Tributes to Mr Keith Phipps

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, before we move on to the rest of our business, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a loyal servant of the House, our Principal Doorkeeper, Mr Phipps. I know that the whole House will join me in thanking him for his 25 years of outstanding service.

A dedicated public servant, Mr Phipps left school at 18 and joined the Coldstream Guards. He served in the Army for 22 years and in December 2000 enlisted as a Yeoman of the Queen’s Bodyguard. In 1994, Mr Phipps joined the House as a Doorkeeper and was promoted to Principal Doorkeeper in 2005. As he rose in seniority, he consistently served Members of the House with his characteristic charm, good nature and unfailing politeness. He handles colleagues with the utmost courtesy, while at the same time making it clear that there is an underlying message of authority, along the lines of, “Don’t mess with me”—some might say, the original strong and stable. Over the years he has provided Members, long-standing and new, with his wise counsel, as my noble friend Lord Robathan attested in his maiden speech. During their time in the Army in Hong Kong and Northern Ireland, my noble friend found that Company Sergeant-Major Phipps was right about most matters and could be relied upon to steer his company commander in the right direction. Many noble Lords will recognise that description of Mr Phipps, who has been a source of wisdom on procedure and custom, helping to steer us all in the right direction; and of course, his commanding presence made him the ideal candidate to act as the master of ceremonies during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee lunch, which hosted Her Majesty the Queen and 700 guests in Westminster Hall.

When I joined this House in 2014, Mr Phipps and his team made me feel very welcome. He has always been willing to help out and on several occasions has taken pity on my poor guests, who invariably get the most uninformative tour of this place, taking over as tour guide with panache and more anecdotes than I could ever remember. His generosity and good humour are, I am sure, valued by all noble Lords.

Our remarks today come earlier than expected. Mr Phipps officially leaves on 13 December, but today is our last day with him as our Principal Doorkeeper. As the season’s festivities get under way in the coming month, I am sure that the Cirencester Salvation Army will want to seize the opportunity to sign him up for a starring role as Joseph in the nativity play, a role that I understand he played successfully some years ago.

Mr Phipps, on behalf of the whole House, thank you for your incredible service to us. We wish you and Sue all the very best for the future; enjoy your well-deserved retirement.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this feels a bit like the end of an era, because Mr Phipps has become a bit of a legend in your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, his journey from the Coldstream Guards to the longest-serving Principal Doorkeeper is one in which he can take immense pride. Much of his work will exist in fond memories—his own, ours and those of the many colleagues with whom he has served. It was also captured when he played a starring role in the 2017 “Meet the Lords” mini-series, an appearance—or should that be performance—that has earned him his own personal entry and credit on the IMDb website, which prides itself on being,

“the world’s most popular and authoritative source for information on movies, TV shows, and celebrities”.

Today we say farewell to a celebrity in our midst.

I first met Mr Phipps when I was a fairly new MP in the other place and had a group of constituents visiting from the men’s group at one of our local churches in Basildon. He will not remember this, but I remember it very clearly. I walked through the Peers’ Lobby with some trepidation and approached the imposing-looking gentleman in a white tie. Very politely, I asked, “Would it possible for my guests to sit below the Bar to get a better view of the Lords’ proceedings?” In rather imposing tones, he asked, “Are they all wearing ties?” Then, spying one member at the back of the group, he pointed and said, “He’s not wearing a tie; he won’t be able to get in”. Embarrassed and a little puzzled, I looked around at my guests and spotted the offender. I said, “But, Mr Phipps, he’s the vicar and he’s wearing a clerical collar”. He let him in. For a few years now, just to be on the safe side, one of our staff in the Labour Lords office, Rob Newbery, has kept a drawer full of ties to provide for any Peer or Peer’s guest who requires one.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

We are here to serve.

In all the years he has been in your Lordships’ House, we have appreciated Mr Phipps’s company, efficiency and natural authority. We have always known who is really in charge. I hope he has enjoyed his time with us as much as we have. I had to smile at the comments of his late father, Ken, when he reflected in 2012:

“He enjoys his job I think—he has a little moan every now and then, but who doesn’t?”.


On a more serious note, it is both an honour and a pleasure to thank him on behalf of these Benches for his dedicated and unparalleled service to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that he has made his mark in the most positive way, for which we are extremely grateful.

Keith, we are going to miss you. We wish you and Sue, your wife, a very long and happy retirement. There is only one thing left to say: thank you and goodbye, Mr Phipps.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have seen Mr Phipps in two guises: as a doorkeeper here in your Lordships’ House and as a member of the Queen’s Bodyguard when I was captain of that august body. His attitude in both environments was that of an experienced NCO having to deal with a blundering second lieutenant who did not even know how to salute properly. He knew how it was done. I certainly did not, and I am sure that new Members of your Lordships’ House have felt similarly at sea when they first tried to work out how we do things here. But he has done that with everybody with an avuncular friendliness and firmness that has been extremely impressive.

At a time when the atmosphere in Parliament has sometimes been extremely fractious, he has helped to ensure that the ethos of your Lordships’ House reflects the tolerance and civility that, I am sure, we all believe should characterise the operations of a Parliament. We will miss him and the qualities he has brought to his roles, and I am sure we will all do our best to uphold the values he has brought to his work and our proceedings. We wish him and his wife a long and enjoyable retirement.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Prime Minister was standing for election as leader of his party—and, therefore, Prime Minister—I asked an esteemed Conservative Minister and parliamentarian of some integrity whom he was voting for. I was surprised when he said Boris Johnson. I suspect he had his misgivings, but his reason was that he thought he was a winner. I countered that Boris Johnson would see Parliament as an inconvenience, and I regret that I am being proved right.

First, we had the unlawful Prorogation, when the Prime Minister attempted to shut down Parliament for five weeks. Then, last week, having gained parliamentary support for the Second Reading of his withdrawal Bill, he pulled the Bill only because MPs would not agree to an unreasonable programme Motion—not, as the noble Baroness said, to any kind of timetable; they would indeed have agreed to a timetable, just not that timetable. All that was being sought on that occasion was the normal and reasonable process of consideration and scrutiny. Then, having won the vote on his Government’s programme for the forthcoming year, he demanded a general election—thus again trying to avoid the normal and reasonable process of scrutiny of his legislation. Then, having failed to get a two-thirds majority for an election at a time of his choosing under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, he was obviously relieved and delighted when the Liberal Democrats and the SNP threw him a lifeline and offered to support an election. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, joked during the Queen’s Speech debate that these days fact is certainly more unbelievable than fiction; he is right. This is a book that nobody would have dared write.

When the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced by the coalition Government, we were told that it would create strong and stable government, even from a minority Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who introduced the Bill for the Government, said that this would ensure that election dates would no longer be picked for a narrow, partisan, political advantage. We were given lots of high-minded, constitutional reasons why it was so important, yet our own Constitution Committee admitted to some scepticism, recognising that the Bill’s origins and content,

“owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand”.

Basically, the Conservative-led coalition Government sought to bind Parliament to give it a five-year term in power. Having succeeded in that, neither party now sees any further use for the legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. What benefits did she think would accrue from a fixed-term Parliament, given that the Labour Party included a commitment to it in its 2010 election manifesto?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think the noble and learned Lord will find that, at the time, we proposed several amendments to the Bill that the noble and learned Lord rejected. Even in my wildest dreams, I did not suggest that it would be strong and stable government. I think the contradiction is that, at the time that the noble and learned Lord was taking the legislation through, he said that it would stop the politicisation of elections—nobody would call an election for political advantage. What do we think is happening at the moment?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I will, because I think the noble Lord recognises the comment I made earlier in my speech.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I need to confess that I was the Member that the noble Baroness referred to, and I was right about Boris Johnson—he is a winner, as she is about to discover. She is making a very devastating criticism of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, so can we assume that in the Labour Party’s manifesto there will be a commitment to repeal it at the earliest opportunity?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord tempts me, and I have to say I would argue that case. Whether my party would fully accept everything I want in the manifesto is another matter, but I would certainly argue for it, because what is happening at the moment is that every time the Fixed-term Parliaments Act becomes inconvenient, the Government and their supporters could bring forward a Bill such as this in order to do away with it. Already, the Act has become nonsense.

