Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

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?

Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I think that most of us listened carefully to what the Prime Minister has said today. The Statement was very different in tone to what we heard last Wednesday, so hopefully her entreaties to the Prime Minister had some impact.

When the Prime Minister took office in July, we were promised a fresh approach to Brexit, and that, despite actions suggesting the opposite, the Government really wanted to strike a deal with the EU. Having patiently awaited the result of the Conservative Party leadership contest, our EU partners were promised certainty by Mr Johnson. The de facto Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Gove, tells us that the new Cabinet Brexit sub-committee has had dozens of meetings over the summer, leading to a new plan for the Irish border being drawn up and dispatched to Brussels.

It is perfectly legitimate for the new Prime Minister to want to put his own plans to Brussels. In doing so, however, he would have been conscious that the Article 50 process was designed to take two years—not just the two weeks before the last European Council summit—for good reason. It was unfortunate that his advisers briefed the media that this would be a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Thankfully the tone has shifted to something much more conciliatory. We welcome that.

We must, however, face facts. Despite being welcomed by the DUP—I am sorry that our DUP colleagues are not here today for the Statement—the plan has been dismissed by all the other major political parties in Northern Ireland, as well by manufacturing and retail bodies. Retail NI’s Glyn Roberts said that the proposal was “worse than no deal”. Trevor Lockhart, the group chief executive of an agri-foods business, said on this morning’s “Today” programme:

“It is ultimately a balance between what works politically and what works economically. The UK backstop, for us, delivered economically but clearly did not work politically, and in the pursuit of getting a political solution the interests of businesses in Northern Ireland to some extent have now been sacrificed”.


Those are harsh words. For a plan centred on the principle of consent, there appears to be little consent for it.

Last night the noble Lord, Lord Empey, powerfully made the point that the Government were reneging on their commitment not to have a border down the Irish Sea. Like him, I struggle to understand the position of the DUP, as that party has opposed a border in the Irish Sea since the very start of the Brexit process.

Those in the know told us to watch out for the reaction from the EU 27. No news would be good news; it would mean talks were going into the tunnel for further discussion, and a deal was possible. Anything more than a basic acknowledgement of receipt would spell trouble. What, then, was the verdict? The Taoiseach warns that the texts tabled,

“do not fully meet the agreed objective of the backstop”.

The President of the Commission, while welcoming a degree of clarity about the UK’s intentions, noted several “problematic points”. The European Parliament’s Brexit steering group was less than enthusiastic, and that institution, which has to ratify any agreement, has already signalled that it will not support a deal without a backstop.

As I noted earlier, now that the party conference season is over, the Prime Minister appears to be approaching matters differently. I hope that talks will continue and progress will be made. However, given the leaked and very unwise memo calling on Conservative MPs to call the EU “crazy” if it rejects such a plan, it is vital that these talks take place in good faith.

So let us look briefly at the issues with the proposals. Despite warm words from the Government on the Good Friday agreement, it is not clear that this arrangement would uphold the UK’s commitments. The plans talk of a limited number of physical inspections taking place away from the border at the premises of producers, or perhaps further down the supply chain. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, but is she able to confirm what arrangements are envisaged for such checks? Would the system operate in the same way as the Sweden/Norway border, with UK customs officials able to inspect premises in the Republic and vice versa—because that is how Norway/Sweden works?

The use of electronic submissions for trusted traders is surely part of the solution, but I am slightly concerned that the clue is in the name—it works only for “trusted” traders. What would the criteria be for a “trusted trader” under the new scheme? How do the Government envisage dealing with irregular traders, or those attempting to smuggle goods across the border, particularly if the UK ends up not participating in EU-wide intelligence and data-sharing schemes? Is the Prime Minister confident that his answer to that will reassure the EU 27 with regard to upholding the integrity of the single market?

Key to the plans is the inclusion of agri-food, a sector that relies heavily on cross-border trade, in a single regulatory area across the island of Ireland. Has the Lord Privy Seal had an opportunity to reflect on the comments of the Food and Drink Federation, which last night said that,

“these proposals don’t work for shoppers and consumers. That’s because they ask food and drink businesses operating in Northern Ireland to pay—through new bureaucracy and costs—for the Government’s inability to agree a comprehensive exit deal”?

Such concerns have been echoed by a variety of retail organisations across Northern Ireland and the Republic.

