so object and the relevant clause is not deemed to be agreed by the virtual Committee? The only solution to that issue I can see is that those clauses are then remitted for reconsideration of the Bill by a Committee of the House.

I would be grateful if the Leader could answer my specific questions. Will she tell us of the Government’s willingness to see Bills recommitted after virtual Committee if there are concerns, what the procedure would be and whether she would be prepared to accept a sunset clause so that for only a very few Bills in these emergency conditions are we expected to undergo this very substandard scrutiny which in no other circumstance but this crisis would your Lordships think acceptable? I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to say a few words on this, because the issue of Committees is important and I hope that the noble Baroness can say a bit more about it. It is my understanding that if an amendment is debated in Committee but not voted on, the same amendment can be re-tabled on Report. If noble Lords are dissatisfied with any debate, considering it inadequate or wishing to contribute, they will have the opportunity to do so. That means that our proceedings could be much longer in order to get to that point—it emphasises how superior Chamber proceedings are to Virtual Proceedings.

Committees normally meet on two days a week, Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and Thursday. It is therefore imperative that the House moves to a proper four-day working week as a matter of urgency—I think that is scheduled from Monday 18 May. Can the Leader confirm that there will be a normal four-day working week for your Lordships’ House from then? That is important for our overall business.

I also understand the issue about capacity; the point has been well made. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said how much we appreciate the work that has been done to get the Virtual Proceedings running in the way they are—I think that most of us have found them better than we anticipated. I take some responsibility for them not being broadcast over the first few days after the recess because I said that, come what may and even if we were not being broadcast, we had to be back, with the opportunity to question the Government. I was pleased that that lasted for only a few days, but it was important that, whatever the situation, we returned on 21 April to fulfil our responsibilities—even if it was inadequate, we had to do so. It has steadily improved since then and we pay tribute to those responsible.

There is an issue of capacity with Committees. We currently have gaps between business that we would not normally have. Will the Leader keep under consideration sitting on a Friday? If we cannot undertake the work that we have on those four days, is it possible to use a Friday? For example, if Committees were not able to meet because the House was sitting or a debate was taking longer, we could have that open as an extra sitting day in the same way as we have sometimes had sitting Fridays.

The noble Baroness should take some pride, and I press her again to pay tribute to those who have wanted to take part in the proceedings—I think she missed that out. I say that in respect of her own Front Bench, of mine and of all those working on the Back Benches and across the House. They wish to engage because they value the work of this House. We have only to look at how the work of this House is regarded outside. I received numerous representations about the debate on the PNQ last week on child protection, even though it was brief, recognising that, across the board and in all parties, this was the House taking that issue very seriously. If we cannot do our business in the four days—and I ask the Leader to confirm that there will be a solid four days as soon as possible—we should keep open the possibility of Friday sittings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

But it would be unacceptable at the moment unless we could have some other discussions. My instinct is that Report stage of proceedings as a virtual Chamber would be rather unsatisfactory, so let us keep this under discussion and review. It would be extraordinarily difficult to do it in a way that would satisfy your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the Leader has left me more concerned after her remarks than I was before, for precisely the reason that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. It seems that the only way in which these virtual Committee proceedings would be tolerable to the House is if the House meets at Report stage, so that we can have the proper give and take that we accept as part of our proceedings, people do not have to give advance notice of their desire to participate, and we are not forced to make a really significant trade-off in the quality of our scrutiny when making the law. I put on record, which is all that we can do at the moment, my extreme dissatisfaction. That is not just on my part; I have spoken to many noble Lords who cannot be present today about these arrangements and there is very widespread dissatisfaction.

Since the Procedure Committee has not done a very good job so far of taking account of the concerns of the House, the only way that one can send it a message as to the gravity of these concerns—I understand it is meeting on Monday—is to say that, if it were to come forward with any proposal for the fully virtual consideration of Bills on Report, there would be a very significant backlash from all parts of the House on any such arrangement. I am extremely concerned that the Leader of the House has not been able to give an undertaking today that that will not happen.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I may be able to satisfy my noble friend in some way by saying that this would not be discussed by just the Procedure Committee—the usual channels would also discuss it. I have to say that I have grave concerns. Until we have a fully functioning House or an interim stage of it is hybrid, we may be unable to take Report stages, so we have to have those discussions quite urgently.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, who has reinforced exactly what I have been saying. As far as I can tell, the great majority of your Lordships would not regard it as acceptable to have a fully virtual Report stage. We obviously have no alternative but to agree to these proposals, but this is done very clearly on that understanding.

To reiterate, it is not clear to me who makes these decisions—I am even more confused after these debates about where the Procedure Committee, the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels come in—but whichever of the various bodies and shadowy institutions it is, I hope that they take account of the remarks made in the House today and that we are not placed in a position in a fortnight’s time of having a resolution tabled which would lead to a fully virtual Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Global Britain

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think there was some confusion before the start of the Statement today, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I were told that the Leader was available at 5 pm only and that the debate would be interrupted. We came in to be told that that was not the case and that the Statement would be repeated at the end of the debate, and it was then brought back on. I apologise to those who have been in and out of the Chamber waiting for the Statement, as it was not quite clear what was happening.

There have been three years of debate and discussion since the referendum and, as a country, we now have to adjust to the new political and economic reality outside the EU, for the first time in almost 50 years. For me, Friday marked a very long time in the dentist’s chair and, as the anaesthetic gradually started to wear off, the reality of the 11 pm Brexit marked a turning point for the UK.

When the Prime Minister said this morning that the UK has now embarked on a great voyage, his language finally showed the recognition that getting Brexit done is a process rather than a moment. Given the tight timescales involved in negotiating the future relationship, I welcome that both the Government and the European Commission have outlined objectives today. However, I am sure noble Lords can imagine my disappointment when I tuned in to the Sunday shows and heard Cabinet Ministers stress that any form of alignment with the EU would defeat the entire point of Brexit.

The Government publicly insist that there will be no lowering of standards. Indeed, in his speech this morning, the Prime Minister cited numerous examples of UK standards which already exceed EU ones. He specifically referenced animal welfare. I think the Leader will know of and understand the concerns of animal welfare groups and farmers who are concerned that the Government’s pursuit of a trade deal with the US threatens to erode standards here. It would be helpful if she could tell the House what categorical reassurances she can give to farmers and animal welfare groups.

Before reading the Prime Minister’s speech and the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, I had hoped for three things: first, that they would heed the long-standing calls from business to negotiate a deal maintaining frictionless trade; secondly, that the various commitments in the political declaration—a document signed off by this Prime Minister—would stand; and, thirdly, that the days of arbitrary red lines, rambling speeches and, shall we say, unconventional diplomacy were behind us, with the Government adopting a more grown-up approach. Those hopes were short-lived.

