House of Lords: Governance

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, this debate has been a case of cognitus interruptus if ever I have seen one. Sometimes those who are last in the batting order do not have much option other than to go in and have a bit of a slog. So I suggest that our House is in some peril. Our reputation in the wider world has shrunk, our support in the House of Commons has shrunk, and I would argue that our effectiveness as a revising Chamber has shrunk.

As my noble friend Lady Noakes said so exquisitely and eloquently, there is a growing distance between the management of our House and its Members. Who runs this House? We keep being told that it is self-regulating, but that is no longer the case. So many others in this debate have made these points very eloquently, and as a tail-end Charlie I do not think there is any purpose in my repeating them, except to say that I support so many of them.

But since we are tackling the subject of the governance of the House, perhaps I can hit over the head the rumour that we are soon to have another 30 Peers parachuted in to this place. These rumours are clearly fanciful. Why would a Prime Minister want to damage both his own reputation and the reputation of this House by stuffing another 30 Peers on to our Benches? We would end up looking like a Christmas goose, stuffed so full that we simply burst—folie de foie gras, you might say. On that note, the banning of foie gras from our dining room was yet another of those decisions which none of us participated in—it is probably tucked up somewhere with the clerks’ wigs.

What is the question to which another 30 Peers is the answer? I suppose it might be argued that the Opposition in this House have become so bloody-minded that the Government need all those Peers in order to get their business done. The other day, I asked our wonderful Library to look at some statistics to see whether 30 Peers would save the day for Ollie the Octopus, Lucy Lobster and all those other vital bits of government legislation that get kicked about. Of the last 100 Divisions in this House, the Government have won only 27. Another eight Divisions were unwhipped, which leaves 65 Divisions, all of which were won by the pesky Opposition. What difference would another 30 Tory Peers have made to that? Very little, actually, because two-thirds of those government defeats were inflicted by margins of 30 votes or more.

So saving the Government’s legislation will not come simply by stuffing the goose—and, as we have heard so many times this afternoon, neither will it come through more administrators, more bureaucracy or, as my noble friend Lord Cormack has just explained, more training videos like the coruscating Valuing Everyone training, which did not value us; it insulted us.

We and our institutions are in a very delicate place. We are vulnerable and perhaps in some peril. I am afraid that very few of the changes put forward in recent times have done anything to improve our public standing. We should not take it for granted that no Government would bother taking an axe to this goose, because I can foresee a moment when a governing party—yes, even my own—will include in its manifesto a pledge to get rid of this House because it would be the popular thing to do. I wonder what any new layer of management or bureaucratic gift-wrapping will do to deal with this threat.

My noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker, for whom I have the deepest personal respect and affection, is a sensible and a sensitive man. He has listened today and heard from a glorious former Leader of this House, a hugely respected former Chief Whip and many other senior and experienced Members, all speaking with a similar voice. It is a hymn that he needs to listen to; because I know him so well, I am sure that he will listen to it.

Afghanistan

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this is a moment of defeat, possibly of great disaster. It follows the unlearned lessons of Suez, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Syria. This was not only foreseeable; it was foreseen. There were voices aplenty—generals, politicians and almost every serious historian—who said we could not win in Afghanistan, and they were right. No foreign power ever arrived in Afghanistan and left behind anything but bleached bones. We have lost lives on a colossal scale—our own and our allies, but many more Afghans, those we were supposed to be saving. Our reputation has been dragged through the dried-up riverbeds of Helmand. Our enemies rejoice and, today, our friends—great democracies in the Baltic, Asia and elsewhere—have woken up in a more dangerous world.

What do we do? Do we turn our backs on intervention and refuse to help those who are oppressed? Of course we do not, but there are limits to such a policy. We cannot win every war, everywhere. Do we send in the bombers and leave behind nothing but mountains of dust? There is no victory in that. Do we simply follow, mute and blind, behind our American allies? That has not worked very well in recent years either. It is time for us to be more grown-up about that relationship with America and NATO, remembering the lessons of the Cold War. It is not just force of arms that overcomes great challenges, but the still-greater power of persistent persuasion, overwhelming by example and showing off the best of western values, not just the sharp end of our missile systems.

