Business of the House

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord McInnes of Kilwinning and Baroness Wheeler set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That Standing Order 40(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 30 January to enable the debate on the second reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to begin before oral questions and, in the event of the debate having been adjourned, on Wednesday 31 January to enable the debate to resume before oral questions that day.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name. In doing so, I ought to say a brief word about how we intend our business to proceed next week, in particular the Second Reading debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. To ensure that the House has sufficient time over the two days to debate the Bill without the risk of an unduly late sitting on either day, the House will sit early on both days. We will sit at 8 am—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There is no harm in being optimistic. We will sit at 11 am on Tuesday 30 January and at 10 am on Wednesday 31 January. The Motion before the House in my noble friend’s name simply allows us to keep Oral Questions fixed at their normal time rather than moving them to the beginning of the day’s business. This is designed to minimise any inconvenience to those who tabled their Questions several weeks ago, and of course it helpfully ensures that there will be short adjournments on both days during the Second Reading debate itself. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

European Council

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the Labour Party and it may then be the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the Lib Dems.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, to try to keep her party united the Prime Minister makes a lot in her Statement of preparing,

“for our future independent trade policy by negotiating and where possible signing trade deals with third countries”,

in the implementation period. Does the Leader of the House accept that, once you have gone for signing trade deals with third countries, you require a hard border, because in order to enforce rules of origin and ensure that as a result of trade deals which bring in agricultural produce from other parts of the world that do not meet EU standards, you have to have a border that enforces those standards? Does she therefore accept that that statement is incompatible with her assurance that there will be no hard border in Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am sorry, but I did give the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the next go and the Lib Dems after that. We will then hear from the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the Statement says that the Government will propose that our free trade with the EU should continue as now. Do the Government fear that the Eurocrats will be arrogant enough to refuse this offer which, as I have mentioned before, would be much more in EU exporters’ collective interest than it would be in ours because, if we are all forced back to the WTO, they will pay us some £13 billion in extra tariffs and our exporters will pay them about £5 billion? Can the Government assure your Lordships that they will hold firm on this offer, enlisting, if necessary, the support of EU exporters? Going further, why should our free trade together not continue indefinitely? Would that not also be quite helpful with the Irish border problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I made it clear that the Conservative Benches were going to come first and then the Cross Benches.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Has my noble friend noticed the statement of the Italian Prime Minister, who believes that the outcome of the talks ought to be not a CETA-type agreement, not an off-shelf agreement, but one specifically designed for and tailored to Britain’s needs? Is that not extremely encouraging? Are not some of the comments we have heard from the Opposition completely inappropriate when we know that the shadow Chancellor wants to be outside the customs union, the shadow Home Secretary wants to be inside the internal market and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, says that the whole point of their tactics is to reverse Brexit completely?

Brexit Negotiations

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches and I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the Leader of the House is a member of the Cabinet and therefore I am sure that she will know the answer to my question: is it the Government’s intention that at the ferry port at Belfast there will be no customs officials or immigration officers in attendance with the remit or ability to check non-UK citizens travelling to ports in Scotland, England or Wales?

Business of the House

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debate on the motion in the name of the Earl of Lindsay set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Lord Farmer to 2 hours.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw the attention of the House to the timing of the Statement, which will be after the debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, which immediately follows.

Motion agreed.

Sexual Harassment in Parliament

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

Order. As noble Lords will know, there are supposed to be only 10 minutes of questions and we should try to get our business back on track. That is not because I want to interrupt this particular process, but I think we should go back into Committee to continue with the Bill, as the Statement that is to follow has not yet been started in the other place.

European Council

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I think we should hear from the Conservative Benches and then perhaps we can turn to the Labour Benches.

[Lord Robathan]

My Lords, surely it cannot be that our friends and allies—our partners in the EU and neighbours across the channel—are trying to humiliate us, to obstruct us or indeed, to quote Michel Barnier, to “educate” the British people, which sounds like teaching us a lesson; and yet I read commentators saying that that is the case. I trust it is not. Can my noble friend tell me what the response of Her Majesty’s Government would be were this to be the case?

Brexit: Triggering Article 50

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I am sorry, my Lords, but we do have a custom of going round the House, and it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, the Statement repeats the mantra that we are going to “take back control”, but the Brexit Secretary, Mr Davis, expects the Government to use this control to continue with a large volume of EU migration. The Statement admits that the consequence of breaking the manifesto pledge to stay in the single market will mean UK companies having to abide by rules over which we have no influence. If we lose the right to the single market, including free movement for British citizens, at the price of less control and a series of betrayals, how is that a gain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am sorry but I think we ought to hear from Plaid Cymru.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand that for some of us this is the blackest of black Wednesdays and that we will not rest until we have persuaded the people of these islands to reverse this retrograde step? Having said that, she mentioned—as the Prime Minister did—that the negotiations will be conducted on a UK basis but that they will listen to the devolved Administrations. Can she confirm in those circumstances that where discussions arise in relation to things such as the sheep meat regime and the beef regime so important to Welsh agriculture that the Welsh Agricultural Minister can be part of the UK team in the same way as he and she have been in the past—on behalf of the UK but speaking as Welsh Ministers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Lib Dems.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

The European Union has brought an unprecedented 71 years of peace to western Europe. Have the Government given any thought to this historical reality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I apologise to the noble Lord but it is in fact the turn of the Conservative Benches so I think we will hear from my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft.