What we have seen today—I stress that it gives significantly less detail than the equivalent proposals in the European Commission’s document, so I hope there is more to come—is not dissimilar to the approach adopted by the previous Prime Minister. We have the desire for a Canada-style free trade agreement, with the veiled threat that the UK can and will pursue alternative arrangements if a deal cannot be reached with the EU 27. There is the usual red line on the CJEU, even if this could drastically reduce the scope for future co-operation in areas such as policing and security. Surely those should be at the forefront of all our minds given the weekend’s events in Streatham.

We are also told that, consistent with international best practice and the EU’s own trade agreements, we will not maintain regulatory alignment with the EU but instead seek regulatory equivalence in key fields. It would be helpful if the Leader could explain her understanding of the difference between the two.

We also have a commitment to negotiate on behalf of the whole UK family, despite the EU’s position on Gibraltar being very clear. Its position is that, unless the Government can secure the quick and explicit agreement of Spain, any new agreement would exclude Gibraltar. Can the Leader confirm when and how the Prime Minister intends to engage with counterparts in Madrid? Has that process started yet?

With the Prime Minister adopting his predecessor’s approach to the treatment of civil servants, it appears that nothing has changed. In his speech at Greenwich, the Prime Minister claimed that the UK has the economists and the trade policy experts needed to negotiate a deal but also warned that

“if we don’t have enough, or if they don’t perform, believe me we will hire some more.”

I am not sure that civil servants will appreciate comments such as that, especially at a time when those in the Brexit department are being redeployed. I am not sure that it is helpful either that our diplomats are being told not to sit alongside their EU member state counterparts, as if that is really going to help to smooth the negotiations and make them easier. It seems very petty.

Noble Lords might wonder why any of this matters when the Government have committed to make further details of the negotiations

“available to Parliament as the process develops.”

I ask the Leader: how? The measures relating to parliamentary oversight were stripped out of the WAB entirely, having been included in the previously agreed version of the Bill. We may receive, and certainly welcome, Statements from members of the Cabinet but they cannot replace a formal role for Parliament or effective and efficient engagement. If the Prime Minister has no prospect of negotiating a comprehensive deal before his self-imposed deadline of December, which in reality probably means October given the ratification required, we will fall back on either the withdrawal agreement or an Australian-style barebones deal. We appear to be back in the realm of the “managed no deal”, an idea which has already been comprehensively discredited.

Last week, the National Audit Office reported that the Government’s previous preparations for a no-deal outcome were far from successful. Despite the expense, the NAO judged that

“it is not clear that the campaign resulted in the public being significantly better prepared.”

It would be helpful if the Leader could share her views on why the NAO made that judgment, but it would be more helpful if she could tell this House who was instrumental in helping the Government draw up the plans for that engagement; clearly, they failed comprehensively. If she does not have the information, I am happy for her to write to me on that point. Can she also confirm whether the Government will initiate a new scheme—possibly Yellowhammer 2—should negotiations not progress as we hope they will? If so, when will the Government start those consultations with the organisations and groups affected? They will need to have information because we need to learn from the mistakes made this time.

I also hope that the Leader can offer some words of comfort to my noble friend Lord Dubs. Although he is not here this evening, many others who supported and voted for his amendment to the withdrawal agreement Bill are. Ministers repeated time and again that the policy relating to family reunification has not changed, and that the UK wishes to negotiate reciprocal arrangements at the earliest opportunity. So why does the Written Ministerial Statement from the Prime Minister claim only that:

“The UK is ready to discuss”


this co-operation? It is not the same as the claim we have heard from Ministers on previous occasions: that the UK has already sought talks on the issue and that it is a genuine priority. The Prime Minister says just that we are ready to discuss it, which seems a step back from what we have previously been told by Ministers.

As I said at the beginning of my response, Friday was a turning point. The debate about leaving or remaining is over and it is incumbent on all sides to work together to achieve the best possible deal for Britain. We are going to scrutinise the Government’s approach to the talks but we also stand ready, as we always have, to be constructive. I hope that Ministers will now be more open-minded, given that we have passed that 31 January deadline.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I am of course delighted that she has, because in doing so she has shown herself willing to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny where the Prime Minister has not, despite the fact that the meat of this Statement is his Written Statement to Parliament today on the UK’s approach to the Brexit negotiations. I hope that this will set a precedent, and one which she will commend to her leader in another place.

It is very instructive to compare the Prime Minister’s Statement to that issued by the EU, also today, on its approach to the negotiations. The EU document runs to some 30 pages; the Prime Minister’s to one and a half, albeit in small type. It is still pretty thin. In a number of respects, the two sets of proposals are complementary, and the tone is certainly conciliatory, which is to be welcomed. The Government are now perfectly explicit that they want a Canada-type trade agreement. In terms of the degree of closeness to the EU, that is the height of their ambitions and they accept that if they fail to get such a deal, they will revert to normal third-country arrangements. The latter option would clearly be extremely damaging, as this House has discussed many times, but so in my view would be a Canada-type agreement.

Such an agreement will require customs checks and controls, sanitary and phytosanitary controls, and much form-filling. It will not be the frictionless trade of which Mrs May was such a proponent; nor “unfettered” trade, which was the terminology of the Conservative election manifesto. For the sake of clarity, can the Leader of the House confirm that a Canada-type agreement would inevitably lead to such controls? In respect of trade between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, can she confirm that the permanent customs border will now be down the middle of the Irish Sea rather than on the UK-Irish land border? Can she also explain how a Canada-type deal would cover agricultural products given that the real Canada agreement involves tariffs and quotas on agricultural products such as poultry, eggs, beef, pork and wheat? What discussions have taken place between the Government and the NFU to ascertain how British farm production would be affected by the imposition of such Canada-type tariffs and quotas?

One area where there is clearly no current agreement between the UK and EU position is fishing. The EU document talks of aiming

“to avoid economic dislocation for Union fishermen”

and to

“build on existing reciprocal access conditions, quota shares and the traditional activity of the Union fleet”.

How do the Government square this with their aim of extending the scope of exclusive UK fishery rights? Can the Leader confirm that, when it comes to services, the Government stand by their assessment of two years ago that a Canada-style agreement would involve more than 550 restrictions in services trade?

On security, the EU document discusses co-operation between law enforcement and judicial authorities, which will be in line with arrangements for co-operation with third countries. This is a million miles short of the co-operation which now protects the UK through the Prüm and European arrest warrant systems. How do the Government, whose own document talks only about putting in place a “pragmatic agreement”, envisage replicating the benefits for the security of our citizens which the present arrangements provide?

Moving on to the section in the Statement headed “Global Britain”, I am afraid that we now enter a zone of almost entirely windy rhetoric, culminating in the hyperbolic statement that Global Britain will be

“an even stronger force for good in the world.”