During the Queen’s Speech debate, I joked that the first Bill in the Government’s programme would be a “Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill”. I thought I was being clever—I have to say that my grandmother would have said I was being “too clever by half”. It was a joke, but I think it would have been a lot more honourable and honest to bring forward that kind of legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord and I could have a conversation afterwards, because if he wants to bring a Private Member’s Bill, I think it would find a fair amount of support in the House.

In that speech, I also joked about not having had a Queen’s Speech or Prorogation for more than two years, and then expecting two or even three in quick succession. I really was only joking, but some might now suspect I have a crystal ball in my office. The programme for government that we heard less than three weeks ago was, as we said at the time, a test run for the Conservative Party election manifesto rather than a serious programme for the coming year, but even we did not imagine that the election would be quite so blatantly soon. I have to say that the Tory Party’s enthusiasm for a general election every time it changes leader is proving to be rather expensive for the taxpayer. With a general election, a new Parliament and yet another Queen’s Speech all within a matter a months, perhaps the normally Conservative-supporting TaxPayers’ Alliance, with its diligent examination of public spending, will be sending an invoice to the Tory Party for the October event. If not, I might just be tempted to do so myself.

So much seems to have changed since 19 October. As we sat on a Saturday to consider the Government’s Brexit deal, I reflected that time and patience was running out for everybody: the public, the politicians and the EU. A situation without resolution was unacceptable to everybody. The bungling of Brexit has fractured our nation and divided friends, families and our politics. If MPs were unable to reach a conclusion on the slightly revamped but inferior deal, I conceded that the way forward would have to be to ask the public to consider the issue. The stalemate in Parliament has made me think again about a confirmatory referendum. A bit like in The Case-book of Sherlock Holmes,

“when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.

As I said then, if this was the best Brexit, one that a Brexit-supporting Prime Minister said was “a great deal”, then we should all have the confidence to ask the public if they agree. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, speaking for his party, agreed with me. He said—and I am sure that he will not mind me quoting him—that his party was,

“absolutely sure that an early general election would deliver it many more seats. The same cannot be said for the Conservatives or Labour”—

we will see about that—

“yet we do not believe it is in the national interest to have one”.—[Official Report, 19/10/19; col. 289.]

As my hero, Harold Wilson, would have said: “A week is a long time in politics”.

I said that my party will not stand in the way of this election: our doubts have been only about the timing, rather than the event itself, which we have been calling for and planning for for so long. I was sorry that our amendment in the other place for an earlier date was rejected. I wonder how tolerant a politics-weary electorate will be about interrupting their Christmas preparations to consider party manifestos. I hope that no party will be tempted to dress their leader in Santa costumes.

Let us be clear, first, that a general election is not just about Boris Johnson’s pledge to “do or die” or “Get Brexit done”. Those soundbites are about as meaningless as Theresa May’s “Brexit means Brexit”. A referendum would have been about the single issue of Brexit, but a general election is about so much more. It is about a vision for the direction of this country, and the Conservative Party will have to stand on its record. By contrast, we have an offer that will make a real difference for the people of this country in health, education, the environment, with a new generation of affordable homes and renters’ rights, free personal care for our loved ones who are most in need and a genuine transformative vision to support our economy and workers in creating the green future that we need. Inevitably, it will also be about the damage that a Johnson Brexit or a crash-out Brexit would do to our country.

Secondly, I make a plea for decency and integrity in campaigning. To hear a Conservative MP say that the country needs an election to “drain the swamp”, and other such inflammatory and disgraceful comments, is both sickening and dangerous. A general election based on the denigration of MPs from any party or all parties, who have been charged with the most difficult decisions and negotiations for a generation, would further undermine any public confidence in our politics. We expect our candidates and leaders to behave with the dignity that office demands, and we must pledge to do all we can to uphold that. If this election is truly to resolve the divisions largely caused by the bungling of Brexit, all parties must seek to heal as well as to win.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

I cannot agree entirely with the noble Lord. The House will have followed his train of thought, but it is nevertheless possible for Parliament to convene before Christmas for swearing in and so forth to take place, and we can get that part of things done. As I have said, I am not in a position to speculate in advance of the Sovereign’s proclamation the exact timetable following that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think the House would like a bit more information. When the noble Earl says that the House could reconvene before 23 December, I think that most Members of your Lordships’ House, and indeed of the other place, would expect that some business would be undertaken. If the election were on 12 December, I see little reason why the House could not reconvene the following week. He will appreciate that legislation will be required before the end of January. Surely the Government do not intend not even to start tabling business until the middle of January.

[Earl Howe]

Before we have a new Government in place, it is certainly not in my gift to specify the date on which Parliament will return, or indeed what it will do when it does return. However, I am sure the noble Baroness, if and when she is elected to office, will see to it that there is a rapid reconvening of Parliament.

I listened with care, and a great deal of sympathy, to the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Whitty, on the critical issue of transparency in electoral campaigning. I also read the noble Lord’s article in the Times today. His criticisms of the Government are noted, but I hope he will accept that the Government are committed to increasing transparency in digital campaigning, to maintain a fair and proportionate democratic process. As both noble Lords will know, to this end, on 5 May the Government announced that we will implement an imprints regime for digital election material. The aim of that is precisely to ensure greater transparency, and to make it clearer to the electorate who has produced and promoted online political material.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is my third Queen’s Speech debate as Leader of the Opposition, although it has been a while since the last one. After three Queen’s Speeches, three debates and three different Prime Ministers, the dire state of national governance means that I cannot rule out taking part in a fourth or even fifth debate in the coming months. It could be a bit like the proverbial No. 9 bus: you wait for ages and then three come along at once. On recent form, who knows how many Prime Ministers we could see in that time? It is therefore surprising that the first Bill of this Session and in the Queen’s Speech is not the Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill.

As always, our proceedings started this afternoon with two memorable and quite remarkable speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has always enjoyed the respect of this House, both as a formidable and fearsome—as we heard—Chief Whip, and as a softer, highly regarded Foreign Office Minister. That softer side was evident in a friendship that she established at the Foreign Office with Palmerston, otherwise known on Twitter as “DiploMog”, the Foreign Office cat. Such was the affection between them that on the day that the noble Baroness left the Government, from DExEU, Palmerston suddenly decided that he would leave the comfort of the Foreign Office; he unexpectedly crossed the road and walked purposefully across Whitehall just to bid her farewell.

On her introduction to your Lordships’ House in 1996, the noble Baroness went through the same process as us all in choosing her title; but hers turned out to be slightly more expensive. After being told that she could not have Woking, she selected “Baroness Anelay of St John’s”, after the village, with an apostrophe. Garter King of Arms informed her that that was fine, but when he checked historic and ancient documents residing in the village, he decided that it should not have an apostrophe—so all the road signs had to be changed.

Few could match the theatrical style of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and the flourish of his speech. I hope that, in future, we will see him in cameo roles as his books are filmed. Perhaps he could be the Alfred Hitchcock or Colin Dexter of the House of Lords. The noble Lord has an enviable reputation as both a writer and a politician, having worked at the highest levels of Conservative Administrations for many years. I can perhaps help him with his worries about being seen as a young, up-and-coming politician. He may recall that he was described by one national newspaper as, “Westminster’s baby-faced hitman”.

While the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is almost correct, I have to say in my defence that I feel that I swooned rather than died in his arms—and we were play-acting. But he told me some time ago, as we toured the bowels of the building, that he was writing a new book, based once again on the political machinations of Westminster. Noble Lords will understand my nervousness after he promised—or, perhaps, threatened—that I would be a character in such a future book. Ever since then, I have treated him with the utmost respect and laughed at all his jokes; I hope he has seen sufficient amusement from me today. The book has not appeared yet, but as he said, he is probably hampered by the fact that fiction can never be as bizarre as reality. His speech today was an impressive response. Perhaps he will say, “You may think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment”.

This was an unusual Queen’s Speech. We were expecting great things, given that Prime Minister Johnson tried, and failed, to have an unprecedented five weeks’ preparation rather than the usual five days. Normally, a Queen’s Speech comes after an election as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to put their mark on the forthcoming programme of government for at least the next year. However, with Mr Johnson clearly desperate for another election, this Queen’s Speech could be little more than the market testing of his manifesto for the next election, rather than a serious programme for the next Session.

