House Of Lords: Appointments System

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, overall numbers obviously matter, but so does the number of Members of your Lordships’ House with a diversity of lived experience. The greater ethnic diversity of the recent intakes of Members to your Lordships’ House obviously strengthens us hugely in the eyes of the public, but will my noble friend The Lord Privy Seal to draw No. 10’s attention to the fact that, as compared with 20% of the population who are disabled, only 1% of your Lordships’ House has long-term lived experience of disability and encourage the Prime Minister to remedy that disproportionality?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. I certainly will pass on that message, as indeed others that I have referred to. I think the whole House looks with the most enormous admiration and respect at—and gains tremendously from the presence of—those who have the kind of lived experience that my noble friend refers to.

Democracy Denied (DPRRC Report)

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord McLoughlin. I agree with his important points about the legislative workload legacy of Brexit. I, too, thank my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and congratulate them on the forthright and formidable reports which their committees have produced. These are weighty documents. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, told us, they pull no punches. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Fookes implied, they pack a powerful punch, showing once again the invaluable, dispassionate and uncompromised contribution of your Lordships’ House to the health and well-being of British democracy.

I will not pretend that I found the technical detail of the measures, devices and procedures that we are discussing easy to understand, but then I assume that is the intention. However, what is clear from the reports and the Government’s responses, as well as from the two committees’ subsequent expressions of disappointment with those responses, is the direction of travel. In short, we are moving in the wrong direction. The danger is that, until and unless the Government accept the need to rebalance power by returning power to Parliament, the Government—the state—will continue inexorably to accrue more power. This is not good for democracy, because rebalancing and returning power to Parliament is not simply a technical matter; it is surely fundamental to restoring public trust in the political process, as the noble Lords, Lord Janvrin and Lord Prentis of Leeds, in his powerful maiden speech, reminded us.

The right reverend Prelate, who is not in his place at the moment, spoke of taking back control. My position on Brexit was informed by whether the British people would be able to hold their Government to account for decisions affecting the minutiae of their daily lives. I never intended that my vote to leave should somehow be misinterpreted as a licence for the Government to assume yet more control over our lives. That is not to say, of course, that in repatriating powers which were surrendered by successive Governments to the EU through statutory instruments and similar unaccountable devices during our membership of the EU, Parliament should then obstruct the Government’s promise to complete that process by the end of the year. However, it does mean that careful consideration needs to be given to what I remember as a student my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth described as the delicate balance between the effectiveness of government and the consent of the governed. Accountability is central to that.

I suggest that, in addition to continuing to champion the recommendations of these two very important reports, your Lordships’ House has a crucial role to play in facilitating that greater accountability. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford called for a stronger committee system. I wonder whether we could commission an examination of the impact of our committees in terms of government take-up of their recommendations, perhaps going as far back as 2015, including an analysis of what external stakeholders who have given written or oral evidence felt came out of it, in terms of their impression of the value of the inquiry and the committee’s recommendations, and what they thought of how the Government have responded.

Might that not be a pragmatic way, not only of this House showing that it is more than just a talking shop, but of Parliament and Government together demonstrating that we both recognise the need continually to earn the trust of the British people? We both have skin in the game here. That, ultimately, is surely what this is all about.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Lords Hansard _ Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I think the mood of the House is that the Front Benches—

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, may I just be indulged by the House in following the excellent speech by my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson? Exactly seven weeks ago, not just to the day but to the exact hour, I started to feel very ill. I was barely 36 hours out of the operating theatre after surgery that had gone incredibly well and I knew something was seriously wrong. By midnight I was in agony, my bowels totally blocked by the combined effects of the anaesthesia and the pain relief. By the morning, I was passing blood and my haemoglobin levels had plummeted. That was just seven weeks ago. It was at that point that a decision was made to transfer me by ambulance to St Thomas’ A&E so that I could have an urgent blood transfusion. I lived to tell the tale, but tell it I would much rather not have done. I would much rather forget the whole episode—the unbelievable pain, the helplessness and the acute sense of vulnerability. My family do not know any of this; I have not told them. I am hoping they do not read Hansard.