To exemplify this new reality, the Statement refers to the COP 26 climate change summit that is to take place in Glasgow—our chairing of which, of course, has nothing to do with EU membership and long predates Brexit. The Government say that their approach to COP 26 is to lead by example, but the truth is that the only example they seem to be setting is of chaos and confusion. Following the sacking of Claire Perry O’Neill, can the Leader say who will now be in charge of preparing for this summit, when she expects the Cabinet sub-committee set up to manage it to have its first ever meeting, and when the Government will begin to publish their plans for the summit? The only thing that we know about it is that the costs have gone up from £250 million to £450 million, but we are no closer to knowing what the Government plan the summit to achieve.

For all the talk of global Britain, most of the rest of the globe thinks that, in pursuing Brexit, we have taken leave of our senses. Nothing in this Statement is likely to persuade them that they are wrong.

House of Lords: Appointments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, there are various established criteria for appointments to your Lordships’ House, whether distinguished service in a particular field or the potential contribution that the individual can make to the work of your Lordships’ House—or, indeed, both those things—subject to vetting for propriety. I come back to that point because it is central to the issue he has raised. All nominations are subject to independent vetting for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission before appointment. That must underpin any future consideration of this matter.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the issue of appointments to your Lordships’ House goes right to the heart of any reform we would see for this place. The Minister will be aware that your Lordships’ House has supported two methods of reform: first, ending the by-elections for hereditary Peers, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with the overwhelming support of this House; secondly, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on how to reduce the size of the House and bring some balance into appointments. The only reason why we have not had any reform is that it has been blocked by the Government. In the light of the new commission that the Government intend to set up, can the Minister tell me whether he, the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip or any senior member of the House of Lords leadership team have discussed with the Prime Minister the Burns report and ways to take this forward?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, these are matters under discussion. The Government have not yet decided what will be in the scope of the commission, as the noble Baroness knows, and whether that will include the role of the House of Lords. We will make an announcement about that in due course; the point of my saying this is that the two processes could go side by side rather than together.

Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I fully recognise the concern expressed by the noble Lord. Indeed, we have debated these matters in the past, albeit cursorily. These are matters that the Government are determined to grip. Whether the commission will be doing that is something that unfortunately I cannot be specific on at the moment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will have seen the report today that shows a dramatic increase in dissatisfaction with democracy. That is startling but hardly surprising, given the toxic nature of debate that we have seen over the last few years, so the new commission will have to look at ways to restore trust. The Government’s briefings have already provoked some interest, whether about political appointments to challenge the independence of the judiciary or about shallow comments about moving this House to York. While I understand that some No. 10 spokesmen delight in being populist, does the Minister consider that the path to restoring confidence is structural change of democratic institutions or will he accept that it is more fundamentally about behaviour and about offering hope for the future? What will really make a difference is genuinely understanding and tackling the serious issues that impact on society, from homelessness to climate emergency, if we are serious about restoring trust in the whole political system.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness makes some extremely good points. Constitutional structures matter, but I suggest that what matters equally is for British and Northern Irish citizens to have a sense of belonging to this country, not a sense of alienation, and a necessary underpinning of that is public engagement and a listening, responsive Government. A number of things are in train at the moment that are designed to achieve those ends, not least the UK prosperity fund, which is designed to reach out to deprivation and inequality wherever it exists and bind the country together in the process.

House of Lords: Future Location

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this announcement comes from the same policy brain at No. 10 that, desperate for a Brexit headline, came up with

“bung a bob for a Big Ben bong”?

We know what happened to that. But there is a serious issue: this House is part of the scrutiny of Parliament as a whole. Clearly government must better engage with the regions and the nations, but does the Minister agree that moving just one part of Parliament, albeit to the fantastic city of York, sounds more like the PM is as worried about Lords scrutiny as he is about Andrew Neil?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, far greater minds than my own are applying themselves to this important question, but I shall ensure that the noble Baroness’s observations are transmitted to the appropriate quarter.

Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission: Civil Society

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend makes an extremely pertinent point.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has twice referred to restoring trust in our institutions. I put it to him that we do not restore trust just by changing the structures of institutions. It is about engagement. I endorse fully the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Young. However, although I appreciate that this in its early stages, we need to take into account the fact that our constitution hangs together through not just individual bodies, but how these institutions relate to each other and how changing the powers of one affects the others, whether that is local government and Parliament or both Houses of Parliament.

[Earl Howe]

I do not disagree with the noble Baroness in the slightest. The commission will wish to engage with civil society, as I said earlier. The important thing is that that engagement is both wide and deep.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this debate be adjourned till Tuesday 7 January.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as someone once said, this is déjà vu all over again. It is appropriate that your Lordships’ House records our appreciation to all who have worked so hard to organise two Queen’s Speeches in such a short period of time, especially with this one being so close to Christmas. If it all seems as smooth as a swan gliding over a lake, it is only because of the furious and energetic paddling underneath. Those who have seen the hive of activity taking place behind the scenes will know what a huge logistical operation this is, involving carpenters to carpet layers, the Palace to the police, and indeed the hard-working staff and officials of Parliament. They have done a remarkable job. We are very grateful and, on behalf of the whole House, I think we should say thank you.

Although short by any standards, the last Session of Parliament cannot claim the record for being the shortest: that is still held by the Labour Government elected in 1945, which had a 41-day Session in 1948, albeit for the sole purpose of amending the Parliament Act to ensure that the nationalisation programme could progress. Last time, I was chastised by some for daring to suggest that the Queen’s Speech was not a serious programme for government for the forthcoming year but the market-testing of a manifesto for a Prime Minister clearly preparing for an election. Was I wrong?

As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, despite not being able to vote, many in your Lordships’ House will have worked on the election campaign or watched with great interest. Given the weather, I really envied those watching from the comfort of a warm armchair as I plodded through puddles and gales. It was an election that has brought the Government great success. With his “Get Brexit done” slogan, Mr Johnson tapped into the public mood of frustration, disappointment and disillusionment. As is the convention of this House, I congratulate the Government on that success. A large majority is always welcomed by a Prime Minister, and it brings with it great responsibility—for the Government, for the Opposition, and indeed for your Lordships’ House. We welcome the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal back to her position on her Benches.

The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, illustrated his deserved reputation as an experienced parliamentarian for today’s debate—though I have to say, he might have a second career as a stand-up comedian as well. He was first elected to Parliament in 1972 in a by-election where he trounced, among others, an anti-common market Conservative candidate. Later, in government, his ministerial roles included three top positions at the Treasury, with his time as Chancellor coinciding with one of the longest and deepest recessions that this country has ever known and the infamous Black Wednesday. When, after 14 years in government, he resigned after refusing a demotion, the noble Lord made a passionate speech, and part of that resonates today. He said that

“too many important decisions are made for 36 hours’ publicity … I believe that in politics one should decide what is right and then decide the presentation, not the other way round.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/1993; col. 285.]

