Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness 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?

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Wallace of Tankerness 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.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord for their comments. I reiterate once again that we are committed to and focused on getting a deal, which is why we have brought forward these new proposals. I also remind noble Lords, who will be aware of this, that the House of Commons has rejected the previous withdrawal agreement three times; therefore, to get a deal, we have had to come forward with new proposals.

I reassure the noble Baroness that she is absolutely right: we believe that these proposals set out a reasonable compromise and that they are a broad landing zone in which a deal can take shape. We are pleased that our European colleagues have said that they will look at these proposals. Detailed discussions will now have to take place on them. I can reassure her that David Frost, the Prime Minister’s lead negotiator, is back in Brussels today. Intensive talks will be ongoing and we look forward to continuing them to ensure we can get a deal that everybody is happy with. We are committed to supporting the all-Ireland economy by avoiding checks and infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, keeping Northern Ireland in the same customs territory as Great Britain and ensuring unfettered access for Northern Irish farmers and businesses to the UK.

The noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord talked about the political declaration. Yes, we are in negotiations on changes to that. Those negotiations are ongoing and as soon as we are in a position to give further details on them, we will of course do so. I am happy to reassure them both that we are committed to strong standards in the areas of environmental protections and workers’ rights, as the noble Baroness set out. We have an excellent record in this country in these areas. There are numerous examples of where we exceed EU minima, such as on the length of maternity leave, shared parental leave, holiday entitlement and greenhouse gas targets. As I hope we have made clear continually at this Dispatch Box, we as a Government intend not only to maintain existing standards but to improve them. We will continue to hold this path.

The noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord are right that these proposals will mean changes from the situation that prevails today—this was reflected in the Statement—but our driving purpose is to ensure that we minimise disruption. We understand the concerns of business. The noble Baroness mentioned concerns that have been raised. We will be talking in detail to businesses about the proposals, explaining why we believe there will be minimum disruption and making sure that their concerns are allayed. Part of the way in which we will do this is through our new deal for Northern Ireland. We will be making commitments to help boost economic growth and competitiveness, and to support infrastructure projects—particularly with a cross-border focus—so that we can work with our Irish partners as well to ensure that businesses and consumers across the island of Ireland are happy with what we are planning.

A limited number of goods movements will undergo physical inspections or checks. The system will largely be decentralised. It will be facilitated and minimised by the use of solutions such as electronic filing. We expect there to be a very small number of physical checks needed. These will be conducted at traders’ premises or other points in the supply chain. For instance, the UK currently checks around 4% of customs declarations, with fewer than 1% of these checks being physical in nature. This reflects our robust pre-clearance processes which involve the de-risking of high-risk traders and commodities. Our future system will be underpinned by continuing close co-operation between UK and Irish authorities, based on the existing customs legislations of both parties. It is our intention to make a series of simplifications and improvements to that legislation to ensure that the commitment in the new protocol to having no checks or infrastructure at the border is fulfilled.

The noble Baroness asked, for instance, about trusted traders. One of the ideas put forward is a special provision for small traders to ensure that requirements on them could be simplified. For instance, some small traders could be exempt from processes and paying duty altogether. These measures would need to be carefully designed so that they target the traders most in need of support, while continuing to ensure compliance.

The noble and learned Lord asked about Section 10 of the withdrawal Act. As my noble friend said yesterday, we believe that our proposals do not breach this provision but conform to it.

I can absolutely reassure the House that we are working very hard to get the Northern Ireland Executive back up and running. I think all of us in this House have been frustrated and disappointed about the lack of progress seen. I can reiterate only that this is an absolute priority and we are working extremely hard to ensure that it happens.

The issue of consent was also raised. The exact mechanism for consent will be discussed as part of these negotiations but in the context of the Good Friday agreement. We want to achieve the satisfaction of both communities in Northern Ireland. This is at the heart of what we look to do. We very much hope that these proposals will lead to a further, new and intense way in which we can move forward, so that we can present a Bill to the other place which can get through. Then we can move on and get a deal.