I share it with your Lordships’ House because I believe that my recent experience is directly relevant to Amendment 170. We have been assured that this is not about the merits of assisted dying, but noble Lords should not underestimate the magnitude of what is at stake in this amendment. This is not the start of some cosy conversation about a harmless, anodyne measure. The end goal is assisted suicide and the means is a Bill proposed in this amendment. If this amendment were passed tonight, I firmly believe that in years to come, we would look back and say that today—16 March 2022—was a pivotal moment.

House of Lords: Governance

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, in the six years since I was introduced to your Lordships’ House, I have come to appreciate even more than I already did what a truly amazing institution it is. However, I have also come to appreciate that one particular aspect of our governance represents a real reputational risk that we need urgently to address so that we can focus on the important procedural issues that other noble Lords have rightly mentioned.

We talk a good talk on tackling disability inequality in the laws that we pass, but the sad fact is that we do not walk the walk in how we treat our disabled Members. Indeed, I suggest that the public would be shocked by the extent to which our governance perpetuates disability inequality here in Your Lordships’ House. We may have passed into law the duty to make reasonable adjustments because of disability but one would never know that from our governance and the way in which your Lordships’ House operates.

Let me provide two examples. In any other professional environment, the fact that I had to learn to talk again and now live with a speech difficulty following life-saving neurosurgery would prompt questions about whether I needed extra time to speak, but not here. I blame no individual for the system we have inherited, but that does not remove responsibility from those who now have the power to change a system that is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory.

As noble Lords may know, I live with brittle bones. In every sphere in which I worked until I joined your Lordships’ House, including the private sector, I knew that I would be supported if I needed to take time off to recover from a fracture. However, the harsh reality of serving in your Lordships’ House is that, if I broke my leg later today and had to have surgery that necessitated weeks of being incapacitated, I would be completely on my own. For the first time in my professional life, I would be entirely without financial security because the unfair, discriminatory presumption is that not only would I not have a disability that incurred such financial risk but I would have the independent financial means to support myself. I do not. Just when I would be at my most vulnerable because of my disability and possibly unable to contribute, even remotely, to the business of the House for several weeks, your Lordships’ House would effectively wash its hands of me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, although I have never encountered such systemic disability discrimination before, I do believe in self-regulation. But I also believe we need to recognise where the reputational risk of self-regulation outweighs the benefits. Trying to self-regulate on disability discrimination when we have already passed legislation on it is a no-win situation. It is simply a gift for the critics of your Lordships’ House, because it says that there is one rule for them and another for everyone else. I am sure none of us needs reminding at the current time how well that goes down with the public. The current situation with regards to the treatment of disabled Members of your Lordships’ House gives self-regulation a bad name. If we want to protect the reputation of this wonderful House, which I do, we should stop applying self-regulation to this particular matter.

We have a choice. Do we begin the new year in breach of the disability discrimination legislation that we ourselves have passed, or does the House of Lords Commission use its meeting next week to extricate your Lordships’ House from this totally invidious position and make clear that we recognise we have a moral duty to be a beacon of best practice, rather than an exception to it?

In conclusion, that is why I urge the commission to commit unequivocally to respect and apply both the letter and the spirit of disability discrimination legislation to disabled Members of your Lordships’ House, with immediate effect. Let us remove this shameful, invidious aspect from our governance, and thereby achieve a goal we all share: to ensure our governance protects and strengthens, rather than undermines, this amazing institution.

Procedure and Privileges

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. I will confine my remarks to the impact of the Select Committee’s proposals relating to participation by disabled Members of your Lordships’ House.

For me, these proposals are best summed up by the assertion in paragraph 45 of the Select Committee’s report that:

“The contribution disabled members make to the House’s debates and decisions is integral to the work of the House”.


The measures proposed will, as my noble friend the Leader of the House made clear, give effect to that very welcome affirmation. It is an affirmation not just of the disabled Members of your Lordships’ House but of the collective expertise and experience that, together, the House brings to the legislative and scrutiny process of this diverse United Kingdom.

