UK-EU Customs Union

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That this House takes note of the case for a UK-EU customs union and the impact of connections with the EU single market on the United Kingdom economy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate. It will see a number of comings and goings. We welcome the noble Lords, Lord Doyle, Lord Docherty and Lord Pitt-Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and say farewell to the noble Lord, Lord Offord. For the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, the House of Lords must seem like a haven of peace and tranquillity compared with his previous domain in Downing Street, not least in recent days. The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, brings a welcome additional Sikh voice to your Lordships’ House, and the noble Lords, Lords Docherty and Lord Pitt-Watson, bring a combination of business, academic and charity experience to our proceedings. We look forward to all their speeches today. We wish the noble Lord, Lord Offord, well as he contemplates pastures new.

The wording of today’s debate may sound rather dry and technical, but it deals with two of the biggest issues facing the country: how to improve growth and prosperity, and what our place in the world should be in the current turbulent times. I support the Government in making growth a, if not the, top policy priority. Growth in the UK has stalled over recent years, and this has led to constrained real incomes, weakened public revenues and, as a result, higher government borrowing. The Government sought to stimulate growth through a variety of investment incentives and educational and productivity measures, but these have been patchy and, even if eventually fruitful, will in many cases not yield real benefits for years to come.

There are many explanations as to why the UK’s growth has been so anaemic in recent years, but there can be no doubt that one of them is Brexit. There are many estimates of the impact of Brexit on the UK economy, but they all point in the same direction. Probably the best known is the OBR’s estimate that Brexit will reduce GDP by 4% over a 15-year period, that UK-EU trade will fall by 15%, and that Brexit has already had a negative impact on the public finances to the tune of over £40 billion over the period to 2024. Recent research by the US National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that the negative impact of Brexit has been much greater. What we know for certain is that goods exports to the EU in 2024 were 18% below 2019 levels and food exports were down 30%.

Inward investment, which is crucial to productivity and growth, has also been hit. House of Commons research has shown that FDI flows are well below the levels projected under pre-Brexit trends, and research by the Productivity Institute has shown that, post-Brexit, there are intensified regional inequalities in the inward investment that we are still attracting.

Polling amongst SMEs shows that over half believe that Brexit has made them less competitive globally because of shrinking access to EU customers and disrupted supply chains. And things are not getting better. The British Chambers of Commerce, reporting just last month, said that trade frictions are worsening. The reasons for this dismal picture are not hard to see: increased bureaucracy, including customs declarations and physical checks; competing regulatory frameworks; staffing shortages; and the inability of UK companies to participate in EU programmes, which have not been replicated by this country. So, Brexit has unambiguously hit growth and, if things remain unchanged, will increasingly do so.

In the meantime, the international context has changed significantly, and not in a good way. The Ukraine war has posed increasingly urgent questions for the whole of Europe, including the UK, about how it defends itself, both economically and militarily, against an aggressive Russian state. For the past year, President Trump’s re-election has led to a Catherine wheel of anti-European rhetoric and actions that have destabilised the Atlantic economic and security status quo. It is impossible to predict how the remainder of the Trump presidency will unfold, but there is now, I think, a widespread realisation that whatever happens, we will not return to the transatlantic economic and security equilibrium that we enjoyed throughout the post-war era.

This realisation that things have changed for good and that a new policy response is required has been articulated most eloquently by Canadian Premier Carney, speaking in Davos last week. He argued that the post-war rules-based international order has been upset and that new approaches are needed. He argued that sovereignty grounded in rules had to be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure, and that the key now was to build coalitions that work.

For Britain, by far the most significant coalition that can work better is that with the EU. The EU has responded to US threats to NATO funding by stepping up to the plate on increased military expenditure—in the case of Germany, dramatically so. In recent days, it has effectively faced down President Trump by threatening retaliatory tariffs if he imposes tariffs on Europe in his bid to take over Greenland. Post-Brexit, there have been some who have called for a much closer economic alignment with the US and further distancing from the EU. If it ever was, that approach is now clearly no longer a viable option.

The only viable option, in a world where Russia acts as a brutal aggressor, China poses a raft of security and economic threats, and the US is unreliable at best, is for the UK to rebuild and strengthen its ties with the EU. There is a need for this on security issues, on which there is already considerable progress, but there is also definitely a need for it on economic grounds. This inevitably means readdressing the issue of our membership of the EU customs union and the single market.