Those are wise words; perhaps he might want to offer them to the current incumbent of No. 10 Downing Street.

The noble Lord’s willingness to champion unpopular issues was evident when he first entered your Lordships’ House. For two years, the issue on which he made by far the most contributions was that of General Augusto Pinochet of Chile. A somewhat lonely supporter of the general, his efforts were recognised when the Pinochet Foundation awarded him a medal for his extraordinary and valiant attitude in defending Senator Pinochet. The story he told today which I most enjoyed reminded me of some advice I received during my early interest in politics. He talked about the bet of £100 that he won. I was advised early on, “Always bet on the other side, because if you lose you have got the compensation of the financial winnings you will gain.”

Appointed to your Lordships’ House in 2015, the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, illustrates why she has already earned the high regard and respect of your Lordships’ House. A former special adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Maude, when working on the then Trade Union Bill she was not in the least fazed, and was dubbed by some as the “silk and steel adviser.” It is surprising that she is still speaking from the Back Benches, although that has possibly been through choice. She has earned her reputation as a thoughtful contributor to our debates and I congratulate her on her speech today.

This Session starts at a difficult time for our country. The mishandling of Brexit has toxified our politics and divided our nation. Many of the old certainties of conventional political wisdoms are being challenged. The nation, suffering from the politics of austerity, wants the uncertainty of the past few years to be over and done with. But even now, over three years after the referendum, there is still no clarity on our future relationship with the EU. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, there is still no certainty around the ongoing security and policing arrangements, about what the Government mean by “divergence” from EU standards and regulations, or about the likely short and mid-term impacts on our economy. Everyone in your Lordships’ House knows that we leave the EU on 31 January, but the ability of the Government to undertake and conclude the negotiations necessary in the truncated transition or implementation period will be a challenge. As always, this House will have a contribution to make, and we look forward to doing so within the usual conventions.

I have to say, I find it disappointing when Ministers and others, while purporting to welcome the role of a second, revising Chamber, then overreact with great excitement to any challenge or questioning. However, disappointingly, if rather predictably, the sabre-rattling has already started. We have learned to expect that from the previously ubiquitous—and more recently, invisible—Jacob Rees-Mogg. Having once described Members of your Lordships’ House as “arrogant and condescending”, he threatened to keep appointing Peers to pack this Chamber to get his own way. But Members of your Lordships’ House, and indeed the Government, are usually more measured and understanding, recognising how we work.

We welcome the fact that there will be a second Cabinet Minister in your Lordships’ House: Nicky Morgan. She is the first Cabinet Minister, other than the Leader, to serve in this House since 2010. The Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown appointed several Cabinet Ministers from this House, including my noble friends Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, in addition to the Leader. That approach is useful to both the Cabinet, in understanding and appreciating our role, and to your Lordships’ House. It is also helpful that our Procedure Committee, recognising the value of a Secretary of State in your Lordships’ House, provided new rules which allow for a special Question Time. It has not yet been used but I am sure that the new Culture Secretary and the House will welcome that opportunity.

The Government have announced in this Queen’s Speech a constitution, democracy and rights commission. Given the comments that have been made by government Ministers and advisers, I want to put on record the two principles that should be a thread running through any such commission: first, the independence of our judiciary; and, secondly, that no one, not even the Government, is above the law. We have also been told that the new commission will consider an overhaul of the House of Lords, which is interesting when taken in conjunction with the new Lords’ Secretary of State.

Some may recall my previous disappointments with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who, as he knows, I like and hold in high regard. However, back in the day when he was Leader of the Opposition, he was a mighty defender of the role of your Lordships’ House, even on one occasion going much further than I ever would in declaring that the conventions were dead. Yet when the Government overreacted to this House and asked it to think again on George Osborne’s tax credits cuts, I was sadly disappointed that the noble Lord’s contribution was his report for David Cameron, seeking to reduce our limited powers on statutory instruments. I commented then that there were two versions of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: one for opposition and his doppelgänger for government. However, I am pleased to note that the first noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is back. In a Financial Times story on the overhaul planned for this House he is quoted as saying that

“We need a stronger, more responsible second chamber, more directly accountable to people”.


I am not a naturally suspicious person, but few Governments have ever called for a stronger second Chamber. However, taking the noble Lord’s words at face value, I say to the Government: be careful what you wish for. I do not necessarily want to see a stronger House, although it would make being Leader of the Opposition here a lot more enjoyable, which the Government might not welcome. But I do want a responsible House, an effective revising Chamber, and reform.

We in this House supported, without opposition, the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on reducing the size of your Lordships’ House. If Mr Johnson’s new majority Government are serious about reform, there is an opportunity to work across the House with all parties to reduce the numbers, and a plan is clearly laid out in the report for how we could quickly get on with that.

Secondly, we will give our full support to a Bill to end the hereditary by-elections, as previously and regularly introduced by my noble friend Lord Grocott. Indeed, I fully expect him to reintroduce his Bill, in what has become our very own parliamentary Groundhog Day. I know that he would welcome government support, and I look forward to discussing all his proposals with the relevant Ministers and the new commission. However, the Government should not use Lords reform as a Trojan horse for a ministerial power-grab.

On an issue which came up in the last Queen’s Speech, I welcome the admission that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is not fit for purpose.

Whatever the outcome of the considerations, we on these Benches will continue to play our role in ensuring that the Government maintain their commitment to reversing the cuts they made in previous Parliaments. It is essential that the public see the rehiring of police officers and their visible presence in our communities.

We also welcome the admission that the scrapping of nurse training bursaries added to the long-term staffing crisis, and that there will be some reinstatement. We note from press briefings this week that the Government are starting to appreciate that their reforms and funding for the NHS have brought it to breaking point in some places and have not provided the basis for addressing future needs. Our NHS staff are unstinting in their efforts to provide a first-class service, and many of us have experience of their care, dedication and professionalism. However, too often we hear from those same staff that the pressures are intolerable. They are the people most qualified to address the problems facing this country’s most treasured and valued institution.

Many in your Lordships’ House have long advocated the reform of social care, and we can promise the Government that we will fully co-operate to ensure the necessary improvements. The Government cannot allow the search for consensus to delay progress and change; the issue has been kicked into the long grass too many times and the problem gets more acute. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley has long called for better support for unpaid carers. I hope that the legislation will start to give these everyday heroes the credit and practical support they deserve, and we look forward to working with the Government on that. On a personal note, having spent a small fortune on hospital parking charges this year, I welcome plans to remove such charges from those in greatest need, and we look forward to seeing the detail of how that will work.