I agree with those noble Lords who rightly feel passionate about the ability of your Lordships’ House to subject the Government to effective scrutiny, which is of course essential for the exercise of parliamentary democracy. It is no less essential that we recognise that if it is to the exclusion of diversity—in this case disability—scrutiny is less effective because it fails to draw on the breadth of lived experience of all noble Lords to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern alluded. For a House which prides itself on that unique combination of expertise and experience not to accommodate the needs of its disabled Members, for example, to be able to contribute remotely, particularly for disability-related reasons, does not make sense.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I was dismayed to hear some of the comments made when the House last debated these issues. While this may not have been the intention, as a disabled Member of the House, I was left feeling not only that I and other disabled Members did not add value to our proceedings and debates but that the very validity of our contributions was in question.

We are fortunate to command a wealth of wisdom because of the range of expertise and experience that other noble Lords have referred to. It is also an inescapable fact that many noble Lords are wealthy to a disproportionate extent relative to the general population. I begrudge no one their wealth, but with wealth comes responsibility—a responsibility to ensure that it cannot be used as a stick with which our detractors can beat your Lordships’ House. We urgently need to become more representative and more diverse, especially in relation to disability, because diversity is our best defence against such attacks. The measures under consideration today, and the way they have been developed in meaningful consultation with disabled Members, recognise that and enable it to happen.

I close with this observation. It gives me no pleasure to say that the way in which we are addressing this need, particularly regarding how disabled Members have been listened to and meaningfully involved in developing these proposals, is in marked contrast to the unfortunate way in which I fear that the DWP has traduced the Prime Minister’s promise of

“the most ambitious and transformative disability plan in a generation”

to mere rhetoric. The cynicism with which the DWP has treated disabled people in the development of the national disability strategy, which is apparently due to be bounced on us next week, is staggering. I thank the Lord Speaker, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Procedure and Privileges Committee for taking a very different approach. I urge noble Lords to support these proposals.

House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this important opportunity to reflect on the lessons of the extraordinary experience of the last 14 months. I sympathise with the sentiment of the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack. Like other noble Lords, though, I do wonder whether the House’s normal working practices, in the broadest sense, enable it to be as effective as it could be. Do they protect it from its many critics, or do they simply brush under the carpet an aspect of your Lordships’ House which I fear could yet prove to be its undoing?

Others have made a strong case for reasonable adjustments to be made on grounds of disability. I make an additional suggestion. While some may argue that your Lordships’ House’s Achilles heel is its size, I suggest, as others have in this debate, that it is not so much the number of noble Lords that concerns the public, but the perception that its membership is unrepresentative. I should make it clear that I infer no criticism of any individual Member, but when we talk about remote proceedings as a technical term, I fear that, as far as the public are concerned, we are remote because we are seen as unrepresentative of those on whose behalf we make the law.

I therefore suggest that we urgently look at how your Lordships’ House can become more representative and supportive of its disabled Members, particularly in one specific respect. Each maiden speech is unique and personal, yet every one of us begins our journey in this House with an expression of gratitude and a sense of how privileged we feel to be Members of it, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe reminded us. Sadly, my experience of the last 14 months has taught me that we are also a House of privilege, where it is the presumption that each noble Lord will have independent means, in that they will not have to rely on the Lords’ attendance allowance, and that they will not have a disability which makes them, on occasion and sometimes without warning, unable to attend your Lordships’ House and therefore claim the attendance allowance. In my own case, I gave up a well-paid career in public affairs to serve in your Lordships’ House. Quite rightly, a conflict of interest prevents me from continuing that career.

I also have a disability, which in my case means that I could have a fracture later today and be unable to attend your Lordships’ House for perhaps several months. In the meantime, I would have nothing with which to pay my mortgage or my bills—in short, to live on. The fact is that some of us could not be here, could not contribute, without the attendance allowance, yet the House of Lords Commission’s decision in the first lockdown, about which I have spoken in the past, took no account of either a Member’s means or whether they had a disability. Instead, I regret to say that the message was, “I’m all right, Jack; all noble Lords are rich and non-disabled, and we do not need the money.” I am afraid that it does not take a genius to realise that, while that may have been acceptable in 1821, it is not a good look in 2021.