There are the beginnings of a recognition of that from the Government, who have embarked on a so-called reset of our relations with the EU. This led, last summer, to the first post-Brexit UK-EU summit, and agreement on a new strategic partnership with the EU that covered a significant but limited range of issues, including fishing, energy, student exchanges, and food and agricultural products. Progress on these matters has been somewhat fitful, but the Government have recently committed to reaching detailed agreements on all the issues covered by the new strategic partnership by the time of the next summit, which is expected by the summer. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is still the Government’s aim and expectation.

The Government have also signed a number of trade agreements with non-EU countries, which offer the prospect of increased long-term trade flows. Sadly, the potential benefits from those deals are extremely modest. Indeed, it is estimated that the benefits of even the limited measures in the Government’s reset will bring at least twice the benefits of the UK-India trade agreement, which is itself by far the most significant of our new trade agreements. In our view, the measures proposed in the reset, although positive and valuable, are not enough—nowhere near enough.

Our argument that rejoining a customs union with the EU is now urgently required to promote growth has been accepted by some members of the Cabinet. Wes Streeting has made the point repeatedly in recent months, as has David Lammy, who argued last month that such a move was essential to reduce trade friction. The Business Secretary, Peter Kyle, has also turned his mind to the issue in recent days. Early last week he described Lib Dem calls to rejoin the customs union as “utopianism” and said:

“What gives me anxiety is growth this year … that gives me more concern than … the customs union”.


However, he then went to Davos and said that

“it would be crazy not to engage with the prospect of a customs union”.

One hopes that he does now engage with the issue—and on a more consistent basis. Keir Starmer has also said that he is prepared to consider closer alignment with the single market, but not to the extent of returning to freedom of movement. If all this is timid—far too timid, in our view—at least it shows that the Government accept that closer alignment with the EU would indeed bring benefits to the UK.

No such timidity of approach applies to Kemi Badenoch, who recently said that joining the customs union would be “bizarre”. It would, she said,

“make us all poorer and damage British business and … farming.”

Given that this is the exact opposite of what British business is saying, the bizarre thing is that she seems to believe it. As for Reform, Nigel Farage is promoting the idea of a free trade deal with the US as the answer to our economic problems, and regards even the Government’s reset as a “giveaway”, which he will fight “tooth and nail”. He, at least, has the sole virtue of consistency.

Noble Lords will be aware that Liberal Democrat policy is to rejoin both the customs union and the single market, with the ultimate goal of rejoining the EU. Therefore, for us, the question is how we get there. We accept that, as the single market covers both services and goods, and the UK’s trade in services with the EU is large and in positive balance, being a member of the single market would bring greater overall benefits than membership of the customs union. However, we believe, from a practical point of view, that it would be more straightforward to negotiate a customs union deal, that time is now of the essence, and that we could get started on it straightaway.

We must accept that the EU does not see the prospect of years more negotiations with the UK on these issues as a priority, and is likely to prove a tough negotiator. It is particularly likely to be unsympathetic to any deal with the UK that seeks to cherry-pick bits of the customs union or single market that particularly benefit us. Any British Government will have to be prepared to accept this, and to explain it to the electorate. The seductive mantra of Boris Johnson of having your cake and eating it was always false. It would be a recipe for failure if we adopted that as our basic negotiating stance.

The EU, like the UK, is in something of a state of shock, given on the one hand the threats from Russia and on the other the new unreliability of the US. There is a new recognition that the whole of Europe, including the UK, must act decisively against these external threats, and a new willingness to contemplate closer working arrangements.

There is also now much stronger and majority support for getting the UK back into the heart of the EU, particularly among young people. This was recently brought home to me when, a few months ago, at the end of a school talk in Bridlington—one of the strongest pro-Brexit communities in 2016—I asked the pupils whether they agreed with my approach to the EU. To my surprise and pleasure, a forest of hand went up. They clearly see the EU as offering new opportunities for themselves and their community. We should not dash their hopes.

It is therefore for the UK now to set out clearly and unambiguously its long-term aspirations for a renewed relationship with the EU, and to prosecute that policy energetically and with urgency. The Government have made a few tentative steps in the right direction, but they are not enough. Today’s crises require swift and substantive action. The Government must now rise to this challenge. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that he will be disappointed if he expects us to stop talking about the issue, but we are going to stop talking about it now.