Above all, we need once more to find belief in ourselves—to stop talking our values down and to redefine, re-engage with and re-energise them. Then, perhaps, once again, we can send them around the world to speak for us and regain the trust that we have lost—but that will take time. I applaud Ben Wallace for his honesty in acknowledging that we will not get everyone back. His tears spoke more powerfully than the self-serving, self-deceiving—even cowardly—White House communiqués.

We have suffered a bitter defeat. The only response must be to move forward, determined but without arrogance, having learned, I hope, many painful lessons. But if we fail to learn the lessons, there will be worse to come.

House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, this is proving to be an elegant and most useful debate—the sort of debate, frankly, that I have missed. We have been kept apart too long. Like my noble friend, and roommate, Lord Forsyth, I believe that Parliament is an essential service, but we are told that we could not come back earlier because we were too old. Now it seems that we cannot come back fully because our staff are too young. It is about time that we sorted ourselves out.

I do not accept all the statistics thrown at us about how many votes we have had and how well they show we have done. Virtual participation and voting have become largely meaningless and they have left us open to lots of abuse. I quote:

“Peers vote in droves … Peers claimed almost £1m in taxpayer-funded ‘attendance’ allowances while working from home.”


So says the Times. It continues:

“Since the rules were changed … participation has soared to record levels.”


The Times does not like us, nor does the Daily Mail. It says:

“Lords a-leaping to vote from home after being allowed to claim £162-per day.”


Not even the Telegraph likes us, one headline stating:

“Lords up their voting as they claim virtual attendance rates.”


These accusations are incredibly damaging. We do not have many friends left, and we need friends. I cannot think that Downing Street looks on us with much favour, not after the House’s extravagant show of belligerence over Brexit. We have lost many former friends in the House of Commons too. Where shall we find the friends whom in these turbulent times we desperately need?

The press attack us constantly:

“Drunk as Lords. House of Lords spend nearly £2million on booze in the past five years”


screamed the Sun recently. There have been references to

“the same old snouts in the trough”

and:

“The unelected House of Lords is a corrupting influence at the heart of Westminster”—


that is what people have read in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and I have not even got close to the Guardian and the Mirror.

We have become a laughing stock in many eyes, and perhaps deservedly so when it comes to the wretched “Valuing Everyone” training. Is it not about time we started valuing ourselves? When are we going to stand up and say that we believe we do an incredibly important job and do it well? If we lurk in the shadows, as we have been doing, we will simply wither away.

As my noble friend Lord Howe and many others have said, we need to return to full physical debate and physical voting. We keep hearing that this is a business. It is not a business. We are not employed. This place is unique, and it is important.

I know that there will be many claims for exemption on the grounds of individual hardship. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, as I always do, and we need to consider very carefully what she has said, but I still have ringing in my ears the accusations that we are being paid for voting from the comfort of our own homes and gardens. Whatever else we do, we must bring an end to these accusations of “deckchair Divisions”.

Being a Peer is a huge privilege. It carries with it some pretty unselfish responsibilities. We are here to serve this House—not the other way around. It is on that basis that I believe we should move forward.

Covid-19: Road Map

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the NHS and its staff have done a fantastic job in treating patients with Covid, of which there have been more than 250,000 in the past year. I am sure that the NHS regularly learns from experience and looks to deliver the best care it can and will continue to do so.

[Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]]

I wonder if I might ask my noble friend about vaccine passports. For months now, Ministers have pooh-poohed the idea of such passports; it is not a British thing to do, they have said. Yet now we hear that Michael Gove is heading a review into the matter and the Prime Minister has said today that it is a very difficult issue, which, of course, it is. As it is a matter of fiendishly conflicting principles, not least that of personal freedom on the one hand and everyone’s responsibility to the wider community on the other, will my noble friend accept that it is not simply the Executive who should review this cat’s cradle of conflicting responsibilities and interests but the two Houses of Parliament too? Will she ensure that this House is given an early opportunity to debate this issue? It would be so much better if we could contribute before any edict is handed down from on high.