In conclusion, if we want this amazing institution to survive and flourish, as I do, we need urgently to look at ways to strengthen it. A key lesson of the last 14 months is that the current attendance allowance system is not fit for purpose. Until it is reformed, whatever our proceedings, your Lordships’ House will remain remote and therefore vulnerable to those who will call for its abolition.

House of Lords: Allowance

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is fine. In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, every situation can teach us something. The experience of the last few months might have plunged some noble Lords into significant debt, but it is none the less valuable in the lessons that it teaches us as a self-regulating House. I think it is fair to say that the most important lesson is that we must avoid at all costs reinforcing the unfair perception that your Lordships’ House is the exclusive preserve of privilege and wealth. Diversity is our strongest defence against that charge, which is why we need to recognise that some noble Lords will inevitably have neither inherited nor acquired wealth but will have significant outgoings. That is normal and must be taken into account, and I thank the Lords Commission for doing so in its latest decision.

However, apart from the personal consequences of suddenly having very little income, it has been very unsettling to see such decision-making power wielded in secrecy and without any accountability to a parliamentary Chamber that is meant to be self-regulating. I therefore think that, to move forward, we need to get our own House in order by injecting some transparency and accountability into the system. Most importantly, we urgently need to strengthen the legitimacy of the Lords Commission in future by holding an election of its chair and deputy chair by the whole House, by holding open meetings of the Lords Commission, by ensuring advanced publication of Lords Commission papers, and by having a quarterly Lords Commission Question Time with its chair, held in the Chamber, as in the House of Commons.

I will close on this point. Specifically with regard to the position of the Clerk of the Parliaments, I know that I am not alone in being concerned that the postholder wields huge authority without any real accountability to the House. I therefore suggest that the contract for such a hugely important role should not be extended in future without it having been put to and agreed by the House first, and the details of the package, the job description and objectives having been made available in the Library a week before consideration.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I first praise the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for speaking out on issues that he has felt strongly about over recent weeks. It is never easy to talk about parliamentary allowances, because your words are capable of being distorted and you become a bit of a target. If he has opinions to provide to your Lordships’ Chamber, he should do so, and he is brave to speak out. I have different points to make, but I welcome his contribution.

I also thank the noble Baroness the Leader for her introduction, for making sure that the information for today was available early and for the supplementary information that has been provided this morning. I recognise that the last few months have been difficult for all concerned. I have praised the staff of the House before. They have done an outstanding job in difficult circumstances. But I also think that the Leader has steered us through these times in a responsible and admirable way.

I have two points, partly spurred on by the use of the word “temporary” to describe this second version of the temporary scheme that we are going through. That word was used to me in the spring of 2011 when I questioned the new allowances scheme. I was told that it was a temporary move to remove the abuses that had been taking place and bring in something that would be simple to administer, but that it would be reviewed quickly and we would return to overnight reimbursement in the near future.

That, of course, has not happened. If, over the nine years since, those Members who live in London or have property in London—I suspect that the vast majority in this House have either inherited that property or had it paid for by the state as Members of the House of Commons—have attended every sitting of this House since Easter 2011, they will have gained more than £200,000 from the change in the allowance system that was brought in, when the previous overnight allowance, which I think was about £160 to £170, was mopped into the daily allowance so that everybody in the House could claim it, not just those who actually had overnight costs from being in London.

This has happened in the same decade when every party leader, in the House of Commons and here, has expressed a desire to bring more people from more parts of the country, with different experiences and backgrounds, into your Lordships’ Chamber. At a time when that is the expressed aim, there is institutional discrimination against those Members who do not live in London and the south-east. That discrimination has never been tackled by the commission, successive Leaders or any of the political parties. I think that that is shameful. I have said it here before and I will say it again today.