Motion agreed.

Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP: Resignation Letter

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Ministers are of course part of the process of democratic election. I agree with much of what my noble friend said.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in his letter of resignation, the former Deputy Prime Minister said that the inquiry into his actions

“set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government”,

and set the “threshold for bullying” too low. The Prime Minister in response said that we should learn to manage these matters better in future. Does the Minister agree that the threat to good government comes not from the inquiry but from bullying Ministers, that the threshold which needs to be raised is that of ministerial behaviour, and that the lesson to be learned is that Ministers should behave themselves and not bully their staff?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Ministers are required to behave themselves and do behave themselves. The code includes the statement:

“Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated”.


Complaints are investigated, as we have been discussing.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

I do not think we should make the change that the noble Baroness suggests. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the terms of reference for the role of the independent adviser were strengthened in May 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, was in the post. The changes made expanded the powers of the independent adviser, in particular giving the office holder the ability to initiate investigations. Where the independent adviser considers that an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code warrants further investigation and that has not already been referred to him, he may initiate an investigation. Before doing so, he will consult the Prime Minister, who will normally give his consent.

I am very pleased that we now have the independent adviser and, for completeness, I should revert to one or two of the points made in response to this Question when it was asked yesterday in the other place. The list of Ministers’ interests was published by the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests on 19 April. The list is not exhaustive but is designed to be read in conjunction with the register of interests in this House, which we all complete. I am very happy to answer further questions in relation to the list of Ministers’ interests, which has now been published in relation to all 120 Ministers.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, can I therefore ask the Minister a further question in relation to the list of Ministers’ interests? Does she agree that, in the interests of accountability, it needs to be updated regularly on the same monthly basis as the register of Members’ interests rather than a couple of times a year at best, as has recently been the case? More generally, does she accept that the Civil Service provides advice to Ministers with impartiality and integrity, and to argue that this is not the case, as some Ministers and former Ministers have done in recent days, is unfair, untrue and damaging to Civil Service morale?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord asks why the register is not updated on a monthly basis in the same way as the register of interests that applies in our House and in the other place. It is important to understand that they are different. The list published by the independent adviser is a list: it is published every six months as the public endpoint of an ongoing process. Ministers’ interests are declared on appointment and on an ongoing basis to Permanent Secretaries, and are reviewed by the independent adviser. Any changes have to be notified in real time but, because of the nature of ministerial office, the number of new interests is normally fairly small at any point in time, so it makes sense to publish a new list every six months. There was a delay because of changes in government, which the noble Lord will be well aware of.

I started life as a civil servant and I have worked as a Minister with many brilliant civil servants, a view I know is shared by my colleagues. I believe in an independent Civil Service, and its fearless and impartial advice is vital to this country.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, when Liz Truss was elected as Conservative Party leader a mere five weeks ago, she and her new Government faced two separate economic challenges. The first was how to respond to the dramatic impending rise in gas prices, due on 1 October. The second was how to put the country on a path to sustainable growth. The Government’s response to these challenges was to introduce the measures announced by the Chancellor on 23 September, which attempted to deal with them both in one fell swoop.

On the first, dealing with the impending energy price rises, the Government have introduced an extensive package covering both individual households and businesses. In our view, it still suffers from a number of flaws. For example, we believe that the freeze should have been applied to April rather than October prices. The business support lasts only six months, leaving companies unsure what happens after that. Most importantly, it is not accompanied by a windfall tax on the energy producers, which could have helped mitigate the very substantial costs. However, at least the measures are timely, offer real relief and will protect the vast majority of people and businesses from at least some of these otherwise unbearable costs.

All the remaining measures announced on 23 September seek to deal with the second challenge of promoting growth. Sadly, far from doing so, they have already precipitated an economic crisis, will leave many people worse off and will fail in their fundamental purpose. For a start, there was literally no reason to introduce these changes so precipitately, with no attempt to quantify their consequences and no explanation of how they were to be funded. As a result, the markets were alarmed, the Bank of England had to step in to prevent a pension fund collapse and interest rates, including mortgage rates, rose. Before looking at the broader consequences for the economy and the Government’s reputation, let us look at the individual measures announced on 23 September and see how they might help achieve the Government’s aim of promoting growth.