Global Britain

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank my noble friend for his observations. As I have said, in parallel with the negotiations we will be having with the EU, we intend to launch negotiations with other global partners so that we can end up having strong, positive trade deals with the EU and across the globe and make sure that we continue to play a role as the global Britain we all know we are.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I am very worried about chickens in global Britain. I understand that, under global Britain, I might have to be offered chickens that have been washed in chlorine. I have been washing my kids—or at least allowing them to swim—in chlorine for years. Does this mean that I have been mistreating my children or that I might have to cook the chicken before I eat it?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have made clear, we have extremely high standards in environmental protection, food safety, hygiene standards and labour laws. We intend to continue with those high standards. We are world-leading and we want, where we feel it is appropriate and necessary—as we have done for instance in our offer of maternity, paternity and annual leave and a number of actions we have taken in relation to the environment—to lead the world in standards. We have a proud history of doing that and will continue to do so. We will not lower our standards.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

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

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot but agree with the noble Viscount about the failure of the political class over the past two years to resolve this issue. Nevertheless, I have severe reservations about the Bill and the context in which it is being put forward. I was hoping to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, which would have been interesting, as I have a couple of points on casting in political plays. Boris Johnson likes to portray himself as Winston Churchill but acts more like Oliver Cromwell, who noble Lords will recall was the last person to try to prorogue Parliament against its will. He needed an army to do it. I also recall Cromwell’s words in relation to the rump Parliament—

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I beg the noble Lord’s pardon for not being able—as he can hear—to precede him this afternoon. However, I remind him that outside Parliament there is a big statue to Oliver Cromwell. Is he implying that there will soon be statues to Boris as well?

[Lord Whitty]

I would be surprised if our successors agreed to that, but stranger things have happened. There might be a statue to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, before there is one to Boris Johnson.

My reservations are partly constitutional and partly concern the effectiveness of this election on Brexit. My first constitutional point has largely been covered by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. There is a real danger of our political process being corrupted by nefarious forces engaging in digital intervention. We know of various groups who intend to do so, and I have not even spoken to Moscow yet. There is a danger, therefore, of this being the first really seriously disputed election because of unlawful intervention.

My second constitutional point is the more profound one also made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I always had my doubts about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act but, in the end, I went along with it. Since then, however, we have had two elections within two years, and a more honest description of the Bill would be “Delete the title ‘Fixed-term Parliaments Act’ and substitute ‘Two-yearly Elections Act’”. That is where we are. When Oliver Cromwell spoke to the rump Parliament, it had been there a decade, if not more. This Parliament has sat for precisely one Session. It is not a precedent that I hope we follow. The House of Lords has a reputation for being the guardian of our constitution, and we should at least put down a marker that this should not be seen as a precedent for future Governments and Houses of Commons. We should look, perhaps in a broader constitutional convention, at the length of our parliamentary Sessions.

My political point relates to the designation of this election as a Brexit election, and the slogan that the Prime Minister is apparently likely to use: “Let’s get Brexit done”. We all know that it will do nothing of the sort. Even this stage of Brexit is not clear. Parliament has not yet fully debated the withdrawal agreement arrangements or the Northern Ireland protocol, or indeed the political declaration. The issues raised by businesses and citizens around the country about our future relationship, trading and security arrangements with Europe will not be resolved by this election; they will not be resolved by 31 January; and they stand a good chance of not being resolved at the end of the transition period. If the public are expecting Brexit to be resolved by this general election, or by returning Boris Johnson and his manifesto, they will be very sadly disappointed. That will not resolve the conflicts in our country—it will make them worse.