On these Benches, we are extremely worried by the Government’s insistence that there is,

“no need for … extensive level playing field arrangements”,

in the withdrawal agreement. The Leader of the House and the Minister sitting next to her will have heard the debates over the past couple of years in your Lordships’ House, and they will understand that what has been spoken about is more than mere customs procedures. Such arrangements cover social, employment and environmental standards, which completely underpin the contents of the political declaration. Can the Leader confirm whether the Government wish now to amend the political declaration? If so, have they prepared a new text? Do they believe that it is feasible to secure substantial changes to and ratify—including passing the withdrawal agreement Bill through both Houses—the withdrawal agreement and political declaration in the time available over the next two to four weeks?

Simon Coveney, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, has indicated that if this were the final offer, the outcome on 31 October would be a no-deal exit. However, the Prime Minister has toned down his rhetoric since the Conservative Party conference and has talked about this being a “broad landing zone” for a deal, with the Government prepared for further discussions and further concessions. However, the fact remains that time is tight if Boris Johnson and his advisers stick to their “31 October or die-in-a-ditch” mantra. The fact is that the withdrawal Act No. 2 is a lifeline for the Government. It is an irony that the Prime Minister’s best chance of securing deal is an Act that he has opposed and done nothing but attack.

Noble Lords will recall that exactly this scenario was envisaged during our earlier debates on the first withdrawal Bill. We argued that it would be wrong to tie the Government’s hands if they were close to a deal but running out of time because of an inflexible exit date. The Prime Minister says in his Statement that,

“we are some way from a resolution”.

The extension legislated for in the most recent withdrawal Act gives the Prime Minister the flexibility he needs if he genuinely wants to get that deal over the line. Therefore, given that the Prime Minister feels that his proposal is the basis for further talks, does the Leader also accept that that is what he is suggesting? If a version of this proposal is agreed with the EU, are the Government confident that the necessary systems can be put in place during the transition period ending in December 2020? What are the Government doing to ensure, and is the Leader confident, that Stormont will be sitting by then?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement that was written in much more measured tones than the one she was required to read last week. It is thanks to the purported Prorogation having been nullified that Parliament can now hold the Government to account on this important development. It is worth reflecting that if that had not happened, these important proposals would have been brought forward without Parliament being in session to examine them.

It is important that we examine these proposals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has asked a number of detailed questions on their application and how it is proposed that the arrangements will work. It appears that, from having no borders as a full member of the European Union, the Prime Minister’s proposals would give Northern Ireland two borders. Does the Minister believe that these proposals are better for the economy and, above all, for the security of Northern Ireland than what Northern Ireland has at present? It is important, too, that we closely examine the proposal of a “potential”— the word is there in all the documents—regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and customs checks between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Simply to state that position must surely suggest that Northern Ireland’s economy would be in a worse position.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quoted a number of businesses that have expressed considerable scepticism about the proposals. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

“Businesses are telling us that the potential increased costs will seriously damage … supply lines and indeed business survival.”


There are other quotes that could be repeated from spokespersons who have cast doubt on the workability and cost of these proposals. It would be interesting to see whether the Minister, when she comes to reply, can quote any business or business organisation which, in the last 24 hours, has given support to these proposals. The proposals depend on electronic and, in some cases, physical checks—possibly on business premises. What estimate have the Government made of these added costs to businesses as a consequence of such additional surveillance?

Last night, in response to a point that has been raised on a number of occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that the proposals did not breach Section 10(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018,

“because they avoid checks, controls and physical infrastructure at the border”.—[Official Report, 2/10/19; col. 1765.]

I note his words, “at the border”, but if one looks at Section 10(2)(b) of the 2018 Act, it refers to creating or facilitating,

“border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU”.

I believe there is a difference between “at the border” and border arrangements; customs arrangements are by their very nature border arrangements. Can the Minister confirm that the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister conform with the provision, given the clear indication in his Statement that checks could take place at designated locations anywhere in Ireland and Northern Ireland?

The Statement referred to the,

“potential creation of an all-island regulatory zone on the island of Ireland, covering all goods.”

It goes on to say that it would eliminate,

“all regulatory checks for trade in goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland”.

So, of course, there would be checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Will the Minister indicate whether this would be a two-way process? The Prime Minister, I understand, seemed to indicate in a reply that it would be only one way: for goods coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Surely, however, if Great Britain has higher regulatory standards than the European Union, there would be checks for goods coming from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. Can she confirm whether that would indeed be the case, or is the Government’s working assumption that there will never be situations where the regulatory regime in Great Britain would be more stringent than that in the European Union? Have the Government had any discussions with the Scottish Government as to the implications of this proposal for any infrastructure required for such checks at Cairnryan?