I start with the £18 billion cut in corporation tax. In reality, this will do little or nothing to promote growth. If you look at corporation tax rates across the developed world, there is no correlation between them and long-term economic growth. Many of our European competitors have higher corporation tax rates and higher long-term growth. The business community itself has not been making the case that lower corporation tax rates in themselves mean higher investment and therefore growth.

The best argument for the cuts to income tax and national insurance—other than a purely populist political one—is that they might help stave off the worst of a recession because they will help prop up consumer spending in the short term. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with promoting underlying growth. The reason is that, with almost full employment and in the absence of larger-scale immigration, the only way in which growth can be increased over the medium and long term is by improving productivity. Achieving this requires sustained increases in investment in people and equipment. Cuts in income tax and national insurance will simply not achieve this.

As for the cut in stamp duty, this may mitigate the costs of buying a house, but it pales into insignificance compared to the increased mortgage costs which the Government’s actions have brought about. These so-far unfunded tax cuts will do absolutely nothing to resolve the UK’s problem with long-term growth.

But what about the supply-side measures which the Government plan to introduce? As with the ill-fated proposed 45% tax rate cut, some simply appear to benefit those who need help least—for example, the proposal to end the cap on bankers’ bonuses. Some, such as the proposed investment zones, are highly unlikely to increase aggregate investment in the economy as a whole. Some, such as the intention to speed up planning and infrastructure projects, are so vague that they are, frankly, meaningless. Some, such as the proposals to curb the right to strike and to strengthen universal credit sanctions, simply look mean and vindictive. Whatever they are, they will not lead to a spurt in growth.

So, if the Government’s package of tax and supply side measures look doomed to fail the growth test, what about their other consequences? Three in particular stand out. First, the manner in which they have been announced has completely spooked the markets, particularly the mortgage market. The number of mortgage products fell by over 40% because mortgage providers lost any sense of the future trajectory of interest rates. Those mortgages which are still available now cost on average about 1% more than before the Chancellor’s announcement. This is entirely down to the Government’s own Budget, before any further increases in interest rates by the Bank of England.

Secondly, it is now clear that the Government plan to cut public expenditure to pay for their tax cuts. We do not yet know where these cuts will fall, but we do know that the impact of inflation on departments’ budgets already means that they will struggle to maintain services while providing fair wage increases. The idea which the hapless Chief Secretary seems to believe, that there is substantial fat to be cut, is laughably false. We wait with trepidation for a Halloween horror story to see where the cuts are going to fall.

Thirdly, and most damaging to the Government, they have lost within days of their formation any shred of a reputation for economic competence. They are pursuing fiscal policies completely at odds with the monetary policy that the Bank of England is legally bound to pursue. They have bet the farm on a pro-growth strategy which no respectable economist believes will work, and they have already been forced into U-turns caused by a lack of support for their policies, even among their own MPs.

Against all this, the Prime Minister simply labels all her critics as “anti-growth”. This is risibly untrue, so let me suggest as a starter a five-point plan which might actually do something to improve Britain’s growth prospects. First, given that the Government are in a big, big hole, they should stop digging—stop pushing ideological policies which will not promote growth but will undermine their credibility as a serious Government. There are many to choose from, but I suggest that they should stop their attacks on the healthier food agenda. Supporting buy-one-get-one-free offers clearly makes the Prime Minister feel better but will do serious damage to the fight against obesity, and the illness and therefore lack of productivity that ensue. The Government should think again.

Secondly, the Government should start rebuilding economic ties to the EU. We know that Brexit will reduce GDP consistently unless things change. They should start by sorting out the Northern Ireland protocol but then move towards aligning with the single market. This will do more for growth than any number of third-order supply-side gimmicks.

Thirdly, instead of prioritising fracking and North Sea oil permits, the Government should put their weight behind a green industrial revolution, including a massive programme of housing insulation. This will create jobs and growth and help mitigate the high energy costs now facing millions of households.

Fourthly, the Government should invest in skills. Having a more productive workforce is the only way we can increase productivity and therefore growth, and spending more on apprenticeships, FE and lifetime learning is the only way we can achieve this.

Fifthly, the Government should create a climate which encourages business investment. Investment in the UK has lagged that of France, Germany and the US for years. This is why they are much more productive and why household incomes there are now so much higher than here in the UK. Stability and consistency would improve the investment climate, but so too would a new industrial strategy which recognised where Britain’s economic strengths are and showed how the Government planned to support them.