I am not sure of the best way to resolve them. My preferred solution—which, I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, also proposed a few weeks ago—is to have a referendum and a general election on the same day. We would then know where the parties and individual candidates stood and, at the end of the election, you would know where the public stood. We are, however, not going down that road. We will be none the wiser about what Brexit will really bring us on the important issues that matter to citizens and businesses in this country on 12 or 13 December than we are today—or have been at any time in the past year.

I recognise that the Bill will go through. I regret that. I regret much of the past two years. I have a terrible foreboding that, if we are not careful, we will move into yet another area where statesmanship and leadership are absent from our Parliament. I shall deeply regret that.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I second my noble friend’s Motion for an humble Address. I understand that this honour—and it is indeed an honour—is often reserved for a younger and up-and-coming Peer.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Dobbs]

Yes, I am a little bewildered too. I endorse the fine words of my noble friend thanking Her Majesty for the great honour she did us here today, despite the attempts of protestors to close down Parliament. I had thought that that was Boris’s idea. I also thank our doorkeepers, the police, our security staff, our caterers, our cleaners and everyone who under Black Rod’s guidance has worked so hard to make this occasion possible. Their job is not easy. It sometimes carries significant risks. They should be proud of what they have achieved today.

I also want to thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for her fine words. What a pleasure it is to follow her. However, I have a confession to make: that has not always been the case. She was my first Chief Whip and, if I may say so, magnificent. She dominated the seas like a great battle cruiser, loading three or four Back-Benchers into the breech and aiming us at the enemy—I am sorry: the Opposition. One of my first debates in this House was on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Noble Lords may remember it. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues in coalition demanded a referendum—a binding referendum, no less, but life moves on. I was young and naive. I listened to an amendment being put by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and I was impressed by his arguments. I went out of the Chamber to tell my Whip that I was having difficulties, and she, very sensibly, advised me to go and have a cup of tea. But I was confused, and at this point I must have lost my presence of mind because I spurned the tea, returned to the Chamber, listened to more of the debate and voted for the amendment and against my Government. That was perhaps nothing more than a youthful indiscretion, except that the Government lost that crucial Division—by one vote. I scarcely need to tell noble Lords the direction in which the guns of my noble friend were then pointed, so it is a special delight to be able to follow her today.

I am much looking forward to the response by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Some say she is a remarkable Leader of the Opposition, and I wholeheartedly agree. She also once died in my arms. It was during one of the pre-Christmas theatrical jollies staged every year by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. They are so much fun. I played the romantic lead, and the noble Baroness played the impressionable maiden. I fear we were both tragically miscast. I persuaded her of my honest intentions, and with her dying breath she fell into my arms. Isn’t fiction wonderful? However, I fear political fiction may have run its course. How can it possibly keep up?

In order to be entirely cross-party, I should mention that while the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, died in my arms, there was a time when I almost died in the arms of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who I think is lingering somewhere if he is not in his place. He and I have been colleagues and friends for many years. We joined this House together. Some years ago, we were flying back in a private plane from Germany. It had been a successful business trip, and he opened a bottle of champagne—at 10,000 feet in an unpressurised cabin. The effect was truly dramatic, but I do not blame him for that near-death experience; I simply put it down as another lesson in the unintended consequences of his party’s policies.

This day has been wonderful. This gingerbread palace of ours was filled with colour and excitement this morning. I am struggling to imagine quite such exhilarating times in the QEII conference centre. We were treated to a gracious Speech that covered such a breadth of ground that some idle cynics might suspect there is an election around the corner. However, after Brexit, we will have many things to catch up on, whoever is in government. I dream of the days when we are beyond Brexit.

There has always been a bit of Hogarth about our politics. We fight for our beliefs with passion, and no one can doubt on which side of the Brexit lawn I have parked my lawnmower. However, if we are to bind the wounds and eventually to come to some form of reconciliation, we must learn once again the art of listening and try to understand the passions of those who oppose us. We cannot go on as we are, ripping up the roots of our democracy: tolerance, self-restraint and that sense of responsibility to others, without which our individual rights are meaningless.