Taking the programme at face value, we welcome legislation aimed at tackling domestic abuse, improving mental health, protecting children and young people from online harm, and dealing with the poor management of private pension schemes. Some of these important issues were already being considered by the previous Prime Minister and indeed in previous Queen’s Speeches. Others have been championed for some time by colleagues from across this House, including many from these Benches. However, a number of key issues are missing. Where is the promised veterans Bill? There is nothing on housing and there is more about being seen to be tough on crime than genuinely tackling the causes. We also have Brexit-related Bills on agriculture, fisheries, immigration and trade, all of which had already begun their legislative process but were subsequently abandoned.

The Government promise legislation to implement new building safety standards. One of the casualties of cuts to local government funding has been the enforcement of building regulations. They are designed to ensure high standards, including on safety and the environment. Yet with fewer inspectors on the ground and government changes to planning laws, it is easier now for the unscrupulous or the ignorant to flout the law. While we welcome improving and monitoring standards, the Government have to understand that they have already hollowed out the current system. In addressing this, we want to ensure that any new regime is necessary, has real teeth and is not just warm words and another layer of bureaucracy.

We also have serious concerns about the proposed electoral integrity Bill. Clearly, we should do whatever is necessary to stamp out any abuse of the system, but we must also take care that the scale of changes is proportionate to the problem and does not have unintended consequences. I am not convinced that introducing photo ID checks meets that test, so we will need to scrutinise the detail. One of our priorities for electoral integrity would be to ensure that those who have the greatest stake in the future—16 and 17 year-olds—also have the right to vote.

Yet again, we have a commitment to outer space, perhaps a ruse of the Prime Minister to make another hackneyed joke about putting Opposition MPs into orbit. It does sound a bit pie in the sky to talk about outer space when the Government have delayed HS2, failed to make a decision on airport capacity, and cannot get their act together on lorry parks in Kent. It sometimes feels as if the Government live in a parallel universe.

I suppose we should not be surprised that Mr Johnson chose not to repeat David Cameron’s commitment, emphasised in the 2016 Queen’s Speech, confirming the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons. At the time, we felt it was an unnecessary reminder, aimed at your Lordships’ House, but as the Brexit crisis has unfolded, it is the current Prime Minister who has been forced to recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and Commons primacy.

In the last Session, your Lordships’ House dealt with around four dozen Bills and over 2,000 SIs. Many amendments and changes were put forward, with a fair number accepted by the Government or, if voted on and sent to the Commons, agreed in full or in part. When the Commons disagreed with our amendments, we respected its primacy. Recognising our constitutional role, particularly in such challenging political times, we rightly also considered and passed two hugely significant Bills agreed by MPs without government support. In our parliamentary democracy, it would have been completely wrong for this House to have rejected legislation that commanded the support of MPs, just because the Government did not like it. The Government were also right not to use this House, as some urged, to try to wreck that legislation.

We will continue to undertake our responsibilities and obligations regarding legislation with due diligence. It is therefore extraordinary that a member of the current Cabinet, having previously praised us for our maturity, wisdom, learnedness and experience, has now called for the abolition of your Lordships’ House. Indeed, he is previously on record praising the great benefit that comes from our independence. But it has to be said, that was before we disagreed with Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg. That probably explains his change of opinion more than his discovering an important point of constitutional principle.

There can be no doubt that we are living through extraordinary times. None of us can predict the future; at the moment we cannot even predict what will happen over the next week, with Parliament having an emergency and exceptional sitting on Saturday. It is not just because of the Brexit negotiations, unpredictable as they are, but, even more seriously, a consequence of being at a pivotal and troublesome moment in our nation’s history. Few that took part in the 2016 referendum, in good faith, could have imagined that we would be in such an uncertain position today, 1,207 days later. The 2017 Queen’s Speech talked about providing certainty and making a success of Brexit. Apparently, it was then a priority to build a more united country, yet we are more uncertain and divided than ever. Having been told so often that Brexit would be easy—that, freed from the so-called shackles of the EU, we would emerge phoenix-like, stronger and better than ever—many dared to believe those promises.

It is clear now that those promises were based on little more than a wing and a prayer. The rhetoric, false promises and hopeful statements, ministerial and otherwise, that accompanied the campaign and the years since have debased our democracy and our values. As competing pressures inevitably meant that a Brexit deal was tougher to nail down, the blame game began, with parliamentarians, lawyers and others labelled “traitors” and even “enemies of the people” for daring to fulfil their constitutional role. The added potency of terms such as “die in a ditch” and “surrender Bill” appear to be part of a clear sabre-rattling attempt to create hostility and conflict between the electorate and MPs.

I will pause while the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, gets her phone. She is not guilty. I thought it was Boris Johnson making a quick call to check what I was saying.

In recent years we have seen the rhetoric reach new levels of toxicity in an increasingly desperate attempt to lay responsibility at the door of others. Each time the negotiations get difficult, there is a blame game to point the finger at anyone but the Prime Minister. But at what cost? Whatever the outcome of the Brexit debacle, what comes next will seal the future and values of our country for at least a generation.

So where do we go from here? Reflecting on the debate since 2016, it feels as though the values that have underpinned British Governments since 1945, including Conservative-led ones, have been jettisoned. I am talking not about specific policies, but about the conventional wisdom that it is the duty and responsibility of government in its widest sense to seek to unite rather than divide and to act for the whole nation rather than any party or narrow interest. While the upping of that at times dangerous rhetoric is designed to win votes, the public are more dispirited and have a greater sense of disappointment, disengagement and disillusionment about Parliament and politics than ever. They see the escalating rows over Brexit with no unifying conclusion, which ensures that the other concerns and issues that affect their everyday lives fall by the wayside. The current tone of public discourse and debate means that too many of our citizens, young and old, have so little confidence and optimism that they either lose hope or would rather be cold and wet protesting outside than ever think that they could be in here making the decisions to bring about the change that they seek.

I believe, and I think this House believes, in the power of government for good—in its power to effect change and its duty to provide hope and optimism for the future. The bungling of Brexit has sapped the energy, ambition, intellect, creativity and finances of our country. The brightest and the best could have been directed towards the greatest challenges of our generation. Instead, they have been pulled one way and then another in trying to cope with Brexit. Where is that strategic vision and national collective ambition?

Today, for all the new technology that wallpapers our everyday lives, at times it can feel as though we are in an era of make do and mend. Any Government with a sense of purpose would at least try to define, with honesty, a route to some sunny upland or other, which Mr Johnson’s regime is sadly lacking. So it is little wonder that today we see so little of that hope and optimism, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that is the backbone of any modern state. Our young people have to believe that there is a future with a personal, professional and selfless opportunity to be able to work; to be able to own or rent a secure and affordable home; to be able to trust in a health and care system for them and their families; and to be able to believe that the environment will be cleaner and better for their children, and that they will be safe and secure. Those are modest desires, which a good state should enable, if not trying to create a utopian view of the good society, then at least aspiring to be a better one.

Given that this Queen’s Speech is a pitch to the electorate, can it deliver that optimism to bring about a different, better future? Robert Kennedy was inspirational. Quoting George Bernard Shaw, he said:

“Some men see things as they are and say, why; I dream things that never were and say, why not”.


Those words are so apt. It is not just about government. We need to encourage others to share that dream and ask, “Why not?” It may sound a little whimsical, but that is what successive and successful Governments have done when making the case for office, rather than having base arguments about the left and right of politics. They have been able to engage others to share that optimism, share that vision and have confidence that the Government will enable the delivery of that vision.

It is really hard to define what generates public optimism, but there are pivotal points in our recent history to which we can look for guidance. A war-weary public, while grateful to and admiring of Churchill, was enthused by the hope of a new Britain under Clement Attlee. The white heat of technology promised by Harold Wilson engaged those who sought a more forward-looking, socially liberal society. Margaret Thatcher gauged the temperature of Britain during the industrial strife of the 1970s and, despite my strong disagreements with much of her programme, initially had a vision and successfully convinced others to share it. Tony Blair’s “Britain deserves better” resonated with young and old alike, and things did indeed get better.