Setting the UK on a path to sustainable growth will not be easy, but it is possible. What is not possible is to do so with a Government who are driven by a simplistic, failed ideology, who have failed even the most basic tests of competence, and who the British people rightly think have to go.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I can certainly agree with my noble friend and the implication of the question put earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. To be a Member of your Lordships’ House is one of the highest privileges that any person can ever receive. I have always tried to attend and do my duty here. I would hope that those who are appointed would behave in the same way.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, is it the Minister’s view that, to protect the integrity of your Lordships’ House, the Prime Minister should always follow the advice of the Appointments Commission?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, any Prime Minister would normally pay heed to the advice, as this Prime Minister has made clear. There is a particular case to which your Lordships continually return, where the Prime Minister made an appointment on his own judgment. I defend that particular person; he plays a valuable role in our House.

Standards in Public Life

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am certainly prepared to uphold high standards in relation to the questions the noble Baroness opposite has asked. She asked about the review going forward and the independent adviser, and she is correct that a commitment is made that the function of the independent adviser should continue. As I told the House recently, the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, raised a number of issues in relation to the role, as did PACAC in another place. It is right to consider these carefully and take time to reflect on them before making a decision on how best to fulfil the commitment to oversight and scrutiny of ministerial interests, but such oversight and scrutiny there must be.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the fundamental importance of personal responsibility and mentioned the Nolan principles. Can he tell us which of the seven Nolan principles the Prime Minister has not repeatedly broken? Secondly, to go back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, can he explain how, as a constitutionalist and parliamentarian, he repeatedly brings himself to the Dispatch Box to support such a disingenuous Prime Minister?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not bring myself to the Dispatch Box; it is your Lordships who invite me to come. When invited by such an august body of people, it is difficult to refuse. There is a fundamental point here, which was in the Statement: we must be properly concerned about victims in these circumstances. It is therefore essential that these matters are investigated.

In relation to Mr Pincher, in 2017 a formal complaint relating to an incident in 2001 was made, and Mr Pincher was cleared following a party investigation. In 2019 a formal complaint was made in the FCDO, as noble Lords are aware. Due policy was followed, and Mr Pincher made an apology for the deeply regrettable discomfort caused. There is now a further incident, and Mr Pincher has resigned from his ministerial role as Deputy Chief Whip. A formal complaint has been made and is being investigated by the appropriate bodies. That investigation should continue.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I fear that if we had removed Clause 3, although I was very sympathetic to that line of argument, as the noble Lord knows, we would have had the same result. The Commons, whipped, would have sent back the Bill with Clause 3 reinserted. We should not delude ourselves.

Both noble Lords on the Cross Benches performed a signal service. It was right that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, should take the initiative that he did. I supported him then, and I would support him again, but not tonight, because we both made it plain, as did others, that this had to be the decision of the House of Commons. I think Members have made an unfortunate and potentially dangerous decision, bearing in the mind the delicate position of the monarch. I am very sorry they have deleted the wisdom that we inserted into the Bill. But it has, and there for the moment is an end to it.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. This is a bizarre situation, in that we said to the House of Commons, “We think, O House of Commons, that you ought to have a bit more power on one of the most important acts of the political calendar; namely, the calling of an election.” It is an act, of course, which affects every one of them intimately whereas it affects us not at all. They have said, “It’s very kind of you to suggest that we have more power, but, actually, we don’t want it.” That seems bizarre and surprising, but if the Commons in their collective wisdom decide that they would rather the Queen retain a power than that they be given one which we have very generously offered to them, it seems churlish of us to insist on it. Therefore, I do not propose that we do.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we laugh, and in some ways, it is amusing. It is also extraordinary—I am not sure that it is amusing. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was an Act of its time whose main purpose was to protect the coalition Government, and it succeeded in that to a degree. I was very disappointed to read the response of Ministers in the other place. It seemed to focus on the argument that because all parties agreed that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act must go, there was only one way of doing it. That seemed an extraordinary proposition to make. On the points made by my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, this House had no vested interest whatever in the amendment that it passed. It sought to do so in the interests of the democratic system. The Government’s preferred option was one that we found quite extraordinary.

We enjoy in our Parliament a system of checks and balances in the democratic system. For those of us who do not consider that the Prime Minister alone should decide on the election, there seem to be three alternatives: first, that the courts intervene, which the majority of your Lordships’ House found unacceptable, although I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Butler; secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, that the monarchy would be drawn into that decision-making process, which we would all seek to avoid—I was glad that he quoted both Jackie Doyle-Price and Kevin Brennan, because I thought the points they made in the House of Commons were very pertinent; finally, that Parliament should have an opportunity to be engaged in that decision.