Update to Parliament

Lord Wallace of Tankerness 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.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for their comments. First, can I say that this Government have the highest respect for our judiciary? The independence of our judiciary is a fundamental part of the rule of law and the basis of our democracy—I am very happy to put that on record.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was, of course, right to say that the Supreme Court judgment was unanimous, but she will also recognise there were disagreements in relation to these complex matters. The divisional court, led by the Lord Chief Justice, agreed unanimously with the Government’s position, as did Lord Doherty in the Outer House of Scotland. We were disappointed in the end that the Supreme Court had a different view, but, of course, we entirely respect their judgment, and they had every right to do so.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about an affidavit. The reasons for the decision were set out in the documents that were provided to the court, and the Government’s written case remains available on the website. The court did not say that the Prime Minister should have given evidence, and my understanding is that it would have been unprecedented for him to have done so. Ultimately, the court did not find the evidence justified Prorogation—we regret that, but that is a matter for the court to decide, and they have done so. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about my attendance in the Privy Council. Before attending the meeting of the Privy Council, I both sought and received confirmation that in the legal opinion of the Attorney General, the Prorogation was lawful and so I believed it was appropriate for me to do my duty as a Privy Counsellor as I was asked to do. I also took part in the Prorogation ceremony as part of my role as the Leader of the House, and I can say I did so in the utmost good faith. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked about whether the Government would comply with the law: we will.

G7

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am very pleased that every delegation supported our campaign to give every girl in the world 12 years of quality education. Indeed, the Prime Minister also called on G7 countries to dedicate more of their aid budget to education, which currently stands at less than 2% of global humanitarian aid. It is obvious that, with more investment and support going in, all the very important issues that the noble Baroness raised can be properly addressed. I fear I will need to get more information on the details of the programmes we support and others: I will write to her, as I will on a couple of other issues.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reminded us that the Prime Minister voted earlier this year for the withdrawal agreement, which included the backstop. Yet he has said subsequently, and indeed repeated in the Statement, that the backstop is anti-democratic. Are we to believe, therefore, that we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to vote for measures that he believes to be anti-democratic?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

No, I think this shows that the Prime Minister is committed to getting a deal. He voted for one, but the House of Commons did not. He is now trying to get one and to ensure that we can present a deal to the House of Commons that MPs can support, in order that we can leave the EU with a deal.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

8: Schedule 1, page 19, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) A report under this paragraph must include the Sponsor Body’s best estimate of the timeline for the Palace restoration works, including likely dates for the decant of each House and the estimated date of completion.”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, when I moved an amendment in Committee seeking a timeline to be outlined by the sponsor body, it was not my original intention to move an amendment on Report. However, having listened to the debate and the comments made, I said at the end of the debate that there was at least merit in considering whether to come back to the issue. I have done that, albeit, crucially, in a different way—that is, with a similar amendment but with a crucial difference.

As was said on a number of occasions when this was debated in Committee, large infrastructure projects have a reputation for going over time and sometimes over budget. Having had the experience of being one of the original Members of the Scottish Parliament, I am certainly well aware of that and of the publish backlash it can sometimes cause. That is why it is important to try to find a way to ensure there is transparency, information and explanation. It is intended not to initiate a blame game but to find a way in which, by sharing information, any possible blame can be mitigated through proper explanation.

Nor is it intended to be a requirement that everything is pinned down to the last day. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said in Committee when she supported my amendment:

“We do not need to say, ‘This will happen on 3 January 2022’, but it should be possible to have an idea of a timeframe for when certain things are likely to happen. That would help with public engagement and the engagement of colleagues around the House”.—[Official Report, 22/7/19; col. 641.]


That is the spirit in which I move this amendment—not that one wishes to be precise to the very day, but rather that there can be an indication as to when some things are likely to happen. That is particularly the case with regard to the decant. As I indicated in Committee, and as was indicated in the Joint Committee report on the draft Bill, issues that could lead to delays have arisen in relation to Richmond House. As we progress, it would be useful to know just how that is progressing and, if there are particular problems, that these can be identified sooner rather than later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his amendment, which would require the sponsor body’s reports on the progress made on the parliamentary building works to incorporate a timeline for the works that would include likely dates for decant and completion. As the noble and learned Lord said, he tabled a similar amendment in Committee, to the effect that as part of its consultation strategy the sponsor body must publish a timeline for completion of the Palace restoration works, including details on the dates of decant and return to the Palace.