I raise this today because we have an opportunity. I want to be positive rather than just negative about what has happened. There is an opportunity, given that these temporary arrangements have had to be put in place, to reduce the daily allowance for all Members and to reinstate some overnight allowance for those Members who have to travel from other parts of the country and do not own property in London. There must be an opportunity over these coming months, as we use this new temporary system, to make a change—to do the right thing. I ask the House of Lords Commission to give that serious consideration. The time is right. I think that it would suit the public mood, but it would also be the right thing to do, not only for the individuals concerned but for the diversity of this House and the attendance of Members from around the whole of the United Kingdom.

My second point is bit more specific. It is not far off some of the principles behind the points made by the previous speaker. I should perhaps say first of all that my comments on this in no way affect or change my ability to reclaim the legitimate travel costs that I have incurred in attending the Chamber physically over the last few weeks, because on each of those weeks I made a contribution in the Chamber and I will receive my full travel reimbursement, as is right and proper.

However, I am not happy at all about the situation where changes to the regulations and the interpretation of the travel allowance are being backdated. If someone has attended this Chamber over the past seven weeks but on the day was not able, for whatever reason, to go on the relevant Questions list, perhaps because they were not chosen by their whip, and they incurred legitimate travel costs to be here, if they were not on a list for the day or days they were here that week, they will not get the travel reimbursed, which they paid at the time assuming that that was okay.

I have raised this with the Clerk of the Parliaments, in correspondence with the Leaders and with the Lord Speaker. I think it is wrong that the travel allowance changes should be rigidly backdated. There should be some flexibility for anyone caught up in that situation. I am lucky and fortunate not to be in that position, but at least one or two Members of your Lordships’ House might be.

House of Lords: Allowances

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two issues here: allowances and the wider issue of the conduct of the House during the lockdown, as was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Newby.

The Leader of the House concentrated her remarks on allowances. On that specific issue, I agree with the commission’s proposal for the reasons that the Leader gave. In a time of great crisis when people are making great sacrifices, it is absolutely right that we follow suit. The right compromise on this is a halved allowance, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness. That should continue for as long as we are meeting virtually because the actual costs that most noble Lords—I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it is not true of all noble Lords—need to meet are lower.

However, I agree entirely with the thrust of the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Alderdice, about the conduct of the House in lockdown, including that our arrangements should be considered emergency arrangements—because they are, or at least I hope that they are, unless the Government make further changes—to deal with an emergency situation. I say this directly to the Leader: the great concern among many Members is that the emergency changes we are all willingly making to meet the exigencies of this crisis may become permanent. As all of us who have dealt with these situations in other contexts know, precedent always becomes the justification for further changes, particularly in dealing with the proceedings of Parliament. Some key aspects of the arrangements for the House in lockdown are causing acute concern; the noble Lords who just spoke were absolutely right to raise them.

Very significant departures from established practice have been taking place. From time immemorial, it has been a principle that noble Lords who wish to participate in our debates can do so. For the first time, as far as I am aware, in the eight centuries of the history of the House of Lords, under changes that are not even the subject of specific resolutions of the House but are the consequence of going online, noble Lords are being told that they cannot participate in the proceedings of the House. The Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, which we will debate this afternoon, goes to the heart of the crisis facing the country: the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the poor and disadvantaged. Many noble Lords have been told that they cannot participate in this debate because of the arbitrary three-hour time limit that has been imposed and because of the exigencies of the Virtual Proceedings.

The answer is obvious: the proceedings should be longer. There is no reason why we should sit for only three hours. We could sit for five hours. We are sitting only on a limited number of days anyway. Many of us think that we should sit for longer. The noble Baroness can correct me but my understanding is that the Government have been the motive force in restricting our sittings and not holding more debates or longer ones. It is absolutely within our control to fix this.

The second issue is that of a wholly virtual House. It is obvious now to anybody who considers what has happened that the Procedure Committee and the House of Lords Commission made a major error in the arrangements that they put in place for our proceedings after 21 April. They should have moved immediately to a hybrid House, as the House of Commons did. Indeed, it has made a great success of it. I just came into your Lordships’ House from watching Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister was doing a perfectly good job of answering questions and dealing with points made by both the leader of the Opposition in the House and MPs joining via Zoom. That has kept the House of Commons at the centre of the public debate; it has not become invisible. We went wholly virtual, which was a huge mistake —the Procedure Committee needs to get a grip on this when it meets next Monday—and which made us wholly invisible. For the first week of our Sitting, proceedings were not even broadcast, which is a major departure from established parliamentary practice. They are now being broadcast but, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly said, they are not getting a fraction of the attention they get when they take place in this Chamber.