Those of my age who remember Wolfie Smith in “Citizen Smith” will have heard “Power to the people”; the Minister said, “Let us hand power back to the people”, but the Government are actually handing power back to the Prime Minister. There was never any difficulty in the election process—there was always going to be a general election—it is about who decides on the election. The Minister probably watched too much bad TV in his younger days. I find it extraordinary that the House of Commons was prepared to give up that power so easily.

I agree that, as the other place—albeit its majority being the Government’s majority—does not wish to pursue this, there is little point in our asking it to reconsider. However, I repeat a question that my noble friend Lord Collins asked the Minister in Oral Questions yesterday, which he sort of answered in the affirmative. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was a prime example of legislation being passed for one particular purpose without a great deal of thought, and it has had to be undone for all the reasons we know. Legislation made too quickly for a specific circumstance does not protect the constitution in any way. I hope the Minister will agree with me that constitutional change needs much more careful examination of long-term and unintended consequences. We have got ourselves into a right pickle over this one. Does he accept that, when looking at any significant constitutional change, a period of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation would provide for better legislation at the end of the day?

But for now, bizarre as the decision made by the other place may seem, we do not intend to pursue this further.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose this amendment. How beguilingly it is put. What could be more tempting than simply to say, “Vote in favour and all you are doing is giving the House of Commons another opportunity to discuss it”? We really ought to consider whether the case in favour is sufficiently powerful to take that unusual step, tempting as it may be. It is certainly not every day of the week that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and I agree, too, with my noble friend Lord Butler that this solution to the problems that have been identified today is not a good one.

I respectfully remind the House that although the matter took only a little time in the House of Commons, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act Joint Committee pointed out in paragraph 86 of its careful and thorough report that there was only a minority in favour of giving the House of Commons by Motion a veto over a proposed Dissolution, as this amendment would do. It ended:

“The majority considers it a change which would only have a practical effect in a gridlocked Parliament, which could mean denying an election to a Government which was unable to function effectively, and which might therefore be counter to the public interest.”


Of course I recognise that, under this proposed amendment, a two-thirds majority would drop to 51%. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Butler, pointed out, a hung Parliament could well reproduce the sort of stasis and chaos at which we arrived back in the summer of 2019.

I do not pretend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the next amendment, but this is a different point entirely. Given that, there should be a guardian against the sort of abuse that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, suggested could occur in the way of the prime ministerial prerogative of Dissolution; I suggest Brenda of Bristol.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure I know how to follow that last remark. I have put my name to this amendment for the reasons so eloquently given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Like him, I carefully read the considered and lengthy response of the noble Lord, Lord True, to the equivalent debate in Committee. The noble Lord set out to make our flesh creep about the consequences of this amendment. I shall deal with three of his arguments, one of which has already been dealt with today.

First, the noble Lord said that, if this amendment were passed, the chance of zombie Parliaments would remain high. As we have already heard, the last Parliament was a zombie Parliament to the extent that the Fixed-Term Parliament Act requires a two-thirds majority. Without that, it would not have been. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, “Ah yes, but there will be other circumstances in which such a zombie Parliament could obtain”. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained the first next step if a Prime Minister were unable to win a majority. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is asking us to entertain as plausible the possibility that, if nobody could form a Government, Parliament would decide that it wished to continue in existence without there being a credible Government. This is completely implausible to me. I cannot foresee circumstances in which such a situation would obtain for more than a very short period—a day or two at most. The noble Lord did not set such circumstances out. I do not believe that this amendment makes zombie Parliaments more likely.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord True, said that the amendment is “dangerously silent” on the status and practice of the conventions associated with confidence. Of course it is silent on the convention because conventions are not law. In the case of a Motion of no confidence having been passed, it seems blindingly obvious that, at that very minute, there would be a vote under the Act, as it would then be, to call an election. I cannot see circumstances in which that would not happen. The fact that conventions are not mentioned in this Bill is impossible and largely irrelevant.