In recent days we have seen a so-called performer on stage waving the severed head of the Prime Minister while shouting obscenities. We have heard remainers describing Brexiteers as Nazis, and leavers talking of stuffing the Krauts. No, no, no, my Lords. I hope that it is not controversial to suggest that we have, on all sides perhaps, gone too far. We used to have a voice that rang around the world. When President Xi of China came to this Parliament a few years ago, I presented him with one of my books, House of Cards. It is quite a hit in China, I am told—they think it is a documentary. I wrote a dedication for him and this is what it said:

“Where we agree, let us rejoice. Where we disagree, let us discuss. And where we cannot agree, let us do so as friends”.


Perhaps that is naive but I hope not. Today, who would look at our system and our recent conduct and hold it up as an example to follow? Report after report from this House has emphasised the importance of deploying our soft power in the challenges that lie ahead. However, if we are to offer lessons to others, we must relearn those lessons ourselves. Therefore, I cling to those words and the hope that, where we cannot agree, we do so as friends.

As my noble friend pointed out—so eloquently that there is no need for me to repeat it all—optimism explodes from every line of this gracious Speech rather like the champagne of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. There is enough clean air for the most jaded of souls, and I am delighted at its focus on tomorrow and particularly the young. By that, I do not mean up-and-coming young Peers like me but those whose first political memories might have been the bombing of the Twin Towers, after which came war upon war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Then we threw at them the mother and father of financial crises and drowned them in debt. Now, they look aghast as we do war among ourselves. Somehow, we have turned politics into a game that seems to have no rules and no referee. Can we not do better than that? We must do better than that.

However, I am an optimist—I have to be. I have four kids and am a grandfather and a Tory Back-Bencher, all roles for which survival requires endless doses of optimism. There will be life after Brexit, new mountains to climb and, yes, risks to take to reach those summits, but once we are there the view can be magnificent. There is no view more glorious or exhilarating from any summit in the world than that across the open highways, pleasant pastures and green mountains of our United Kingdom. Like my noble friend, I raise my eyes to heaven in the hope that I have not died in your Lordships’ arms. I humbly beg to second the Motion.

Motion to Adjourn

Moved by

Business of the House

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord talks about the feelings of the people. Something I want to endorse from my noble friend’s intervention is that, since 1910 or thereabouts, your Lordships’ House and the people have walked hand in hand. “The Peers and the people” has been an expression that had real meaning. I fear that that is not the case any longer and my impression, as an inhabitant of the north-west of England, is that people are beginning to question the point of your Lordships’ House if it ceases to be on their side. This particular Motion would put paid for ever to the respect that this House has among the people.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I say to my noble colleague that this is about much more than what happens with Brexit. This is about how we govern ourselves, what Parliament is about and the role of the people. We have already had some banter about parliamentary sovereignty and stuffing this place with a hundred Peers. Of course, soon it will be a discussion not about the role of this House but about the point of this House, if it carries on as it is.

We have had impassioned speeches over the course of these debates, which have been going on for three years. I know that people are getting very wound-up about the fact that they might have a few fewer days to discuss these matters, but we have been going on for a very long time. We have had all sorts of discussions about the principles of parliamentary sovereignty. I remember my noble friend and much-loved colleague Lord Patten making an impassioned speech, some time ago, in which he talked about parliamentary sovereignty in his erudite way. I seem to remember that he had picked up a copy of AV Dicey, the fount of all knowledge and principle on parliamentary sovereignty.

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

I can relieve my noble friend of the rest of his anecdote because one of the shames of my life is that, even though I did papers in constitutional history at the University of Oxford, I have never opened AV Dicey in my life. I have read Tom Bingham and a lot of Burke; I know the difference between Burke and Rousseau and am on Burke’s side, which is where my views on parliamentary sovereignty come from.