We need to speak bluntly at this point. The Procedure Committee has been very seriously remiss in meeting its duties to the House and to the public, and I hope that it will get a grip and that the Senior Deputy Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, will fulfil his duties to the House as a whole and not simply implement the wishes of the Government regarding the arrangements for the lockdown.

I hope also that three issues can be addressed immediately. The first is the move towards a hybrid House, so that we can fulfil our duties to the public and do not become invisible. The second is that noble Lords who wish to speak in debates can continue to do so, because that is absolutely central to the performance of their parliamentary duties. If that means longer debates, we should have longer debates—we are here to serve the public, not to serve ourselves. The third aspect, which is vital, is the proceedings on legislation. Your Lordships’ House is a legislature. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we are tempted to exaggerate our importance, but we should not underplay in any way our importance as a legislature. We make the law and there is no more important function in the country than making the law.

Under the arrangements that we are going to debate in a moment, the rights of noble Lords to participate in the Committee stages of Bills and to fulfil their constitutional functions are being severely circumscribed, and for no good reason. If we had a hybrid House, people would be able to participate in Committee proceedings as normal. We have an absolutely unprecedented situation whereby noble Lords who want to engage in the Committee stages of Bills next week have to give advance notice. This has never happened in the history of the House of Lords: that for Members to participate in consideration of a Bill, they have to give advance notice. The whole point of debate is that there is give and take and people come in as they see how debates continue. I have tabled an amendment that would ensure the automatic recommittal of Bills which have been considered only virtually in Committee, so amendments could be moved thereafter.

We have grave responsibilities to the public during this crisis: to debate the challenges facing the country and to bring to Ministers’ attention the severe tribulations being suffered by millions of people up and down the country. We can do that only if we can make our voices heard, and if we can sit properly. I do not believe that the Procedure Committee has enabled us to do that, so it needs to take immediate radical, remedial action before our constitutional duties are severely undermined.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and a pleasant novelty to agree with every word that he has said. I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.

When I entered your Lordships’ House four and a half years ago, I spoke of the deep sense of privilege. But I was also very aware that that was underscored by the knowledge that I am not in any way, shape or form a member of a privileged elite. My fear is that the decision we are discussing today perpetuates the dangerous myth that that is all the House of Lords is about, visible or invisible: that people assume that we are simply part—that we are the epicentre—of the privileged elite.

Business of the House

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

I thank our distinguished counsel, clerk and committee colleagues who have pulled out all the stops today to write and agree that report. It has been circulated round our committee and has received majority support. No one has opposed it. About 20 minutes ago, I was handed a draft copy—

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that the failure to consult his committee provides further evidence, if any were needed, that those who most protest their allegiance to parliamentary democracy are actually doing the most to undermine it by ramming this Bill through your Lordships’ House in one day?

[Lord Blencathra]

My noble friend makes a fair point; I will leave him to make his own point in his own way later in today’s proceedings.

I do not wish to read the whole report, although it is very short and I will cut out the introductory paragraphs. The House might be interested if I cut to the chase. If I can do that, then I propose to not press my amendment to a vote.

We say in our report:

“In the Government’s original European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which became the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 … exit day was wholly a matter for regulations without any named date on the face of the Bill. The regulations were subject to no parliamentary procedure at all, whether of the negative or affirmative type. The Bill allowed Ministers to decide on exit day and set it out in law without recourse to Parliament. We objected to this, arguing for the affirmative procedure, meaning that both Houses were required to debate the regulations before they could be made. The principal reasons were the political and legal significance of the date that the UK left the EU, and the allied public interest in the matter. The Government accepted our recommendation.


The principal justification for clause 2 of this Bill is that it might be necessary to legislate at speed next week to change exit day. The affirmative procedure might cause delays, with the risk that exit day in domestic law might not be aligned with exit day agreed under EU law.