Thirdly—and most extraordinarily—the noble Lord, Lord True, argued that this amendment, if passed, would deny or “overturn” the votes of millions. What on earth does that possibly mean? When millions vote, they do so in the expectation that there will be a full term of Parliament. During the course of a Parliament, they may or may not at any particular time wish that there were another election. As it happens, today, I suspect that most people would be rather glad to have an election, but that is not the way the constitution works. Parliament is elected for a period. If that period is to be truncated, the authority for truncating it rests with Parliament. The people have no say in whether to have an early election under our constitution, and the Government are certainly not proposing that, so the argument that, somehow, the amendment would frustrate the votes of millions is completely misplaced.

It comes down to a simple question: where should the ultimate source of power in our constitution rest? This was the question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, posed. We contend that it should be with Parliament and not the Executive. We contend that the steady accretion of power to No. 10—which, to a limited extent, has been further added to by the decision of the Prime Minister to set up a prime ministerial department— is not good for democracy. The amendment is one small way of reversing that trend.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not present during Committee.

When I was a student, a young person doing A-levels in Uganda, there was a question: “How are the people of the United Kingdom governed?” The book said, “The people of the United Kingdom are governed by the Queen in Parliament under God”, and went on, “and the sovereign is Parliament.” If Parliament is the ultimate authority, to deny it the possibility of agreeing to the Dissolution of Parliament seems bizarre. If it is not, who has the ultimate authority? The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that the Government could be paralysed and could not govern, but governance can happen only if those in the Executive are accountable and transparent to Parliament. If they are not, we are creating a body of people who think they are not answerable for their decisions to Parliament—that they are the ones who give it legitimacy. They may find themselves paralysed because, for whatever reason, they cannot obtain a majority. We heard that lady in Bristol when the election was announced in 2017. She said, “Not another election!” People are fed up with ad hoc solutions that often do not help.

I support the noble Lord, the Convenor of my group, who has provided a simple solution. If the Government cannot obtain a simple majority for Parliament to be dissolved, so be it. As for the calling of elections regardless because you are not getting your legislation through, well, if Parliament is objecting and it is sovereign, it requires a bit of humility to say, “We did not get it this time; maybe next year.” I plead for this simple amendment, which would resolve all the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about—of the power of the sovereign and the power of the courts. Of course, the courts will intervene if something illegal has been done. Do noble Lords remember the Brexit question, when there was a desire that it should be done through the royal prerogative, the old King Henry VIII powers? The court said, “No. The act to enter into these negotiations was an Act of Parliament, and if you want to do away with it, it is Parliament that must consent for that to be done.” That was when the courts intervened, by the way.

I, for one, support this simple way to resolve the problem that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act created, but we surely cannot go back to the power of the Prime Minister as if Prime Ministers are not accountable to Parliament: they are.

Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, on the second point, obviously, I am not a member of the Cabinet and not informed on that matter. It is not custom, as the noble Baroness knows, to comment on Cabinet discussions. On the first point, I must repeat what I said in the Statement. As the terms of reference set out, the findings will be made public. Obviously, there is an interrelation between the Cabinet Office inquiry and the police investigation, and any intimation must be left to those conducting the inquiries. As far as the Government are concerned, I repeat: the findings and the investigation will be made public.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is not disputed that the Prime Minister attended his own birthday party at a time when such gatherings were illegal. So he is now simply awaiting the executioner’s blow, either from the Gray report or the police investigation. In the meantime, his authority has disappeared completely. Will the Minister pass on to the Prime Minister the view of the country, and I suspect of this House, that the only positive act that he could now perform would be to resign today?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lord.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, like everybody else who has spoken in the Committee so far today, I share the objective of returning to the status quo ante and repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. But as some noble Lords who heard me speak on Second Reading may know, I do so for different reasons from that which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and most others have set out today. I supported the original legislation, and the reason why I think that it should be repealed is because something that I believed was a relinquishing of power to the electorate turned into a weapon that got used against the electorate, as my noble friend Lady Noakes has described.

That is why I think it is important that we go back to how we were before, rather than, at this point, seek to introduce something that would maintain a power that the House of Commons did not have before. I thought what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said when he introduced his amendment was interesting as he said this about where power lies. He carefully made the point that this was not about the current Prime Minister, this was about where power rests in this situation. Should it be with the Executive? Should it be with Parliament? I know that over the last few years the noble and learned Lord has raised many different examples of where there is an imbalance of power between the Executive and Parliament, and that there are some ways in which that needs to be looked at and that imbalance addressed.