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the powerful speech yesterday evening by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who wondered how the DUP could possibly sign up to it. He gave various quotes at col. 1744, quoting DUP spokespersons opposed to any form of regulatory divergence. Why would they? Maybe the secret is that the answer is in the word “potential”, if it is read in conjunction with the consent arrangements, which in the explanatory note provided, refer to consent,

“within the framework set by the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement”.

There are people in your Lordships’ House who are far more expert in the intricacies of the Good Friday agreement and the procedures in the Northern Ireland Assembly than I am—I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Alderdice is behind me—but I understand there is a procedure called a petition of concern. Is it possible that a petition of concern could be used to ensure that these arrangements never take place, and could be vetoed by the DUP and others before they ever had a chance to take off? Does the Minister think that that enhances the chances of this arrangement being agreed to, not only by the Government of Ireland but by the European Union?

The Written Statement laid by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, yesterday and reflected in the Prime Minister’s Statement, refers to a revised political declaration. The Statement says:

“In parallel, we will be negotiating a revised Political Declaration which reflect this Government’s ultimate goal of a future relationship with the EU that has a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement at its heart”.


While there is a lot of detail on the arrangements with Ireland, there is very little detail on what arrangements or provisions are sought for the political declaration. It would be helpful if the Minister, when she comes to reply, would indicate what provisions are proposed. Does it mean that the reassurances we had in times past about maintaining workers’ rights and environmental protections may no longer be the case?

The Statement from the Prime Minister also says:

“If our European neighbours choose not to show a corresponding willingness to reach a deal, then we shall have to leave on 31st October without an agreement and we are ready to do so”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has already indicated how the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act might come to the assistance of the Government, but assuming this agreement does not pass, and that the House of Commons does not agree to no deal, can the Minister indicate in detail how the Prime Minister can state that in these circumstances, we shall have to leave on 31 October without an agreement consistent with the provisions of that Act?

Obviously, an orderly departure from the European Union is preferable to a disorderly one. However, we on these Benches do not believe there is any agreement that can be reached which gives us a better deal, in terms of our security, our prosperity, our trade, our jobs, or the future opportunities for our young people than the deal we have at present, as full members of the European Union. That applies to the United Kingdom as a whole and to Northern Ireland in particular.

Update to Parliament

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we have heard a change in tone. When I heard the Statement in the House of Commons, I was quite shocked, and I hope that the noble Baroness was embarrassed at having to read out some of that Statement this evening.

The Prime Minister just does not get it. I did not think I could be any more disappointed in the Government. I got it wrong, because I just was. Iain Dale, a Conservative Party-supporting journalist, blogger and broadcaster, has put out a message tonight saying:

“When in a hole you either stop digging, or you get a bigger shovel. Boris has clearly decided to hire a JCB”.


We need less of the aggressive bluster and more humility, which might be more appropriate. The Statement was provocative and aggressive. At every opportunity the Government have to take a step back and put the country and the unity of our country first, they fail to do so. The Prime Minister told us, his Cabinet, the British people and Parliament, that Prorogation was not about Brexit. But that claim is totally undermined by the Statement we have just heard.

The Prime Minister is fond of quoting former Prime Minister Winston Churchill—to whom he bears no resemblance whatever. But I think the most apt political quote today is from Harold Wilson:

“A week is a long time in politics”.


I suspect that it feels even longer for the Prime Minister, and so it should. He is wrong to say that his comments show no disrespect to the judiciary. They do. He is wrong to say that he followed the exact same process as his predecessors on the Queen’s Speech. He did not. The normal amount of time for Prorogation before the Queen’s Speech is five days. He chose five weeks.

Let us be absolutely clear about this: the Prime Minister sought legal advice as to whether his actions in advising Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament were lawful. Why? Has any Prime Minister, or any Government, ever before sought legal advice on whether Prorogation was legal? Prorogation is normally uncontroversial, so why did this Government do so? Why did this Government feel the need to get legal advice to find out whether it was lawful to prorogue? Because they knew it was dodgy. It was so dodgy that they did not even share their legal advice with the Cabinet. They would not even admit to the Cabinet that it was about Brexit. The Cabinet Office minutes—just of a conference call, not even a proper meeting—said:

“It is important to emphasise that this decision to prorogue parliament for a Queen’s Speech is not driven by Brexit considerations”,


but, they went on, by,

“an exciting and dynamic legislative programme”.