There is no quick way of turning this dire state of affairs around, but it is incumbent on us all to find a way forward. It is not enough to have a manifesto, or even a Queen’s Speech, with promise. It has to be more about genuinely making a difference on the issues that matter to us citizens, not about issues that matter to Westminster. The relationship between the public and the institutions of state and politics has been strained to the limit. An attempt to win votes by stretching it just a little further is doomed to a failure greater than losing an election. That is the big responsibility for government today. Who knows? In seeking to rebuild that trust, we may help not only to heal divisions, but in time to bring about the new optimism that we need, followed by a renewed commitment in our politics to deliver the legislation and honour that promise.

I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

Services, Procedure and Selection Committees

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, given that one of these Motions relates to the new Convenor of the Cross Benches, I wanted to say a few words about the outgoing Convenor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

All noble Lords will know that the noble and learned Lord had a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, playing an instrumental role in the transfer of judicial authority from this House to the newly created Supreme Court. Over his four years as Convenor, the whole House has benefited from the measured and constructive way in which he has stood up for the interests of the Cross Benches and approached the work we have done together, not least via the work of our domestic committees. He has been a committed and constructive part of the usual channels, and I thank him sincerely for that. I know that these thanks are echoed by my noble friend the Chief Whip and his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

Noble Lords may not be aware that the noble and learned Lord is a keen diarist, and I am sure we will all look forward to the volume on his years as Convenor. I particularly thank him for his involvement in the cross-House, cross-party working group which helped develop the new independent complaints and grievance scheme. His counsel and advice were certainly invaluable to us all.

On behalf of the whole House, I would like to wish the noble and learned Lord well and hope that he will be able to spend more time enjoying his hobby of bird-watching, without having to be in the range of a computer or hunting for what I understand is an elusive phone signal in the local Tesco in Craighead.

Finally, I look forward to working with his successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I am sure we will have an equally constructive and positive relationship.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the comments of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has been Convenor since 2015 and he has served this House, as well as his group, with distinction during that time. These have been interesting and at times very demanding times for your Lordships’ House.

In so many debates, the noble and learned Lord’s forensic and very wise legal mind has been of enormous benefit in improving legislation. I hope he will enjoy, and we will welcome, further such contributions, just from a different seat in your Lordships’ House. His gentle manner has sometimes hidden his understated humour, often found in the most unlikely of debates. If noble Lords missed it, I urge them to read his contribution to the debate on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill. I will not repeat his words, as I could never do justice to his story, but it will bring on quite a chuckle.

The Convenor speaks for an independent-minded group of disparate, different and at times contradictory views—of course, that is not something that the noble Baroness and I would at all recognise. I am intrigued, although others may be fearful, that the noble and learned Lord lists in his hobbies that he is writing Lord Hope’s Diaries. The last month alone could create a whole volume and I just ask that he be gentle with us. He took over as Convenor at the same time as I became leader of my group. I have greatly appreciated our conversations, his integrity and his sound advice.

I give a warm welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He also combines that sharp, forensic legal brain with a warm wit, and we look forward to working with him.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Newby, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, is in Australia. In his absence, I am delighted to associate my party with the tributes paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

As the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble and learned Lord has provided distinguished service to the work of your Lordships’ House. He brought his independent judgment to the meetings of the usual channels. His contributions, and those of his colleagues on the Cross Benches, have continued to enhance the reputation of your Lordships’ House, for which we thank him. It is difficult to believe that he was often self-conscious and had a fear of public speaking. Despite this, he went on to accomplish major achievements in the legal and political sphere. As his title indicates, he is a real source of hope.

The noble and learned Lord and I have common threads running in our hobbies. He loves walking in the Scottish countryside and is an avid bird-watcher, and so am I. I invite him to join me and other twitchers in my village and join me on the South Downs Way, which is probably the finest ramble in Sussex.

I also welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to his new role. I have known him since my involvement in the committee of the Judicial Studies Board. He follows, like his predecessors, with a distinguished career in this appointment and we wish him well.

Brexit: Negotiations

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“we are some way from a resolution”.

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Statement referred to the,

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

It goes on to say that it would eliminate,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Statement from the Prime Minister also says:

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


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

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

Special Adviser Appointments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I cannot comment on this case, but the status of special advisers is set out in legislation in the 2010 Act to which I referred. Because of the Crown’s power to dismiss at will, special advisers are not entitled to a period of statutory notice when their appointment is terminated. However, the terms of their employment are set out in their model contract.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will ask the Minister two questions. Given the report in the Daily Telegraph that Sonia Khan was later offered a pay-off of around £40,000 following her treatment, does he consider that an appropriate use of public money? I also refer him to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, this time paragraph 14, which says:

“Special advisers must not take public part in political controversy… They must observe discretion and express comment with moderation”.


Does he consider that the Prime Minister’s special adviser is abiding by that or, as journalists have been told, is this just “classic Dom” and supposed to be tolerated?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I cannot comment on the reported offer of a payout, as I hope the noble Baroness will understand. Having said that, the model special adviser contract sets out severance arrangements for when special advisers’ contracts end, as I intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Butler. As I mentioned, all special advisers must adhere to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, which applies across the board to every special adviser in government. They are also bound by the standards of integrity and honesty required of all civil servants, as set out in the Civil Service Code.

Use of Language to Create a Safe Environment

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for repeating the Answer from the House of Commons. Perhaps the Government have put forward the noble Earl to respond today because he has not, I do not think, ever been offensive to anyone in his life. It feels awkward to have to address these questions to him when I am sure that the Statement we heard last night from the Prime Minister was as anathema to him as it was to the rest of us.

I thought that this House conducted itself with honour last night because we united in condemning, with shock and disappointment, the content and the language of the Prime Minister’s Statement. There was no party division at all on that. However, after we left the Chamber last night, it got worse. I have watched some of the debates and I have read others since, and I thought that the Prime Minister’s responses to the questions and concerns raised about the impact of his language and tone were shameful. I am thinking in particular of Paula Sherriff. She was really quite emotional when she stood up and referred to what happened to her friend Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered. The Prime Minister’s response was that it was “humbug”. We deserve better than that. To argue that the way to honour Jo Cox’s memory is to bring in the Brexit that she so opposed was, I thought, tacky and unpleasant. We all have to take care regarding our language and behaviour. Abuse in politics is not new—it did not start with Boris Johnson—but yesterday the Prime Minister sank to a new low.

Those who have been Members of Parliament or advisers, or have had to see members of the public, understand the difference here. It is one thing if someone comes to see them, or sends a letter or email, who is aggressive and abusive because they are distressed or unhappy and they get angry, and there are times when we have robust and perhaps overenthusiastic debates. But what we saw last night was a whole different order. When we see calculated actions and language that are designed to provoke intolerance and division, that is something very different. The words of a Prime Minister carry great weight and can dictate behaviour throughout the country and beyond Parliament.

I listened very carefully to the Statement. It is right that the Government are putting in measures for the security of parliamentarians and their staff, but we have to ask: why is it now that we need those? The level of debate has changed; social media has exacerbated that. So when you open that Pandora’s box of intolerance, or when you try to pitch Parliament against the people, you have lost the moral high ground to seek to heal.

We have two things to ask of ourselves and the Government. They relate to a course that I went on recently, and which we will all be asked to attend: the valuing everyone parliamentary course. One thing said in that course is that unless you call out bad behaviour, you are complicit. My two asks are this: first, that we must be conscious of our own behaviour and language and call out the wrongdoing of others; and, secondly—coming back to this point of not being complicit in bad behaviour—it would be really helpful if our own Government Front Bench in this House were to deliver a message to the Prime Minister that he has a duty and a responsibility as the leader of our country to seek to heal, rather than to exacerbate divisions. If that message went out from our Front Bench, I think this House would feel a lot more comfortable and happier. The Prime Minister has to change.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, let me comment very briefly on what the noble Baroness has said. I am quite sure that we are all of one mind that it is important for this House to maintain its custom and practice of debate that is sometimes robust but always polite and respectful of the other person’s point of view. I am at one with her in her wish to see that practice spread more widely. It might be helpful if I refer your Lordships to the words of the Speaker in the other place earlier today:

“This country faces the most challenging political issue that we have grappled with in decades. There are genuine, heartfelt, sincerely subscribed to differences of opinion about that matter. Members must be free to express themselves about it and to display … the courage of their convictions. It ought, however, to be possible to disagree agreeably”.