I do not think we would be wise to try to introduce a power because of what happened a couple of years ago. The battle for power at that point, in 2019, between the Executive and Parliament was observed, in my view, by people outside Parliament as a battle that should not have taken place. It was power that should not rest in the hands of Parliament. Indeed, it should not rest, in a direct way if you like, in the hands of the Prime Minister. This was about a democratic mandate that was in need of being implemented. I think, for everybody’s interests, trying to introduce the amendment that has been proposed here would be unwise, and the best course of action would be to return to exactly what we had before.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I have been searching for credible arguments against it. I was therefore very grateful that the Minister circulated a letter, setting out the Government’s stance, in which I hoped I might find some credible arguments against it, even if I did not agree with them, but this is what the letter said. It said that it

“will not necessarily achieve the desired outcome”

and:

“Its long-term consequences … are untested.”


I may have got the logic wrong, but until something is implemented how can we know what its long-term consequences are? So I was not too troubled in my belief by that.

Then I read that it was a “novel element”. Anything that is change, by definition, has a degree of novelty to it, so that did not get us very far. It was then said that there could be “(unintended) consequences” without any suggestion of what they might be, so that did not get us much further. It then said it was a “constitutional innovation”. Well, yes—so? That did not get us any further. The letter then said that it had not been “fully considered” and constitutional change needed to be fully considered. Perhaps it had not been, but it has now, so that is not a credible argument. Finally, we had a typically empty threat from the noble Lord, Lord True:

“We are not doing a service to the elected chamber if we ask them to reconsider a question which they have squarely confronted and which they have decisively decided against.”


We might as well go home if we adopted that policy. We certainly would not have been voting against the police Bill at all if we accepted that. That is the sum total of the Government’s response on why we should oppose this amendment.

The further argument—which the Government did not use, incidentally—that I thought had some substance was advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. These are my words, not hers: MPs might refuse a Prime Minister an election because they feared for their own seats and so would act out of personal interest rather than the national interest. Against that theoretical possibility, surely there is the more likely possibility of a Prime Minister calling a premature election primarily to save his or her skin, rather than because they have considerations of the national interest uppermost in their mind.

In any event, surely, the constitutional position is that citizens vote for someone to represent them in Parliament, not for a Prime Minister. In my political lifetime, there have been five occasions on which the Prime Minister has changed during the lifetime of a Parliament without triggering a new election in any case. So voters have ended up with a Prime Minister who was not a prime ministerial candidate at the previous election and who has no personal, direct mandate from the electorate. MPs, by contrast, will be held to account by their electorates if they trigger an early election and so, in my view, the decision on whether to do so should rest with them.

I was going to respond to the noble Baroness in terms of what happened in 2019, but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has done that extremely comprehensively. I would just say, going back to 1974, that the same arguments apply. Does anyone believe that in the autumn of 1974, if the House of Commons had been asked whether there should be an election, Harold Wilson would have been denied one? The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave the reasons. Oppositions are there to oppose, and they do not vote to keep their opponents in office—it is in the name. The key question which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised is by what authority does a Prime Minister decide, uniquely, when an election should be held, particularly, as I said earlier, if that Prime Minister was not the candidate for Prime Minister at the preceding general election? In my view, authority on when an election should be held should rest with the people who have been elected to run a Parliament. That is why I support this amendment.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I am very puzzled by this debate. There have been words used such as “inappropriate”, “exceptional” and “misuse of power” to suggest that the Prime Minister of the day, when he or she asks the electorate to choose the Government, and where he puts his or her own tenure in No. 10 at risk, is somehow abusing his or her position. I do not understand what those likely positions might be where the Prime Minister of the day can be accused of abusing his or her power to go to the electorate. Nobody has yet produced an example of that. We know when the Prime Minister might want to do that—because they have no majority and want a majority, because they have a very small majority or because they want a mandate for a new policy, possibly—but none of those is an abuse of their power.

If I had read the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and instead of reading “election” and “Dissolution” had read “Prorogation”, I would completely understand. Of course, it would be an abuse of power to give the Prime Minister of the day the power to extend the life of Parliament, but I do not understand in what situation a Prime Minister can be accused, in these words, of inappropriate or exceptional misuse, by asking the electorate to choose the Government they want, and to put his or her own tenure at No. 10 at risk. I would be grateful if somebody could provide me with some examples.