Does anybody believe that? Did the Cabinet even believe it when it saw the minutes?

The Government also say that there is discrepancy among the lawyers—that they have different views. No. All 11 justices of the Supreme Court of this country issued a judgment that was exceptional in both its clarity and its unanimity. The key to the Supreme Court judgment was whether the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty the Queen was lawful. In reaching that judgment, the court addressed two issues. The first was whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament—including the House of Lords—of scrutiny and holding the Government to account. The answer, the Supreme Court said, was that “of course it did”. The second question was whether removing that fundamental right of scrutiny and holding the Government to account was justified. The answer of the Supreme Court to that is devastating. It concluded that that there was no reason—

“let alone a good reason”—

for doing so.

The Supreme Court did not address motive. The Scottish court did, and that was not overturned by the Supreme Court. The Scottish court said that the principal reason for the advice to the Queen was,

“to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference”.

The government arguments were always flawed and weak. As we have seen, this Government loathe scrutiny and fear challenge. The assertion used that the Prorogation was of a similar number of days to the proposed recess is—as the Prime Minister’s friend, President Trump, might say—“fake news”. It is not about time but functions. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet were fully aware that Prorogation meant no debates, no parliamentary sittings, no committee meetings and no awkward questions to answer.

The Prime Minister’s contempt for Parliament is clear in the full text of the redacted paragraph, when he says:

“The whole September session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the public that MPs were earning their crust”.


As a girly swot—and proud of it—this is a pretty pathetic insult for a Prime Minister to launch at a predecessor. It is also incorrect: there were September sittings long before David Cameron became Prime Minister. Like so much else from this Prime Minister, he tries to be offensive and gets it wrong even then.

I do not want to say too much about elections. As I said when we were debating the legislation before the—not—Prorogation, this is a matter for the House of Commons. However, I want to comment on one thing. I think that the language used by the Prime Minister in attacking MPs and the House of Commons is extraordinarily unpleasant and aggressive. It is embarrassing and could just be that, if it were not also dangerous. Whatever their views, MPs on all sides have struggled with the most difficult issue of our generation. They are trying their best. Their mandate comes after the mandate of the referendum held in 2016; they were elected in 2017. He should apologise to them as well as to the Queen. I think it is due.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House is in a different position from most of the Cabinet. She is being named in the Supreme Court judgment as being sent to the Privy Council meeting with Her Majesty the Queen. It would be wrong of me to ask and of her to answer about her meeting with the Queen. Beyond politics, however, there are questions of process and propriety. As Leader of the whole House, she has questions to answer. Did she see the legal advice on Prorogation? Did she ask to see it? Did she ask any questions about the advice being given to Her Majesty prior to being dispatched to Balmoral? Who told her to attend? Was it the Prime Minister or was the instruction from the special adviser Dominic Cummings?

It was a hard decision when I decided, along with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, not to attend the Prorogation ceremony that took place in this House. It was not taken lightly or easily. We feel totally vindicated in making that decision. Does she who took part feel that she should apologise to the House?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, which is more of a rant. Little did I think it would only take two months for us to wish to see the return of Theresa May, comparing this with the kind of Statements she had to read out during her tenure.

My noble friend Lord Newby is in Sydney and asked me to stand in. I apologise that I was not present earlier to ask the Urgent Question in my name. I was on a plane that was delayed getting into Gatwick Airport.

There are lots of things I find difficult to take about the Statement. The Prime Minister rants against Parliament. He describes the legislation that this House passed earlier this month is described as a “surrender Act”. That is insulting. I also find it difficult to accept that coming from a man who, if he really wanted Britain to leave the European Union, could have voted for the deal that was put before the House of Commons. Two times out of three he did not support it, which is indicative of the man. In fact, the one time that he supported the deal it included the backstop, which he now describes as undemocratic. We have a Prime Minister who is prepared to support something when it suits him although he actually believes—or at least says he believes—that it is undemocratic.

Amid the inevitable furore, let us take a step back and consider what, at the core, the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday was about. In giving advice to the Queen, the Prime Minister acted unlawfully and accordingly, the purported Prorogation of the present Session of Parliament was of no effect. As the judgment of the Supreme Court stated, it was,

“as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect”.