I think that we would all subscribe to that.

Update to Parliament

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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


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

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

“A week is a long time in politics”.


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

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

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


but, they went on, by,

“an exciting and dynamic legislative programme”.

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

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

“let alone a good reason”—

for doing so.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“carrying out the Queen’s bidding”,

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

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

“the exact same process as my predecessors”,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Chair of the European Union Committee

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion, it would be remiss of me not to say a few words about the outgoing chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who I am delighted to see in his place. He has served the EU Committee, and in turn this House, with such distinction.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has been the longest serving chairman in the history of the EU Committee. Over the seven years and three months he has spent in the role, the committee has met 229 times and published 122 reports—he is looking quite pained at the memory. Much of the committee’s recent work and 42 of those reports have been related to Brexit. I suspect that the noble Lord may not have anticipated that Europe would be quite so dominant in the national debate when he took on the chairmanship. That his stewardship of the committee has been so calm and measured has enormously benefited the whole House, especially when tensions on these issues have run high.

The noble Lord’s dedication to European matters is recognised way beyond this House. I was told by his daughter that his eldest granddaughters used to call him Baloo. The family naturally assumed that this was a reference to the character from The Jungle Book. “No”, explained the noble Lord’s granddaughters—It was because he wears blue jumpers and is always talking about the EU. On behalf of this House, I thank him for his service to the committee and wish him well in whatever he undertakes next.

Finally, I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, into the role. I have no doubt that he will prove an equally able and effective chairman, and I wish him well. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will share the noble Baroness’s confidence, and mine, that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will take on this role with enthusiasm and great skill. His expertise in science and the law are key ingredients for evidence-based policy-making and analysis; that is essential, particularly at a time when some consider opinions superior to facts. We warmly welcome him to his new position.

It is also an honour to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as he stands down. I first engaged with him many years ago when I was a newly elected MP and he was the shadow Minister leading for the then Opposition on the Minimum Wage Bill Committee —he remembers it well. It still holds the record for the longest ever Committee sitting in Parliament. I seem to recall that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke many a night in that same Committee Room. Despite some very long and late nights, then as now, he displayed his customary courtesy and good humour at all times.

At a time when the issue of our membership of the EU has fractured our politics, fragmented political parties, divided society and even split families, the work undertaken by our EU Committee and sub-committees remains essential and valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has acted at all times in the interest of your Lordships’ House to ensure that our debates would be well informed and timely. He can be proud of his record.

At times, it has been a difficult role. We hear that it has been seven years, three months—and I am sure he can tell us how many days as well. The noble Lord has always seen his work as service to this House and has been exemplary in fulfilling those responsibilities. We thank him and wish him well.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has presided for a long period over the work of the European Union Committee, but I think that it will be the work related to Brexit for which he will be remembered. I am sure that the unprecedented volume of reports from that committee have informed a very large number of people across the country. In particular, the first tranche of reports after the referendum drew to the House’s attention—and mine—a whole raft of detailed issues relating to Brexit, and although I thought I knew something about the subject, I realised that I was ignorant. I would like to thank him personally for my education—and more generally, on behalf of the House and the country, for the immensely educative job that the committee has been able to do.

I also thank him personally for his very open approach to consultation. As Chief Whip and Leader, whenever there has been a particular issue relating to my group or policy more generally facing the committee, he has been able to come and have a confidential discussion about it. I found this extremely valuable, and I believe that the approach is very much in the best traditions of the House.

We welcome the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to the job and wish him well. At the same time, we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, resuming his full voice in future debates on Europe and more generally.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Further to the resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons, that:

(1) Standing Order 40(3) to 40(9) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to allow proceedings on any bill sent from the House of Commons relating to the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union to start immediately after oral questions on Thursday, 5 September and immediately after Prayers on Friday, 6 September and to take priority over other public business.

(2) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow more than one stage of any such bill to be taken on one day.

(3) Proceedings up to and including Second Reading and commitment of the bill, so far as not already concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7pm on Thursday, 5 September and if the bill is read a second time then, notwithstanding Standing Order 47(1) (Commitment of Bills), it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without Question put.

(4) Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading and Passing of the bill, so far as not already concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5pm on Friday, 6 September.

(5) At the times stated in paragraphs (3) and (4):

a) there shall be no further debate;

b) if the mover of any motion or amendment before the House or Committee does not ask leave to withdraw, or if leave to withdraw is refused, the Question shall be put and decided immediately without further amendment or debate;

c) any further amendments shall be disposed of immediately without further amendment or debate and may be agreed only by unanimity;

d) any further Questions necessary to conclude proceedings under the relevant paragraph shall be put and decided immediately without further amendment or debate; and

e) notwithstanding Standing Order 29 (No speaking after Question put), no point of order is admitted.

(6) Amendments to the bill may be tabled only as follows:

a) for Committee stage, between First Reading and 30 minutes after the motion for Second Reading is agreed to;

b) for Report stage, for 30 minutes after the bill is reported from Committee or, if applicable, after the bill as amended in Committee is available in the Printed Paper Office;

c) for Third Reading, for 30 minutes after the end of consideration on Report or, if applicable, after the bill as amended on Report is available in the Printed Paper Office.

(7) The member in charge of the bill may propose adjournment during pleasure.

(8) If at the time stated in paragraph (4) a stage has not begun, it shall begin and be brought to a conclusion immediately without debate and no amendments shall be considered.

(9) The following Questions on the bill shall be deemed agreed to immediately without Question put:

a) House to be in Committee on the bill;

b) Report received;

c) Third Reading;

d) Adjournment during pleasure.

(10) No motion related to the bill, or in the course of proceedings on the bill, or to resume or adjourn the House, and not provided for in this motion, shall be tabled or moved, save one to amend this motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Proceedings on any further Business of the House motion related to this bill, so far as not already concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after they commence and paragraph (5) shall apply.

(11) If proceedings under paragraph (3) have not been concluded at the sitting of Thursday 5 September, a further motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to provide for the disposal of the Questions required to conclude proceedings on the bill shall be entered as first business on Friday, 6 September and decided immediately without amendment or debate.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the last time we had a Bill similar to this was the Cooper-Letwin Bill. As noble Lords will recall, its process was quite a drawn out and unpleasant one for your Lordships’ House. Because of the urgency of taking the Bill in time and dealing with it, in order to have all the stages in one day, we had to propose the suspension of Standing Orders, and then the only time to debate the legislation was that which was left after the procedure Motion and any amendments.

Eventually, discussions took place and it was agreed to take a second day to complete all the stages, but I have to say that the whole process was pretty unedifying. There were seven closure Motions, there were seven Divisions on those closure Motions and then there were seven votes after that on the amendments themselves. At times, let us be honest, it did get a little bad-tempered.

I think we can do better than that. When we get a Bill such as the one we had then—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

If the noble Lord would let me have just a couple of sentences, I will be happy to give way, because I am sure we will spend quite some time discussing this.

When we get a Bill such as the one we are likely to get today from the House of Commons, like the one we had previously, it presents specific problems for how your Lordships’ House deals with it. As I said, I think we can do better and look for a better way to manage it. On that note, I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, for whom I have the greatest respect, as she knows. Having been involved in that exercise, which was described as a filibuster, does she recall that the filibuster was ended because the Front Benches reached a deal saying that a second day of debate would be provided and that never again would the procedures of this House be abused by the Opposition taking control of business?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The second part of that is rather unusual. The Opposition are not taking control of business. If we in this House receive legislation from the other place, we should consider it in a timely and proper manner. It is right that, after lengthy discussions, agreement was reached; I would be very happy to see such an agreement again in future. However, as I said, we can do better by making those arrangements prior to long, bad-tempered, lengthy discussions. I have great regard for this House. We should conduct ourselves in the proper manner.

There are several principles here. First, we should always abide by the principle of the primacy of the House of Commons. As the noble Lord says, this is normally facilitated by the usual channels but, as he and others know, that is not the case for non-government Bills, where the normal channels do not manage the business in the same way. A Bill such as this one presents a difficulty, but the principle of Commons primacy is absolute. We must ensure that we still consider and debate properly, including for suggested amendments, but that we never wreck a Commons Bill.