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has made much of her intention to agree trade agreements around the world. Will my noble friend assure the House that Parliament will be able to scrutinise these deals before they are signed? After all, a bad deal may be worse than no deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We did say that we would try to do this in order. It is the Lib Dems’ turn, and then perhaps we will hear from the Cross Benches.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

My Lords, it is axiomatic that Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union will weaken it. Is it not all the more curious, therefore, for the Prime Minister to be extolling the virtues of European values at the same time as undermining the very institution that embodies them?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, we have a well-prepared speakers list giving everybody an opportunity to speak in turn. It is right and proper that we proceed with the order of business as it is before us.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

“Masters unfair to Molesworth!”

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

As many in your Lordships’ House are aware, my diocese covers most of south London and east Surrey. The voters there opted to remain in the European Union on 23 June 2016 by some margin; in the borough of Lambeth, where I live, nearly 80% of those voting opted to remain. Only in Sutton and in Surrey did votes tip the other way. What I have occasionally heard articulated, but have yet to see in action, is how the aspirations of those people—and indeed, if one thinks more widely, Londoners in general, or Scots, or the people of Northern Ireland or simply people under the age of 45—are to be taken into account. The majority of all these groups voted to remain. If we adopt a model for leaving the EU that ignores them, we risk a regional divide, generational resentment and a threat to the union.

The campaign, like that of 1975, was passionate and defining. Unlike 1975, it rode on divisions which have yet to pass away. Unlike 1975, there was little sophistication of argument in terms of what it is to be European, or detail as to what the alternative narrative for our place in the world might be. We should seek to mitigate the centrifugal forces unleashed. The Prime Minister, in her speech of 17 January, spoke of our European identity. It is time, both in these negotiations and without, to take practical steps to recognise this simple fact of geography and the cultural ties we share.

Arguably, we have more in common with the countries of western Europe than we do, for example, with the United States of America. For Her Majesty’s Government to respond more positively than they have done to amendments on the residence rights of EU citizens already living here would be one such practical action, but there must be others. The land border in Ireland is also of special concern. In addition, there is something providential in the untapped potential of our associations with the Commonwealth, a truly global entity. Such acts of affirmation that we are citizens of Europe would do something to assure the 48% that they are not ignored.

The issue around EU residents is not simply one of a quid pro quo for the 1.2 million to 2 million British citizens in other EU countries; it is about dealing with the uncertainty that stigmatises millions of our neighbours and erodes the common good.

It is good to read in the Government’s White Paper that, even in the EU, Parliament remains sovereign. It is in that light that I hope the Government will accept that the origins of persistent attempts to amend this Bill lie partly in their own resistance to parliamentary scrutiny of the process of leaving the EU. We do not legislate by plebiscite, nor do we govern solely by decree. We have, perforce, in recent months, under pressure and under judicial direction, rightly evolved a practical understanding of proper scrutiny in the second Chamber based on the constitutional bedrock of the Queen in Parliament rather than, as hitherto, the bare exercise of the royal prerogative. As I speak, the Prelates and Barons who scrutinised Magna Carta are looking down upon our deliberations, so there are long established precedents for the solemn task entrusted to us by the Bill. Our Writ of Summons commands us to attend to assemble for “arduous and urgent affairs” and to give “counsel”.

A fresh approach by the Executive of partnership with the legislature may indeed make this time in the life of our nation much more fruitful, not least because those with whom they must negotiate are not likely to prioritise solely economic considerations; otherwise, we may find that the Government’s confidence in the ease with which a deal may be struck is misplaced, and Parliament will be merely a frustrated bystander. Despite these and many other concerns shared by my colleagues on this Bench about the terms of our exit and our future relationship with the EU, I recognise that the Bill before your Lordships’ House is primarily about process rather than substance.

The electorate voted last year to leave the EU. Despite the vagaries of the European Union Referendum Act, it was clear that voters understood that they were, in effect, making a decision, not merely expressing an opinion. They did so in sharply differing numbers riven by age, income, qualifications and location. Regrettably, many parts of the country that have most benefited from EU funding voted decisively, if quixotically, to leave. The Bill in the form in which it comes before your Lordships passed the elected House with a large majority. The subject of what Britain’s future relationship with the EU should be remains an open question and should rightly be subject to intense debate and scrutiny. The Government will ease the Bill’s passage if they give way on scrutiny. It is the view of a number on these Benches, including my noble friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who regrets that he is unable to be here today, that it would be preferable not to weigh down the Bill with additional provisions. For these reasons, I take the view that, where there is a choice on offer between government assurances and the passing of amendments to the Bill, the more sensible course would be to bank the former and avoid the latter.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, at the last count, 179 Back-Benchers had signed up to speak in this debate. I have no wish to add to that number. However, noble Lords will know that we have adjusted the Sitting time tomorrow to take account of the unusually high demand from Members to speak across the two days. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I note that, if Back-Bench speeches average six minutes each, as recommended, we expect the House to rise around midnight both today and tomorrow. I hope that noble Lords will take note of that.