I had hoped to see something in the Speech that would provide clarity on the number of new hospitals being built and the increase in the number of nurses. Having heard the explanations that—I will try to get this right—the figure of 50,000 new nurses actually includes over 18,000 who are already employed, and that the figure of 40 new hospitals is probably only six, perhaps we should also have new legislation to ensure that we reintroduce the numeracy hour in schools.

The Queen’s Speech rightly refers to ensuring that every part of the UK can prosper, recognising that the Government have to act in the best interests of the whole of the UK. Yesterday, nurses in Northern Ireland were on strike—the first time ever that the Royal College of Nursing has supported such action, and it did so with a very heavy heart. To whom do the people of Northern Ireland turn to address this shocking state of affairs? They have now been left without devolved government for more than three years, with no political decisions being taken. I do not want direct rule, but the current inertia is unacceptable. Mr Johnson’s majority has brought the DUP’s privileged position at the heart of government to an end. That may well help to kick-start the process, and I welcome talks having started, but we must provide all the necessary support and an ambitious timescale to ensure that the Assembly is reinstated. As the House knows, those on these Benches with experience of Northern Ireland will willingly offer assistance and co-operation.

There are clearly other proposals where your Lordships’ House will support the principle and want to assist the Government by scrutinising the detail. While welcoming plans to support tenants, there does not appear to be anything to increase the overall availability of homes, and it is disappointing to see nothing about support for and working with local government. That is an issue that we can pursue further as we examine how some of the proposals can be implemented.

This is the last day on which the House will sit before Christmas. Tonight and tomorrow, we will return to our homes, families and friends. When we return in January, we will continue this debate and discuss the Bill on our withdrawal from the EU. Until then, I wish each and every Member of your Lordships’ House and all our staff and officials a very restful and happy Christmas and New Year. I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned, until my birthday—7 January 2020.

Tributes to Mr Keith Phipps

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, before we move on to the rest of our business, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a loyal servant of the House, our Principal Doorkeeper, Mr Phipps. I know that the whole House will join me in thanking him for his 25 years of outstanding service.

A dedicated public servant, Mr Phipps left school at 18 and joined the Coldstream Guards. He served in the Army for 22 years and in December 2000 enlisted as a Yeoman of the Queen’s Bodyguard. In 1994, Mr Phipps joined the House as a Doorkeeper and was promoted to Principal Doorkeeper in 2005. As he rose in seniority, he consistently served Members of the House with his characteristic charm, good nature and unfailing politeness. He handles colleagues with the utmost courtesy, while at the same time making it clear that there is an underlying message of authority, along the lines of, “Don’t mess with me”—some might say, the original strong and stable. Over the years he has provided Members, long-standing and new, with his wise counsel, as my noble friend Lord Robathan attested in his maiden speech. During their time in the Army in Hong Kong and Northern Ireland, my noble friend found that Company Sergeant-Major Phipps was right about most matters and could be relied upon to steer his company commander in the right direction. Many noble Lords will recognise that description of Mr Phipps, who has been a source of wisdom on procedure and custom, helping to steer us all in the right direction; and of course, his commanding presence made him the ideal candidate to act as the master of ceremonies during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee lunch, which hosted Her Majesty the Queen and 700 guests in Westminster Hall.

When I joined this House in 2014, Mr Phipps and his team made me feel very welcome. He has always been willing to help out and on several occasions has taken pity on my poor guests, who invariably get the most uninformative tour of this place, taking over as tour guide with panache and more anecdotes than I could ever remember. His generosity and good humour are, I am sure, valued by all noble Lords.

Our remarks today come earlier than expected. Mr Phipps officially leaves on 13 December, but today is our last day with him as our Principal Doorkeeper. As the season’s festivities get under way in the coming month, I am sure that the Cirencester Salvation Army will want to seize the opportunity to sign him up for a starring role as Joseph in the nativity play, a role that I understand he played successfully some years ago.

Mr Phipps, on behalf of the whole House, thank you for your incredible service to us. We wish you and Sue all the very best for the future; enjoy your well-deserved retirement.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this feels a bit like the end of an era, because Mr Phipps has become a bit of a legend in your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, his journey from the Coldstream Guards to the longest-serving Principal Doorkeeper is one in which he can take immense pride. Much of his work will exist in fond memories—his own, ours and those of the many colleagues with whom he has served. It was also captured when he played a starring role in the 2017 “Meet the Lords” mini-series, an appearance—or should that be performance—that has earned him his own personal entry and credit on the IMDb website, which prides itself on being,

“the world’s most popular and authoritative source for information on movies, TV shows, and celebrities”.

Today we say farewell to a celebrity in our midst.

I first met Mr Phipps when I was a fairly new MP in the other place and had a group of constituents visiting from the men’s group at one of our local churches in Basildon. He will not remember this, but I remember it very clearly. I walked through the Peers’ Lobby with some trepidation and approached the imposing-looking gentleman in a white tie. Very politely, I asked, “Would it possible for my guests to sit below the Bar to get a better view of the Lords’ proceedings?” In rather imposing tones, he asked, “Are they all wearing ties?” Then, spying one member at the back of the group, he pointed and said, “He’s not wearing a tie; he won’t be able to get in”. Embarrassed and a little puzzled, I looked around at my guests and spotted the offender. I said, “But, Mr Phipps, he’s the vicar and he’s wearing a clerical collar”. He let him in. For a few years now, just to be on the safe side, one of our staff in the Labour Lords office, Rob Newbery, has kept a drawer full of ties to provide for any Peer or Peer’s guest who requires one.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

We are here to serve.

In all the years he has been in your Lordships’ House, we have appreciated Mr Phipps’s company, efficiency and natural authority. We have always known who is really in charge. I hope he has enjoyed his time with us as much as we have. I had to smile at the comments of his late father, Ken, when he reflected in 2012:

“He enjoys his job I think—he has a little moan every now and then, but who doesn’t?”.


On a more serious note, it is both an honour and a pleasure to thank him on behalf of these Benches for his dedicated and unparalleled service to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that he has made his mark in the most positive way, for which we are extremely grateful.

Keith, we are going to miss you. We wish you and Sue, your wife, a very long and happy retirement. There is only one thing left to say: thank you and goodbye, Mr Phipps.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have seen Mr Phipps in two guises: as a doorkeeper here in your Lordships’ House and as a member of the Queen’s Bodyguard when I was captain of that august body. His attitude in both environments was that of an experienced NCO having to deal with a blundering second lieutenant who did not even know how to salute properly. He knew how it was done. I certainly did not, and I am sure that new Members of your Lordships’ House have felt similarly at sea when they first tried to work out how we do things here. But he has done that with everybody with an avuncular friendliness and firmness that has been extremely impressive.