The other difficulty with this particular Bill, if we get it from the Commons today, is that there is a fixed end time not of our choosing. Your Lordships’ House has no say or impact on that fixed end time, which has been decided by the Prime Minister through a rather unusual and controversial Prorogation.

Thirdly, we are, and were, aware of what would be a deliberate attempt to filibuster the Bill, not just the Motion before us. I do not think that any filibuster is in the best interests of your Lordships’ House. We, as a self-regulating House, need to find a way to deal with those issues while at the same time ensuring that there is adequate and proper time for debate and amendments. How do we best manage that in the true traditions of how your Lordships’ House works? As I said, we are a self-regulating House. Our procedures and conventions are different to those in the other place. Recognising that, if the usual channels cannot initially find agreement on the Bill, we as a House must find a way forward.

On 28 January, your Lordships’ House passed a Motion—indeed, it is referred to in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—by a majority of 152, with 283 votes to 131 votes. The Motion made it clear that this House was against no deal and that it should provide “sufficient time” for Lords consideration and conclusions if there was agreement in the House of Commons. Heaven knows that there has been little agreement on Brexit in the House of Commons, but if a Bill comes to us from the Commons at the end of business today or tomorrow on which the Commons has found agreement, we should facilitate discussion, deliberations and the conclusion of consideration on it.

If the noble Baroness the Leader were to say today, in line with the Motion of 28 January and similar to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the Government will ensure timely consideration of the Bill and ensure that those deliberations would conclude prior to Prorogation, it would remove the need for my Motion. If the Government ensure that we will act within the normal conventions of this House and ensure that the Bill is concluded prior to Prorogation, my Motion will be irrelevant and unnecessary. We would welcome that approach.

On the issue of our procedures, let me say something about the selection of amendments, which is different to that in the other place. All amendments in this place will appear on the Order Paper. All amendments can be moved, all amendments can be debated and all amendments can be voted on—even if they are exactly the same or almost exactly the same. Late last night, I heard that there were over 90 amendments to my Motion. I was ready to be wowed by the ingenuity of the noble Lords tabling them, but come this morning disappointment kicked in. Even the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, with all his experience of exciting dramatic novels, could come up with only,

“at end to insert ‘except for the Committee of the whole House on the Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill’”.

I much preferred House of Cards.

My Motion has been discussed with others, and I am grateful for the advice and support I have received. The proposal is that, as a self-regulating House, in the absence of the usual channels or a guarantee from the Leader of the House, we should decide how best we can manage this business. We propose that on Thursday we have a Second Reading until 7 pm. That would be seven hours for debate—considerably more than we had on 4 April and considerably more than will be had in the House of Commons. We could then have Committee and the remaining stages until 5 pm on Friday—considerably more time than we had last time and considerably more than in the House of Commons.

The other provisions give effect to those two key points. It allows for seven hours for Second Reading and seven hours for Committee and the remaining stages. Most importantly, that timetable—in giving us the opportunity to have a full and proper debate, to take amendments and to debate an issue we have already debated many times before—would conclude the proceedings in time for Prorogation.

My Motion respects our conventions and ways of working. It respects the rights of your Lordships’ House in dealing with legislation and the primacy of the elected House in dealing with legislation in good time.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down and amendments are called, I will say a few brief words about the Motion. I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Baroness’s description of it. I am afraid the Government will strongly oppose the Motion before the House today, because in our view it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of this House. I ask noble Lords and noble Baronesses across this House to reflect on how they would react if they were in government and faced such a Motion.

Under the terms of the Motion, I am afraid our ways of working and procedures are undermined. It limits the number of Members able to speak at Second Reading and changes the way amendments are considered and decided on, for instance. The scrutiny function of this House, which we rightly take pride in, is all but removed. Scrutinising and amending legislation is what this House does best, so the guillotining that the Bill prescribes prevents the House fulfilling its fundamental duty.

I have no doubt that, as the noble Baroness said, we will hear many concerns raised during the debate today, but I ask the House to think carefully about supporting a Motion that overturns the proven and widely respected ways in which this House operates and prevents noble Lords properly fulfilling their scrutinising role.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, there are two points there. I put to the noble Baroness that the Prorogation is the guillotine. The second point I make is that, if the Government would guarantee that the normal conventions of the House would apply and we could conclude our business on this Bill in time for Prorogation, my Motion would be unnecessary. I beg to move.

Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That would be a first. Getting an answer out of the noble Lord is not as easy as getting him to ask a question. The fact is that the use of the guillotine is an absolute outrage. It is constitutionally unprecedented and dangerous for our democracy. It is an abomination. These are not my words. They are the words of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in 2011 when David Cameron proposed tabling a guillotine Motion in this House. If it was an abomination then for the Labour Party and constitutionally unprecedented and dangerous for our democracy, so is it today. The noble Baroness should be ashamed of herself for being a party to it, no doubt on the orders of Mr Corbyn.

Turning to the Cross Benches, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is in her place, but at the time she said: “The Cross Benches will vote against this or fail to turn up”. It will be interesting to see what happens today.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Just to reassure the noble Lord, I have to claim credit for the Motion, along with other Members of your Lordships’ House. When is he going to get to the point of his amendment?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The point of my amendment is that these are very serious matters. We are making a dangerous and unprecedented assault on the part of this House, to quote the former Lord Chancellor, and this should not be nodded through as part of a business Motion. We should be in Committee and consider all the implications. The implications are enormous. The noble Baroness laughs, but this is a revising Chamber. What do we do? We take huge quantities of legislation from the other place which has not been discussed or even debated because it has a guillotine procedure. When I left the House of Commons in 1997, we did not have any of that. One had to go through numerous hoops to get a guillotine. Now everything is guillotined and everyone in this House knows how legislation comes here in a completely unscrutinised way. That is the purpose of this House. If we are to have a guillotine procedure in this House, Governments will absolutely love that. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members, of all people, should be proposing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but given that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was so happy to invite me to become Leader of the House, I put it to him that I am not pushing through a guillotine in any way. I am asking your Lordships’ House whether it wishes to consider a better way, as proposed in my Motion, for dealing with its business. It is for this House to decide—not for any Government on any occasion—how to manage its business.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I know what the noble Baroness is doing. We referred to the debate we had on the Cooper-Letwin Bill earlier this year, in which she gave an undertaking—now broken—that they would not take control of the business of this House and we would proceed as we always have by agreement between the usual channels. Not only has she done that today but she has added to it, bringing forward a guillotine procedure. That is an absolute outrage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will very briefly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord True, but before that I will clear up a point in the light of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. As both rightly pointed out, in her opening remarks the Leader of the Opposition alluded to the prospect of her Motion becoming unnecessary if the Government were to guarantee safe passage for the Bill, should it arrive. I need to put on record, lest there be any misunderstanding, that no such prospect was raised prior to today’s sitting with my noble friend the Government Chief Whip. That was the first time we had heard of that proposal. By that time the noble Baroness had already placed her Motion in the hands of the House. All I can say is that the usual channels, at least in so far as the Government are concerned, are always open.

I will make some brief remarks on the amendment of my noble friend. I focus, as other noble Lords will do, on the practical effects of this Motion. Its main effect, as has been said, is a guillotine. Setting aside the issue of precedent, I do not think that one can dismiss this as some kind of run-of-the-mill measure. The practical effects of the guillotine will be wide ranging and deeply damaging to the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation as fully as it needs to. Many of us have observed over the years how much the House prides itself on the scrutiny of legislation and how seriously it takes its role in the legislative process. My noble friend Lord Forsyth was quite right in all that he said earlier. The Business of the House Motion as tabled would shackle noble Lords to procedures that only the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who I understand will pilot any Bill that arrives from the Commons, would have any control over. What does that do to the principle of self-regulation?