That is both profound and momentous, and I believe it requires contrition and humility, not the kind of bombast that we have heard this evening.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, indicated, it is a comment on her prescience and that of my noble friend Lord Newby that they decided to have no part in that Commission. I have probably known the Lord Speaker for over 35 years, as I have known the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for over 40 years. I do not believe for one moment that they, in the words of the judgment, were,

“carrying out the Queen’s bidding”,

in a way which was not in good faith. I believe that is the case but I am not quite sure the same could be said about the Leader of our House, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans. She has some questions to answer, both as Leader of your Lordships’ House and as one who attended that Privy Council meeting at Balmoral when the unlawful order was made.

In the Supreme Court and the Inner House of the Court of Session, the judges placed much weight on the fact that in neither the Cherry case nor the Miller case was any explanation given by the Government as to why an exceptionally long period was required for this purported Prorogation. The Statement from the Prime Minister refers to,

“the exact same process as my predecessors”,

but the evidence of Sir John Major in the Supreme Court blew out of the water the proffered explanation that it was needed to prepare a Queen’s Speech. Does the noble Baroness have any other explanation? She must have known from precedent that five weeks was not needed. Indeed, when I asked her why no recess dates had been set for the conference season earlier this month, she told me, “There’s always been a conference recess for as long as we can remember”. For as long as we can remember, there have never been five weeks needed for a Prorogation. Did she, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked, have sight of the legal advice? Did she ask for sight of it? As a member of the law officers’ trade union, I uphold the convention that one should not lightly disclose law officers’ advice. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, the fact that legal advice was sought in itself suggests that to seek a Prorogation in these circumstances was on dodgy ground.

In response to the earlier repeat of an Urgent Question to the Attorney-General by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, asked why no Minister—let alone the Prime Minister—had sworn an affidavit to put before the court to explain the reason for such an exceptionally long period of Prorogation. They asked whether it was because they did not wish to perjure themselves. Can the noble Baroness explain why no affidavit was forthcoming from either the Prime Minister or any member of this Government?

Reading the judgment, there are two key features in why the Supreme Court reached the view that it did. It believed that the sovereignty of Parliament was being undermined if the Prime Minister could advise a Prorogation for an exceptional length of time; and that Parliament has a key role in holding the Executive to account, which would be frustrated by an exceptionally long Prorogation. There is of course a distinction between Prorogation and recess: during Prorogation, committees cannot meet and Parliament cannot be recalled, except in very exceptional circumstances. The subject matter of the Statements and UQs that we have had today—on the collapse of Thomas Cook, Operation Yellowhammer and the situation in Iran, to which one could add issues such as the granting of an arms export licence to Saudi Arabia in contravention of a court order—illustrates just how crucial it is that Parliament is able to hold the Government to account. Yet this Government wanted to frustrate that for five weeks.

In paragraph 61 of the judgment, the Supreme Court says:

“It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason—let alone a good reason—to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9 or 12 September until 14 October”.


Ministers have rightly said that they will respect the Supreme Court’s judgment, but as the Statement from this Prime Minister makes clear, they then say that they think the Supreme Court got it wrong. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, tell us, specifically, which parts of the Supreme Court’s judgment are wrong and why? Does she support the sovereignty of Parliament? Does she support the idea that Parliament should hold the Executive to account? Does she accept that Prorogation for such an extended period of time would have undermined both these cardinal principles of our constitution?

While the Supreme Court did not speculate on motive, the Inner House of the Court of Session, reaching the same conclusion, did consider motive. Lord President Carloway, at paragraph 53 of his judgment, said:

“The circumstances demonstrate the true reason is to reduce the time available for the scrutiny of Brexit at a time when such scrutiny would appear to be a matter of considerable importance”.


The Supreme Court neither disapproved nor disavowed the findings of the Court of Session. It is clear that senior judges did not find credible the public explanation of the Prime Minister of why he sought a Prorogation of such exceptional length; it is quite a staggering conclusion for the court to reach and quite an indictment of this Administration. Will the noble Baroness confirm, given this Administration’s track record, that if no deal is reached by 19 October, the Prime Minister will abide by the law passed by Parliament just before the attempted Prorogation—no ifs, no buts, and no second letters?

I understand that this morning Mr Michael Gove described the Prime Minister as the Pep Guardiola of British politics. Let us look at his record since he came into office just two months ago: parliamentary by-elections—lost 1-0; House of Commons votes—lost 6-0; appearances before the Supreme Court—lost 11-0. If Pep Guardiola had that record, I am sure that he would be considering his position—it is time the Prime Minister did likewise.