At a time when the atmosphere in Parliament has sometimes been extremely fractious, he has helped to ensure that the ethos of your Lordships’ House reflects the tolerance and civility that, I am sure, we all believe should characterise the operations of a Parliament. We will miss him and the qualities he has brought to his roles, and I am sure we will all do our best to uphold the values he has brought to his work and our proceedings. We wish him and his wife a long and enjoyable retirement.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Prime Minister was standing for election as leader of his party—and, therefore, Prime Minister—I asked an esteemed Conservative Minister and parliamentarian of some integrity whom he was voting for. I was surprised when he said Boris Johnson. I suspect he had his misgivings, but his reason was that he thought he was a winner. I countered that Boris Johnson would see Parliament as an inconvenience, and I regret that I am being proved right.

First, we had the unlawful Prorogation, when the Prime Minister attempted to shut down Parliament for five weeks. Then, last week, having gained parliamentary support for the Second Reading of his withdrawal Bill, he pulled the Bill only because MPs would not agree to an unreasonable programme Motion—not, as the noble Baroness said, to any kind of timetable; they would indeed have agreed to a timetable, just not that timetable. All that was being sought on that occasion was the normal and reasonable process of consideration and scrutiny. Then, having won the vote on his Government’s programme for the forthcoming year, he demanded a general election—thus again trying to avoid the normal and reasonable process of scrutiny of his legislation. Then, having failed to get a two-thirds majority for an election at a time of his choosing under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, he was obviously relieved and delighted when the Liberal Democrats and the SNP threw him a lifeline and offered to support an election. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, joked during the Queen’s Speech debate that these days fact is certainly more unbelievable than fiction; he is right. This is a book that nobody would have dared write.

When the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced by the coalition Government, we were told that it would create strong and stable government, even from a minority Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who introduced the Bill for the Government, said that this would ensure that election dates would no longer be picked for a narrow, partisan, political advantage. We were given lots of high-minded, constitutional reasons why it was so important, yet our own Constitution Committee admitted to some scepticism, recognising that the Bill’s origins and content,

“owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand”.

Basically, the Conservative-led coalition Government sought to bind Parliament to give it a five-year term in power. Having succeeded in that, neither party now sees any further use for the legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. What benefits did she think would accrue from a fixed-term Parliament, given that the Labour Party included a commitment to it in its 2010 election manifesto?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think the noble and learned Lord will find that, at the time, we proposed several amendments to the Bill that the noble and learned Lord rejected. Even in my wildest dreams, I did not suggest that it would be strong and stable government. I think the contradiction is that, at the time that the noble and learned Lord was taking the legislation through, he said that it would stop the politicisation of elections—nobody would call an election for political advantage. What do we think is happening at the moment?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I will, because I think the noble Lord recognises the comment I made earlier in my speech.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I need to confess that I was the Member that the noble Baroness referred to, and I was right about Boris Johnson—he is a winner, as she is about to discover. She is making a very devastating criticism of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, so can we assume that in the Labour Party’s manifesto there will be a commitment to repeal it at the earliest opportunity?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord tempts me, and I have to say I would argue that case. Whether my party would fully accept everything I want in the manifesto is another matter, but I would certainly argue for it, because what is happening at the moment is that every time the Fixed-term Parliaments Act becomes inconvenient, the Government and their supporters could bring forward a Bill such as this in order to do away with it. Already, the Act has become nonsense.

During the Queen’s Speech debate, I joked that the first Bill in the Government’s programme would be a “Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill”. I thought I was being clever—I have to say that my grandmother would have said I was being “too clever by half”. It was a joke, but I think it would have been a lot more honourable and honest to bring forward that kind of legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord and I could have a conversation afterwards, because if he wants to bring a Private Member’s Bill, I think it would find a fair amount of support in the House.

In that speech, I also joked about not having had a Queen’s Speech or Prorogation for more than two years, and then expecting two or even three in quick succession. I really was only joking, but some might now suspect I have a crystal ball in my office. The programme for government that we heard less than three weeks ago was, as we said at the time, a test run for the Conservative Party election manifesto rather than a serious programme for the coming year, but even we did not imagine that the election would be quite so blatantly soon. I have to say that the Tory Party’s enthusiasm for a general election every time it changes leader is proving to be rather expensive for the taxpayer. With a general election, a new Parliament and yet another Queen’s Speech all within a matter a months, perhaps the normally Conservative-supporting TaxPayers’ Alliance, with its diligent examination of public spending, will be sending an invoice to the Tory Party for the October event. If not, I might just be tempted to do so myself.

So much seems to have changed since 19 October. As we sat on a Saturday to consider the Government’s Brexit deal, I reflected that time and patience was running out for everybody: the public, the politicians and the EU. A situation without resolution was unacceptable to everybody. The bungling of Brexit has fractured our nation and divided friends, families and our politics. If MPs were unable to reach a conclusion on the slightly revamped but inferior deal, I conceded that the way forward would have to be to ask the public to consider the issue. The stalemate in Parliament has made me think again about a confirmatory referendum. A bit like in The Case-book of Sherlock Holmes,

“when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.

As I said then, if this was the best Brexit, one that a Brexit-supporting Prime Minister said was “a great deal”, then we should all have the confidence to ask the public if they agree. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, speaking for his party, agreed with me. He said—and I am sure that he will not mind me quoting him—that his party was,

“absolutely sure that an early general election would deliver it many more seats. The same cannot be said for the Conservatives or Labour”—

we will see about that—

“yet we do not believe it is in the national interest to have one”.—[Official Report, 19/10/19; col. 289.]

As my hero, Harold Wilson, would have said: “A week is a long time in politics”.

I said that my party will not stand in the way of this election: our doubts have been only about the timing, rather than the event itself, which we have been calling for and planning for for so long. I was sorry that our amendment in the other place for an earlier date was rejected. I wonder how tolerant a politics-weary electorate will be about interrupting their Christmas preparations to consider party manifestos. I hope that no party will be tempted to dress their leader in Santa costumes.

Let us be clear, first, that a general election is not just about Boris Johnson’s pledge to “do or die” or “Get Brexit done”. Those soundbites are about as meaningless as Theresa May’s “Brexit means Brexit”. A referendum would have been about the single issue of Brexit, but a general election is about so much more. It is about a vision for the direction of this country, and the Conservative Party will have to stand on its record. By contrast, we have an offer that will make a real difference for the people of this country in health, education, the environment, with a new generation of affordable homes and renters’ rights, free personal care for our loved ones who are most in need and a genuine transformative vision to support our economy and workers in creating the green future that we need. Inevitably, it will also be about the damage that a Johnson Brexit or a crash-out Brexit would do to our country.