The House as a whole must be free to take important decisions about how and at what speed it conducts its business. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said earlier, the Motion would limit the number of noble Lords who could make meaningful contributions at Second Reading. It would mean that amendments not reached before the guillotines could be agreed only on a unanimous basis, meaning that noble Lords, no matter what experience they bring, would be unable to have their amendments debated or decided upon fairly. This Motion means that the House is being asked to agree that, should the Commons send us a Bill, that Bill should be passed without full debate and proper scrutiny, and that the role of Members of this place should be bypassed. No noble Lord, in my opinion, should find that even remotely acceptable.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise to the noble Earl—I caught him on the television and came in urgently to hear the rest of what he was saying. I understand the points he is making, and the Motion in my name is designed to ensure a full debate—far more so than in the House of Commons. But if the noble Earl could say that the Government would be prepared to ensure that the withdrawal Bill, if passed by the House of Commons, would be guaranteed to complete its stages in your Lordships’ House prior to Prorogation—that is, by Friday—there would be no need for my Motion, because the Bill would be guaranteed to leave the House in good time. I think that that is all that anybody in your Lordships’ House wants to achieve. Are the Government prepared to have those kinds of discussions to ensure that that can be achieved? That might deal with a lot of the issues of concern to noble Lords here today.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I indicated that the usual channels on our side are open, and I wish we had been alerted earlier. In answer to her question, of course we are prepared to discuss this. No noble Lord wants to see this debate unnecessarily perpetuated.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am extremely glad to hear that, because I made that suggestion earlier today to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. My understanding, which I hope was a misunderstanding, was that there could not be such discussions. What the noble Earl has said is extremely encouraging. I would be happy at the conclusion of this debate to talk outside the Chamber to progress those discussions.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I just want to say that we have got ourselves into the most appalling political mess. We are getting ourselves into a constitutional mess and anyone looking in on this House must be completely bemused as to what we are debating. We have had these ludicrous closure Motions, which should be used extremely sparingly. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has reappeared. I was rather hoping that he would feel that he should absent himself from the House, given his truly deplorable behaviour earlier of closing down the debate not on a political person but on a member of the Cross-Benches, who had scarcely finished her words before that debate was closed down. I very much hope that he will send her an apology that the House was unable to debate her amendment, the first amendment due to be considered.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. None of us wants the temperature to rise any higher. I say to the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House: would it be helpful for the House to adjourn for pleasure at this point so that some discussion can take place? I hear that from around the House and see nods opposite. I therefore propose that the House adjourn for pleasure to return no later than 7.15. Would that be possible?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Baroness was intervening on me.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord might propose such a measure.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I would like to make a suggestion to my noble friends on the Front Bench which might work for the House. I do not know whether it would be acceptable at this stage. I understand why the Government might want to see what actually happens in another place in the course of debate both on the Bill and whether it is passed but, secondly, on a Motion as to whether there should be a general election. That means that we could perhaps usefully fill our time with a debate due to take place in any case, probably in the middle of the night, on HS2, which is a rather interesting debate with a whole bunch of speakers. I wonder whether, if the Government were to consider bringing forward that debate, we could adjourn the debate on the noble Baroness’s Motion, take a view later on and, with the discussion that could take place with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others, take a better way forward.

I suspect that my noble friend Lord Howe is unable to accept this useful suggestion, but he might want to consider it and, if not, perhaps we could adjourn the House for half an hour or so for the other discussions to take place.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I suggest to the noble Lord that the first debate in the other place is of more interest to this House—the legislation which concerns us. If we are honest, I think we are probably less concerned about general elections, which do not affect us in the same way. Perhaps a good time to conclude discussion and return would be when we have a decision from the House of Commons on passing the Bill. I am sure that, in the normal traditions of your Lordships’ House, a commitment from the Government that they would ensure that any legislation passed from the House of Commons would be completed in the time available, which is before Prorogation, would be welcome.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, it is worth noting that the House of Commons has passed the Bill by a majority of 29, according to my BBC announcement.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Second Reading of the Bill has passed.

[Lord True]

It might help the House if I responded for 30 seconds to the amendment to withdraw the amendment, because I think that the spirit of the House is right on this. I shall not press the amendment because I do not want this great House to record a second vote in favour of a guillotine. That would be very sad, particularly against my Motion, which asked for the guillotine not to be applied in a case where a Bill has been guillotined in the other House.

In the heat of these debates—I acknowledge that I perhaps believe a bit too much in the sense of liberty of this House—it would be a great pity if we put on the record of the House that we had rejected Motions that I proposed and, by implication, supported guillotining a Measure in both Houses. I therefore intend to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that there might be a little pause, as some have asked, and some consideration, because the reality is that there has to be a total deal, it involves the other place, the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, and we cannot deliver that in this Chamber. In some way or another, because someone has to give something up—in a good deal, people on both sides give something up—this side of the House has to keep an insurance policy against the imposition of the guillotine if there is no deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

This is why no agreement will be reached. This House cannot actually decide that. It is not a matter between these two Front Benches, it is a matter between the Front Benches in the other place.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think the issue for this House is legislation, not general elections. The way in which the noble Lord, Lord True spoke, was extremely constructive and I am grateful to him. I welcome his comment, which was absolutely right, that agreement takes concessions on both sides. I should hope that the only thing of interest to this House is ensuring the primacy of the Commons and that we conduct ourselves in a proper manner.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Then withdraw your Motion.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am being heckled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw my Motion. If we were sure that the legislation, if passed in the House of Commons tonight, would go through your Lordships’ House in the usual way we do our business and it was guaranteed by all noble Lords that we would complete our deliberations and conclude prior to Prorogation, there would really be no need for my Motion.

[Lord Newby]

In an attempt to simplify matters, I support the idea of a simple, straightforward, short break, not to insert any other business, because that would be confusing, but to accept that any agreement reached among the usual channels in your Lordships’ House at 7 o’clock might be conditional on various things happening in the Commons in the next few hours. In that way, we would know what to do in various circumstances. I am loath to see a long pause, because if for some reason the good will, which I am pleased to see breaking out, did not lead to an agreement, we would be back to where we were, and the sooner we got back to where we were, the better.

As it is now 18.48, I should have thought that if we had half or three quarters of an hour, that should be perfectly long enough to—

Lord True’s amendment to the Motion (2) withdrawn.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, may I propose that the House do now adjourn but that we return no later than 7.30 this evening?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition has, very helpfully, proposed an adjournment. The difficulty I find myself in is that any discussions that we have through the usual channels will be predicated, at least from our point of view, on discussions with others in another place. At present, I cannot therefore accede willingly to her proposal to adjourn although in principle, as I said earlier, we are of course open to discussions at some point in the evening.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am slightly confused by what the noble Earl says. I sense that, across the House—I will talk for a moment so that the Chief Whip can catch up—we want to conduct our business in a timely, sensible and ordered manner. Perhaps we can do so through adjourning briefly. I hope that the noble Earl is not saying that officials and Ministers in this House are unable to come to an agreement; however, I appreciate that we must understand what happens in the House of Commons first, which is why I suggested adjourning until 7.30 pm. I would appreciate the views of the Chief Whip on this issue.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I can inform the House that she and the Leader spoke earlier. Our position is that, until the House of Lords is clear on the decisions that it is making, which will come later this evening, that might be a sensible time—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means. As he rightly said, that includes the Bill, which will be voted on later—soon, I expect. Secondly, there will be a vote on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We would like to know how that goes as well.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the reason for proposing an adjournment was that there would be an opportunity for the usual channels to discuss how to manage the legislation that we expect to see tonight from the House of Commons. We may expect a result on that before 8 pm, I would think. I am not convinced that we need to wait for the result of the vote on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act because that does not have an impact on how your Lordships’ House deals with legislation. Having said that, it would be helpful if the Government understood fully the point about the withdrawal (No. 6) Bill. It seems clear that, despite the helpful comments from the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Cormack, and others, the Government do not want any discussions—the Leader made this point to me earlier but I had hoped that things would have rather moved on since then—until after the results in the House of Commons.

Let me settle this: we should not adjourn at this point but we should hold early discussions with the Government through the usual channels. We want to discuss only the legislation and how this House deals with legislation in its normal way to ensure that we respect the primacy of the House of Commons and—[Interruption.] The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a former Member of Parliament, is shaking his head when I talk about the primacy of the House of Commons. It is an absolute given that we do not wreck Bills passed by the House of Commons. We do things only on that basis. I can say that quite easily because that is the position—[Interruption.] The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, should calm down and not shout at me from a sedentary position. As a Minister, he should know better.