[Lord Dobbs]

My noble friend will forgive me then for my errant message. While he is quite clear that he did not open AV Dicey, my memory is that he quoted from it. He will forgive me, I trust, if my memory is playing tricks on me. My noble friend mentioned Burke, who has been much quoted on the role of a Member of Parliament. I remind the House that, at the very first opportunity after Burke made his pronouncement, the electorate threw him out and never allowed him back into the House of Commons.

This is one of the most honest amendments, if I may put it that way. It talks about recognising the fact that the vote of 17.4 million people to leave the European Union is no longer relevant. Why do we forget that the people were made a solemn and sincere vow at that time that it would be their choice and that their decision would be honoured? They had that vow not only in political speeches but in writing. Those leaflets were put through the letterboxes of every house in the country. It should have come as no surprise because the Liberal Democrats had long campaigned for a referendum at that time. Noble Lords may remember the leaflet bearing the image of Mr Clegg which went out in which the Liberal Democrats campaigned for a real referendum. “You will decide”, it said. I do not know what happened to Mr Clegg, or what he is doing now, but I know what happened to that promise. The people were given that promise at a referendum. Every single party said it would honour the result of that referendum.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My noble friend perhaps is not aware of the statement by the Supreme Court after the referendum which said that the statute authorising the referendum simply provided for it to be held without specifying the consequences and that the change in the law required to implement the outcome of the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely, by legislation.

[Lord Dobbs]

Yes, of course, but I am sure that my noble friend—he is a dear friend—is not suggesting that the promise that was given to those 17.4 million people, indeed to the entire country, has actually been fulfilled. We know what the object of so much of this is: it is not actually to decide which way we are going to get out of the EU. Out there and in this Chamber, there are people who are not worried about no deal; they want no exit. That is absolutely clear.

[Lord True]

Does my noble friend agree that, ironically, they are the no-dealers because they want everything to stay the same? They do not even want an adjustment of a withdrawal agreement or anything of that sort. They want no deal. They want us to stay in the Community.

[Lord Dobbs]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. It is one of those ironies that the Lib Deems started this with those leaflets with Mr Clegg’s face on promising a real choice, a real referendum. Mr Clegg and the late leader of the Liberal Democrats at the time said that it was an instruction from the people, not a bit of advice, perhaps something that we would think about, but an instruction from the people. It is one of the great ironies of this fiasco that we are going through right now that the Lib Dems have now come full circle. Having promised us that there would be a referendum and having campaigned for that, now their leader says that even if there were a second referendum to endorse the first—and, of course, a second referendum would endorse the result of the first referendum—they would not even then in those circumstances put forward Brexit and pursue that policy. They wear a coat of many colours, but it has got a little ragged at the hem and they are in real danger of falling flat on their faces.

We talk about the role of this House and of the House of Commons and the Queen, but there are four pillars of government in this country: the Queen, the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the people. We talk about parliamentary sovereignty, but in my book it is the people who are sovereign when they have been given such an explicit promise as they were given three years ago and they have consistently said that they want that promise honoured. That is why this amendment is one of the most honest amendments on the very long list this evening.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Does my noble friend not accept that, while the British people voted to leave—he is quite right about that—they are entitled to know the terms and conditions of that departure and that that is what the Supreme Court said?

[Lord Dobbs]

That brings us to the point that we have got ourselves into a dialogue of the totally deaf. We know that a deal has been suggested and that it has been turned down time and time again down there. There is no deal that is likely to get through that House as things stand at the moment.

The Prime Minister has said, “Let’s solve this by putting it back to the people. Let’s have an election”. My noble friend may not remember, but several months ago when we were debating these issues I said that the only constitutionally principled solution to a problem such as this when Parliament cannot make up its mind, when the parties cannot come together on anything, is to put it back to the people through a general election, which I believe is what the Labour Party has been campaigning for for two years. No ands, ifs and buts; no, we want an election, which is what the Prime Minister is now suggesting we have. Brenda in Bristol will have to put up with it.

The time has come when we need the people to put us right. We need their advice, we need their input, we need their instruction. We have been very bad at listening to their instructions for the past three years. It is time to go back to them for a further instruction in the form of a general election.

Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

Perhaps I may help my noble friend. Why are we pretending that these are normal times? These are not normal times. Parliament has shown itself to be incompetent in dealing with the instruction that it was given three years ago and, down the other end, they cannot make up their minds. These are not normal times; we must find new ways to address them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

The noble Lord accused noble Lords on these Benches of hypocrisy. In reply, I want to say that the greatest act of guillotine to take place was the introduction of a Prorogation to avoid debate. That was a fundamental guillotine that flew in the face of our democracy. That is why people up and down the country feel affronted by it. I regret to say so, but the noble Lord is carrying on that affront with what is happening in this House tonight. The continuation of this nonsense is an affront to our democracy.

[Lord Dobbs]

May I try to lower the temperature a little and smooth these choppy waters? I came into the House during the time of the coalition Government. I saw everything that I needed to know about filibustering from the Labour Benches when they tried to oppose so much of the then coalition Government’s constitutional programme. From an outside perspective, it appears that the general public look at us as Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. Can we back away from the idea that all fault lies on one side or the other and listen to my noble friend’s wise words?

[Lord True]

I thank my noble friend for that. I was not expecting such a vigorous attack. I said that I am not used to the courts or the law, but perhaps that is the way in which business is conducted in the courts of law; I would rather that it were not so in Parliament.

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Dobbs was defending my noble friend Lord True. I think he was saying that the Labour Party has filibustered in the past, so its Members cannot grumble tonight about my noble friend filibustering; that is what he seemed to be saying. My noble friend has a very good degree from Cambridge—not everyone is perfect—so perhaps he can explain this to us: if this is not a filibuster, what is?

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

Leaving the European Union

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I assure the noble Lord that there will be an insurance policy for Northern Ireland. Current discussions are about the form that it takes and how we get an arrangement that gets the support of the other place. It rejected the withdrawal agreement with that backstop in place. But I agree that the backstop that we have negotiated gives the whole of the UK tariff-free access to the EU market without free movement of people, without financial contributions, without having to follow most of the level playing field rules and without giving access to our waters. That is not something that the EU wants to happen. It is a backstop that was negotiated but the House of Commons decided it did not support it, so the Prime Minister is going back to have further conversations to try to get some changes that mean that the House of Commons can support it.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, do you not just love the wonderful whooshing sound that deadlines make when they whizz past all the time, as we hear yet again? We have heard a lot today about the use of the term “boycott” from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Of course, the term takes us back to a much darker time in our relations with Ireland. The seamless border about which the Statement talks is not just a border: it is part of a growing psychological and emotional union that has come about between our two peoples to put those times of boycott behind us. Could the Minister be a little more robust in joining with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick about the extraordinary remarks associated with President Juncker during the week about Ireland? I cannot think of anything more unhelpful to reaching an agreement on these matters than those and it raises the question of whether President Juncker actually wants an agreement.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I believe that both the EU and the UK want an agreement. We want a good deal and a strong relationship going forward. That is what everyone is working towards. Everyone needs a cool head. We need to negotiate and discuss and bring back a deal that the House of Commons can support so, as I said, we can move on to discussing the strong, future partnership that we all want between the UK and the EU.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I stand by the letter published today by the Attorney-General.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement uses the term “temporary” a great deal. Noble Lords will be aware that income tax was introduced as a temporary measure in 1799—and I still live in hope. Returning to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, neither we nor the Irish want a hard border, and apparently the European Union does not want one, either—so who will erect this hard border if the Prime Minister’s tireless efforts do not bear fruit tomorrow? I want to know in which direction to point my tanks. Nobody wants an Irish border.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is right that absolutely nobody wants a hard border in Ireland, but the EU has been consistently clear in discussions that it wants an insurance policy. We have been consistently clear that we want to abide by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. As we have said, the backstop is an insurance policy that none of us wishes to use. As has been stated by the EU and ourselves, we will use our best endeavours and work in good faith to make sure that that does not happen.