Secondly, I make a plea for decency and integrity in campaigning. To hear a Conservative MP say that the country needs an election to “drain the swamp”, and other such inflammatory and disgraceful comments, is both sickening and dangerous. A general election based on the denigration of MPs from any party or all parties, who have been charged with the most difficult decisions and negotiations for a generation, would further undermine any public confidence in our politics. We expect our candidates and leaders to behave with the dignity that office demands, and we must pledge to do all we can to uphold that. If this election is truly to resolve the divisions largely caused by the bungling of Brexit, all parties must seek to heal as well as to win.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

I cannot agree entirely with the noble Lord. The House will have followed his train of thought, but it is nevertheless possible for Parliament to convene before Christmas for swearing in and so forth to take place, and we can get that part of things done. As I have said, I am not in a position to speculate in advance of the Sovereign’s proclamation the exact timetable following that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think the House would like a bit more information. When the noble Earl says that the House could reconvene before 23 December, I think that most Members of your Lordships’ House, and indeed of the other place, would expect that some business would be undertaken. If the election were on 12 December, I see little reason why the House could not reconvene the following week. He will appreciate that legislation will be required before the end of January. Surely the Government do not intend not even to start tabling business until the middle of January.

[Earl Howe]

Before we have a new Government in place, it is certainly not in my gift to specify the date on which Parliament will return, or indeed what it will do when it does return. However, I am sure the noble Baroness, if and when she is elected to office, will see to it that there is a rapid reconvening of Parliament.

I listened with care, and a great deal of sympathy, to the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Whitty, on the critical issue of transparency in electoral campaigning. I also read the noble Lord’s article in the Times today. His criticisms of the Government are noted, but I hope he will accept that the Government are committed to increasing transparency in digital campaigning, to maintain a fair and proportionate democratic process. As both noble Lords will know, to this end, on 5 May the Government announced that we will implement an imprints regime for digital election material. The aim of that is precisely to ensure greater transparency, and to make it clearer to the electorate who has produced and promoted online political material.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is my third Queen’s Speech debate as Leader of the Opposition, although it has been a while since the last one. After three Queen’s Speeches, three debates and three different Prime Ministers, the dire state of national governance means that I cannot rule out taking part in a fourth or even fifth debate in the coming months. It could be a bit like the proverbial No. 9 bus: you wait for ages and then three come along at once. On recent form, who knows how many Prime Ministers we could see in that time? It is therefore surprising that the first Bill of this Session and in the Queen’s Speech is not the Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill.

As always, our proceedings started this afternoon with two memorable and quite remarkable speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has always enjoyed the respect of this House, both as a formidable and fearsome—as we heard—Chief Whip, and as a softer, highly regarded Foreign Office Minister. That softer side was evident in a friendship that she established at the Foreign Office with Palmerston, otherwise known on Twitter as “DiploMog”, the Foreign Office cat. Such was the affection between them that on the day that the noble Baroness left the Government, from DExEU, Palmerston suddenly decided that he would leave the comfort of the Foreign Office; he unexpectedly crossed the road and walked purposefully across Whitehall just to bid her farewell.

On her introduction to your Lordships’ House in 1996, the noble Baroness went through the same process as us all in choosing her title; but hers turned out to be slightly more expensive. After being told that she could not have Woking, she selected “Baroness Anelay of St John’s”, after the village, with an apostrophe. Garter King of Arms informed her that that was fine, but when he checked historic and ancient documents residing in the village, he decided that it should not have an apostrophe—so all the road signs had to be changed.

Few could match the theatrical style of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and the flourish of his speech. I hope that, in future, we will see him in cameo roles as his books are filmed. Perhaps he could be the Alfred Hitchcock or Colin Dexter of the House of Lords. The noble Lord has an enviable reputation as both a writer and a politician, having worked at the highest levels of Conservative Administrations for many years. I can perhaps help him with his worries about being seen as a young, up-and-coming politician. He may recall that he was described by one national newspaper as, “Westminster’s baby-faced hitman”.

While the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is almost correct, I have to say in my defence that I feel that I swooned rather than died in his arms—and we were play-acting. But he told me some time ago, as we toured the bowels of the building, that he was writing a new book, based once again on the political machinations of Westminster. Noble Lords will understand my nervousness after he promised—or, perhaps, threatened—that I would be a character in such a future book. Ever since then, I have treated him with the utmost respect and laughed at all his jokes; I hope he has seen sufficient amusement from me today. The book has not appeared yet, but as he said, he is probably hampered by the fact that fiction can never be as bizarre as reality. His speech today was an impressive response. Perhaps he will say, “You may think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment”.

This was an unusual Queen’s Speech. We were expecting great things, given that Prime Minister Johnson tried, and failed, to have an unprecedented five weeks’ preparation rather than the usual five days. Normally, a Queen’s Speech comes after an election as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to put their mark on the forthcoming programme of government for at least the next year. However, with Mr Johnson clearly desperate for another election, this Queen’s Speech could be little more than the market testing of his manifesto for the next election, rather than a serious programme for the next Session.

Taking the programme at face value, we welcome legislation aimed at tackling domestic abuse, improving mental health, protecting children and young people from online harm, and dealing with the poor management of private pension schemes. Some of these important issues were already being considered by the previous Prime Minister and indeed in previous Queen’s Speeches. Others have been championed for some time by colleagues from across this House, including many from these Benches. However, a number of key issues are missing. Where is the promised veterans Bill? There is nothing on housing and there is more about being seen to be tough on crime than genuinely tackling the causes. We also have Brexit-related Bills on agriculture, fisheries, immigration and trade, all of which had already begun their legislative process but were subsequently abandoned.

The Government promise legislation to implement new building safety standards. One of the casualties of cuts to local government funding has been the enforcement of building regulations. They are designed to ensure high standards, including on safety and the environment. Yet with fewer inspectors on the ground and government changes to planning laws, it is easier now for the unscrupulous or the ignorant to flout the law. While we welcome improving and monitoring standards, the Government have to understand that they have already hollowed out the current system. In addressing this, we want to ensure that any new regime is necessary, has real teeth and is not just warm words and another layer of bureaucracy.

We also have serious concerns about the proposed electoral integrity Bill. Clearly, we should do whatever is necessary to stamp out any abuse of the system, but we must also take care that the scale of changes is proportionate to the problem and does not have unintended consequences. I am not convinced that introducing photo ID checks meets that test, so we will need to scrutinise the detail. One of our priorities for electoral integrity would be to ensure that those who have the greatest stake in the future—16 and 17 year-olds—also have the right to vote.

Yet again, we have a commitment to outer space, perhaps a ruse of the Prime Minister to make another hackneyed joke about putting Opposition MPs into orbit. It does sound a bit pie in the sky to talk about outer space when the Government have delayed HS2, failed to make a decision on airport capacity, and cannot get their act together on lorry parks in Kent. It sometimes feels as if the Government live in a parallel universe.