I see little point in adjourning now but we must have urgent discussions; not doing so would do this House a great disservice. Looking at the faces of Members opposite, apart from those on the noisy Front Bench, I believe that that is what the House wants. This House wants to do its business properly. We will do all that we can to facilitate that. If the Government agree that we will use the normal procedures and allow the legislation to complete its passage, my Motion will not be necessary. I will forget a Motion to adjourn now but I expect discussions to take place urgently.

Amendment to the Motion (2A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, it may be helpful to the House to know that the House of Commons has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Act by 327 votes to 299, a majority of 28. Given that we now know the views of the House of Commons on this piece of legislation, it would be helpful to open discussions with the Government as soon as possible on how our business may proceed. I have already told your Lordships’ House that I am happy to have those discussions as soon as possible. We want to have a timely, ordered approach to business between now and Prorogation to ensure that we give effect to decisions taken by the House of Commons. So I propose that we adjourn during pleasure until 8.39 pm.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, without any commitment at all on the part of these Benches, we do not seek to oppose the Motion for an adjournment for the period indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, because I think that it would be helpful to have those discussions. I know that he said, “no commitment”, but I am sure that he will have heard the mood of the House earlier today—from his own Benches and everyone else—that discussions should open up and would be very helpful for the interests of the House. So I am grateful to the Government for not opposing this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for adjourning. I had hoped that during that time, we would have had discussions about the role of this House in dealing with legislation, given that the Commons has completed its consideration on the withdrawal Bill, which was passed with a significant majority, and will be coming to your Lordships’ House. What we managed to achieve was talks about talks. The Government have agreed to talk to us, but, unfortunately, not until 9.45 pm. I am slightly cautious. I have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, before, and know him to be a man of integrity. What concerns me is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that somehow, how we in this House conduct ourselves on legislation is dependent on what happens in the House of Commons on the Motion regarding a general election. As I made clear earlier, I think that is totally irrelevant to how we deal with legislation.

We are in a unique and difficult situation. We have so many amendments to this Bill. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his comments on how we consider this, which helped enormously, but these amendments are designed to frustrate not only this Motion, but also the legislation, and that would not be the right thing for this House to do. I know that on the point about legislation, the noble Lord agrees with me.

If all we did was sit continuously and vote on all these amendments, we would probably be here until Saturday. Given that these amendments are designed to frustrate the Motion and the Bill, we are seeking just one thing: a categorical assurance that this House and the Government will abide by the normal conventions and rules of this House in dealing with legislation, and ensure that the Bill, passed by our friends in the House of Commons, will be able to complete its passage through this House prior to Prorogation. With that assurance, my Motion becomes unnecessary. We must respect the work that MPs have put in, coming together to agree something. We have an assurance of talks with the Government at 9.45 pm. That is the assurance we will be seeking from them at the meeting, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, agrees with our intention.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think “talks about talks” is reasonably good shorthand for what happened when the usual channels met. Some of those we need to involve in those talks were not immediately available, so in the meantime, we would like to consult some of the other people who are interested. We are not going to do nothing between now and 9.45 pm. We will try to form some proposals to put to the noble Baroness. It is difficult to say more at the moment, but the talks will continue, and we will certainly be ready to talk to her at 9.45 pm.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful for that. The Minister says that he is waiting for others who are involved—I understand that they are in the House of Commons. Can he confirm that they would not be involved in matters of procedure for your Lordships’ House and that we are talking about a matter of procedure for this House and not about a policy matter? I am slightly puzzled, because I would have thought of the Minister, “He’s the guy in charge”.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I understand the noble Baroness’s confusion. It was not just the other place that I was talking about; there are other parties and people involved, not least some other Peers. It is slightly more complicated than it might first appear. I have made the offer that I have made, which is consistent with what I said earlier, and I conveyed that to the Opposition Chief Whip.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord; that is helpful in many ways. I think that we are grateful to MPs for coming up with a Bill that is clear-cut in terms of their views and that we can now consider, and we will do all we can to ensure its safe passage.

To reiterate, the Minister knows that my Motion becomes unnecessary with guarantees from the Government of the normal conventions of this House. I am happy to stand by that commitment to him as long as we have the assurance that the Bill is completed in this House before Prorogation.

[Lord True]

What the noble Baroness has said is important, but unfortunately there is something in it which I cannot accept—the idea that there is something normal about the procedure. I must ask the noble Baroness to accept at least this: it is not normal to slap down a massive guillotine Motion without notice; it is not normal to expect this House to deal forthwith with whatever legislation comes from the House of Commons, and it is not normal to apply those principles to any Bill that is not covered by the Salisbury doctrine. I cannot accept those contentions, but that does not mean that I resile from my position when I withdrew my amendment. The noble Baroness should be under no illusion that, if the Front Benches are not able to come to an arrangement, those of us who find a guillotine utterly repugnant will not feel free to continue. I hope that I do not have to be in that position personally—I cannot speak for others—but I cannot accept that this procedure is normal.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. There is very little that is normal at the moment. I do not want to put a guillotine Motion before this House; I was trying to help the House. It is not normal to have so many amendments; it is not normal to have such a Prorogation. We are trying to make the best of a difficult situation and see our way through it.

[Lord Cormack]

May I express the hope, having introduced this earlier, that my noble friend will indeed accept that these are exceptional times? Prorogation has never been like this for 90 years—and not even then. We want an orderly end that allows this House to preserve its image and reputation and not to shred them by talking through until one minute past 10 on Friday.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I suggest that we continue with the Bill in the normal way at this stage and, following the discussions that we have, I will be happy to report back to the House on how those discussions have proceeded.

Amendment to the Motion (2B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that we have concluded our usual channels conversations. Subject to confirmation by the Leader of the Opposition, we have agreed that consideration of the current Business of the House Motion will be adjourned and a new Motion tabled tomorrow to allow the Bill to complete all stages in this House by 5 pm on Friday 6 September. We have also received a commitment from the Chief Whip in the House of Commons that Commons consideration of any Lords amendments will take place on Monday. It is the Government’s intention that the Bill be ready to be presented for Royal Assent.

This agreement also has implications for noble Lords who have tabled amendments to the Motion today. I hope that they will support the agreement reached in the usual channels and not seek further to frustrate the process at either Second Reading or at the amending stages on Friday.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thank the noble Lord in what is probably his first major outing as Chief Whip in your Lordships’ House. It has been quite a night. This has been a long debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed the course and are still here. It shows how much this House values both the importance of the work we do and of the issue we are debating.

We can now confirm that we shall be able to complete all the stages of the Bill in your Lordships’ House in a time-honoured way by 5 pm on Friday. It was not an easy decision to table a Motion to ensure that we could continue our deliberations on the Bill and conclude them in good time. I understand the anxieties that were so eloquently stated by noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments that this House has considered this evening. We recognise that such a Business Motion is a wholly exceptional response to the very unusual circumstances of the imminent Prorogation. We hope that it will not be treated as a precedent and that it will not have to be deployed again.

I thank all noble Lords for their patience. I had hoped to come back to your Lordships’ House earlier about the arrangements that were being made. Tomorrow morning, I shall be tabling a new Business Motion, which will confirm that we shall complete our consideration of the Bill by 5 pm on Friday 6 September.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I endorse the words of the Government Chief Whip and of the Leader of the Opposition. Passions run very high on this issue in your Lordships’ House, as they do across the country. It is not surprising that they have been high today. Carrying on through 24 or 48 hours, as we have been doing, in a sort of pathetic attempt to set a new Guinness world record for consecutive votes in your Lordships’ House, would not do anybody any favours.

These Benches felt it was key to ensure that this Bill, which we shall be receiving tomorrow, was able to finish its passage in your Lordships’ House before the weekend and that it would then get Royal Assent before Prorogation. With the assurances that we have had from the Minister, I feel confident that this will happen, so this is a positive outcome.

I cannot finish without thanking colleagues on my and other Benches who have supported us during a very long period. I am pleased that I will not be needing to use my duvet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I omitted to say that I am very grateful to all noble Lords on all sides of the House for staying so long. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not taking the rest of the business tonight.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I beg to move that further debate on the Motion standing in my name be adjourned.

Motion withdrawn.