There is some force in this argument, but we are not convinced by it on grounds either of principle or pragmatism. The date of the UK’s exit from the EU remains a matter of the greatest political and legal significance. It is right that the matter be debated in Parliament before the current date of 12 April is changed in our domestic law. The Government have previously changed exit day from 29 March to 12 April, and they did so by a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government have the time to do the same again, having afforded Parliament the scrutiny required by the 2018 Act. Negative resolution scrutiny is necessarily scrutiny after the event (that is, after exit day has already been changed in law). Scrutiny after the event is best avoided in a matter as significant as this, not least because the consequences of a successful prayer against the instrument would lead to the new exit day being legally invalidated (albeit with prospective effect only) perhaps some weeks after it has taken effect.


Clause 1 of the Bill would, in certain circumstances, give the House of Commons a vote on a proposed exit day at EU level, making it perhaps less pressing for them to have one on the consequential change to UK domestic law made by the relevant statutory instrument. But clause 1 does not apply to the House of Lords, meaning that the House of Lords would be prevented from participating in the process of approving a new exit day at EU level. It is correspondingly more important, therefore, that the House of Lords can scrutinise the relevant statutory instrument before it is made, rather than after the event, again arguing for the affirmative procedure (which is the current position). For the reasons set out above, we recommend that clause 2 should be removed from the Bill, thereby restoring the affirmative procedure to statutory instruments amending exit day”.


There you have it. I therefore urge the House to have Second Reading today, let us all—those in favour of it and those who disagree—study my committee’s report and come back to Committee, or a later stage, no later than Monday. That will give us a chance to table amendments implementing, if the House wishes, what my committee recommends. There is nothing in the Bill that justifies us casting aside the procedures we have followed for 27 years and ignoring the Delegated Powers Committee, which every Member of this House says does an excellent job.

I inherited a committee with an outstanding reputation and, not through any skill of mine, it still has an outstanding reputation. We are on a slippery slope if we decide to cast aside our procedures when we do not have to. Whenever we use the excuse of national emergency or crisis, we inevitably get bad legislation. The Bill may be perfectly okay or it could have unexpected consequences. It gives considerable power to the Prime Minister—in view of her work and behaviour over the last few weeks and months, is the House willing to give her that unfettered power? That is a decision only the House can make. Again, it is not what the Prime Minister says she will do but what the law would permit her to do that worries me and my committee.

Last night in another place, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said of the Bill:

“There are problems with the speed of its passage, the constitutional principle of it and the way it will interact with any decision reached by the Council that differs from the earlier decision taken by the House. I hope that the constitutional experts in the other place will address some of the Bill’s flaws”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1146.]


I leave it to others to address the Bill’s flaws, whatever they may or may not be. My concern today is that we follow our normal procedures and give due consideration to my committee’s report and meet tomorrow if necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says. Give us time to study the report; let us table amendments, if that is what we wish to do, to correct the serious flaws in the Bill. I urge the House: let us do our job; let us report in ample time so that the Bill can get Royal Assent next week in ample time for the Prime Minister to go to Brussels on Wednesday.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The political declaration sets out a clear vision and framework for a future relationship. Once we leave the EU, we will begin negotiating the detail of that. It is set out. We all want an ambitious economic and security partnership and that is what we will be working towards. Of course any final agreements with the EU will be put forward to Parliament in the usual way.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend referred to “best endeavours”, which appears to be a crucial phrase in the agreement. Given that we have already seen what “best endeavours” actually means—the EU 27 doing their best to do us over, to be competitively advantageous compared to the UK—why should we suddenly trust that it means completely the opposite: that the EU starts to play fair and that, crucially, it avoids using the backstop or allowing it to come into force?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, the withdrawal agreement contains a legally binding commitment to use best endeavours and to ensure that we negotiate in good faith. There will be a mechanism for resolving disputes, first through consultation at the joint committee, with the aim of reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. If that does not work, after three months either party can refer a dispute to independent arbitration. It is there in legally binding text, and that is how we believe both sides will go into the negotiation.