I suppose we should not be surprised that Mr Johnson chose not to repeat David Cameron’s commitment, emphasised in the 2016 Queen’s Speech, confirming the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons. At the time, we felt it was an unnecessary reminder, aimed at your Lordships’ House, but as the Brexit crisis has unfolded, it is the current Prime Minister who has been forced to recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and Commons primacy.

In the last Session, your Lordships’ House dealt with around four dozen Bills and over 2,000 SIs. Many amendments and changes were put forward, with a fair number accepted by the Government or, if voted on and sent to the Commons, agreed in full or in part. When the Commons disagreed with our amendments, we respected its primacy. Recognising our constitutional role, particularly in such challenging political times, we rightly also considered and passed two hugely significant Bills agreed by MPs without government support. In our parliamentary democracy, it would have been completely wrong for this House to have rejected legislation that commanded the support of MPs, just because the Government did not like it. The Government were also right not to use this House, as some urged, to try to wreck that legislation.

We will continue to undertake our responsibilities and obligations regarding legislation with due diligence. It is therefore extraordinary that a member of the current Cabinet, having previously praised us for our maturity, wisdom, learnedness and experience, has now called for the abolition of your Lordships’ House. Indeed, he is previously on record praising the great benefit that comes from our independence. But it has to be said, that was before we disagreed with Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg. That probably explains his change of opinion more than his discovering an important point of constitutional principle.

There can be no doubt that we are living through extraordinary times. None of us can predict the future; at the moment we cannot even predict what will happen over the next week, with Parliament having an emergency and exceptional sitting on Saturday. It is not just because of the Brexit negotiations, unpredictable as they are, but, even more seriously, a consequence of being at a pivotal and troublesome moment in our nation’s history. Few that took part in the 2016 referendum, in good faith, could have imagined that we would be in such an uncertain position today, 1,207 days later. The 2017 Queen’s Speech talked about providing certainty and making a success of Brexit. Apparently, it was then a priority to build a more united country, yet we are more uncertain and divided than ever. Having been told so often that Brexit would be easy—that, freed from the so-called shackles of the EU, we would emerge phoenix-like, stronger and better than ever—many dared to believe those promises.

It is clear now that those promises were based on little more than a wing and a prayer. The rhetoric, false promises and hopeful statements, ministerial and otherwise, that accompanied the campaign and the years since have debased our democracy and our values. As competing pressures inevitably meant that a Brexit deal was tougher to nail down, the blame game began, with parliamentarians, lawyers and others labelled “traitors” and even “enemies of the people” for daring to fulfil their constitutional role. The added potency of terms such as “die in a ditch” and “surrender Bill” appear to be part of a clear sabre-rattling attempt to create hostility and conflict between the electorate and MPs.

I will pause while the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, gets her phone. She is not guilty. I thought it was Boris Johnson making a quick call to check what I was saying.

In recent years we have seen the rhetoric reach new levels of toxicity in an increasingly desperate attempt to lay responsibility at the door of others. Each time the negotiations get difficult, there is a blame game to point the finger at anyone but the Prime Minister. But at what cost? Whatever the outcome of the Brexit debacle, what comes next will seal the future and values of our country for at least a generation.

So where do we go from here? Reflecting on the debate since 2016, it feels as though the values that have underpinned British Governments since 1945, including Conservative-led ones, have been jettisoned. I am talking not about specific policies, but about the conventional wisdom that it is the duty and responsibility of government in its widest sense to seek to unite rather than divide and to act for the whole nation rather than any party or narrow interest. While the upping of that at times dangerous rhetoric is designed to win votes, the public are more dispirited and have a greater sense of disappointment, disengagement and disillusionment about Parliament and politics than ever. They see the escalating rows over Brexit with no unifying conclusion, which ensures that the other concerns and issues that affect their everyday lives fall by the wayside. The current tone of public discourse and debate means that too many of our citizens, young and old, have so little confidence and optimism that they either lose hope or would rather be cold and wet protesting outside than ever think that they could be in here making the decisions to bring about the change that they seek.

I believe, and I think this House believes, in the power of government for good—in its power to effect change and its duty to provide hope and optimism for the future. The bungling of Brexit has sapped the energy, ambition, intellect, creativity and finances of our country. The brightest and the best could have been directed towards the greatest challenges of our generation. Instead, they have been pulled one way and then another in trying to cope with Brexit. Where is that strategic vision and national collective ambition?

Today, for all the new technology that wallpapers our everyday lives, at times it can feel as though we are in an era of make do and mend. Any Government with a sense of purpose would at least try to define, with honesty, a route to some sunny upland or other, which Mr Johnson’s regime is sadly lacking. So it is little wonder that today we see so little of that hope and optimism, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that is the backbone of any modern state. Our young people have to believe that there is a future with a personal, professional and selfless opportunity to be able to work; to be able to own or rent a secure and affordable home; to be able to trust in a health and care system for them and their families; and to be able to believe that the environment will be cleaner and better for their children, and that they will be safe and secure. Those are modest desires, which a good state should enable, if not trying to create a utopian view of the good society, then at least aspiring to be a better one.

Given that this Queen’s Speech is a pitch to the electorate, can it deliver that optimism to bring about a different, better future? Robert Kennedy was inspirational. Quoting George Bernard Shaw, he said:

“Some men see things as they are and say, why; I dream things that never were and say, why not”.


Those words are so apt. It is not just about government. We need to encourage others to share that dream and ask, “Why not?” It may sound a little whimsical, but that is what successive and successful Governments have done when making the case for office, rather than having base arguments about the left and right of politics. They have been able to engage others to share that optimism, share that vision and have confidence that the Government will enable the delivery of that vision.

It is really hard to define what generates public optimism, but there are pivotal points in our recent history to which we can look for guidance. A war-weary public, while grateful to and admiring of Churchill, was enthused by the hope of a new Britain under Clement Attlee. The white heat of technology promised by Harold Wilson engaged those who sought a more forward-looking, socially liberal society. Margaret Thatcher gauged the temperature of Britain during the industrial strife of the 1970s and, despite my strong disagreements with much of her programme, initially had a vision and successfully convinced others to share it. Tony Blair’s “Britain deserves better” resonated with young and old alike, and things did indeed get better.

There is no quick way of turning this dire state of affairs around, but it is incumbent on us all to find a way forward. It is not enough to have a manifesto, or even a Queen’s Speech, with promise. It has to be more about genuinely making a difference on the issues that matter to us citizens, not about issues that matter to Westminster. The relationship between the public and the institutions of state and politics has been strained to the limit. An attempt to win votes by stretching it just a little further is doomed to a failure greater than losing an election. That is the big responsibility for government today. Who knows? In seeking to rebuild that trust, we may help not only to heal divisions, but in time to bring about the new optimism that we need, followed by a renewed commitment in our politics to deliver the legislation and honour that promise.

I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.