In my response in Committee, I agreed that all noble Lords would—quite obviously—wish to seek further clarity on dates around decant, and I am in absolute agreement with the noble and learned Lord’s point that the sponsor body should publish details regarding decant and completion of the works not just once but throughout the course of the project. Here it is important to convey that the shadow sponsor body has always explicitly recognised that, as part of the sponsor body’s reports as set out in paragraph 27 of Schedule 1, it would rightly be required to include timescales on decant and the progress of the works. I can confirm that the shadow sponsor body is in agreement with this approach and therefore the expectation is that the reports produced by the sponsor body will include information on the timetable for the works, including details on timings for decant and return to the Palace.

I spoke at some length in Committee on various points addressing the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord. However, I thought it important to clarify what the Bill requires the sponsor body to do as regards reporting. Under the Bill, the delivery authority is required to formulate proposals for the parliamentary building works, including the timing of those works. These proposals are provided for in Clause 2(2)(e). Parliament will need to approve the proposals before any substantive works commence. If for any reason those timings change significantly, the sponsor body will need to come back to Parliament for further approval. The parliamentary approval of these proposals, as well as the shadow sponsor body outlining its agreement that the sponsor body should include information relating to the timeline for the works in reports it produces, will, I hope, provide noble Lords with the reassurance that this information will be forthcoming.

This is a matter that will surely interest all noble Lords throughout the currency of the works, whether that is before commencement, during or near their completion, so let me again thank the noble and learned Lord for tabling this amendment. I hope that I have provided him with significant reassurance on this important matter.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their comments on this amendment, and in particular for the noble Earl’s reassuring words and the wider clarification of the roles of the sponsor body and the delivery authority in these matters. As he rightly said, the timeline for progress, decant and the likely completion is of interest not just to Members but to the wider public. What he has put on the record today is very satisfactory indeed and we look forward with interest to watching progress. With these words, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I open the Committee stage of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Smith—who, as the House will know, was a member of the original Joint Committee and spoke with her usual eloquence and depth at Second Reading on behalf of these Benches—unfortunately has other commitments and cannot be here until later but is very much hoping to join us as soon as possible. Meanwhile, my noble friend Lord McNicol and I are holding the fort.

I am moving Amendment 1 and speaking to Amendment 16, both of which are in my noble friend’s name. It is right that we start today with amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 that aim to ensure and reiterate that the core purpose of the restoration and renewal programme must be to enable the Houses of Parliament to continue to serve as the UK’s primary legislative and democratic institution.

Clause 2 lists areas to which the sponsor body must have regard, but the work of Parliament, legislation and the representative democratic function is not referred to anywhere in the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Smith said at Second Reading,

“That is a serious omission. At no point should the sponsor body … lose sight of that”.—[Official Report, 8/7/19; col. 1675.]


Our amendments seek to remedy this. The House will be aware that, as this project progresses, it is vital that we bring the public and Parliament with us. We must make both aware that the works are imperative not only to preserve this historic building for future generations but to ensure that this country can long benefit from its constitutional role.

By stressing the significance of the works for the sanctity of democracy, we can better demonstrate that the costs and work involved are vital and necessary, and we help address and dissuade notions that this is only for the benefit of parliamentarians. Safeguarding Parliament’s role in our constitution is of vital benefit to everyone in the UK. Through these amendments, this House can do more than send this message; we can ensure that this principle is at the forefront of consideration for the sponsor body as works progress.

Amendment 16 would legislate that the sponsor body must always take regard of the primary democratic and constitutional functions of Parliament during the project. Amendment 1, meanwhile, would ensure that while the decant takes place the aim of the works will be to facilitate both Houses’ return so that their democratic and constitutional functions can be upheld and continued.

The importance of including in the Bill the broad principle that the works must never lose sight of the fact that they are taking place to maintain Parliament as a place of democracy was underlined by noble Lords from across the House at Second Reading. I hope that the Government will agree and bring forward proposals on Report to ensure that this principle is incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to speak in support of the amendment that has just been so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. It is important we remember that the principal functions of this place are its constitutional, legislative and scrutiny functions. That should not be forgotten. That said, in many of the debates we will have in Committee, we will remember many of the other things that happen in this place. I was going to say it is a village; it is probably larger than that in terms of the number of people who work here. However, at the end of the day, if it were not for the democratic and constitutional functions that take place, most of that other work would not materialise.

Although it is not one I signed, possibly through omission rather than as a deliberate act, the words “at the earliest opportunity” in Amendment 1 are important, because there is an urgency in this: both in starting now and, when the works start, in getting back in as soon as possible. Throughout the whole process, it is important that we try to maintain the pace. We will come later to an amendment I have tabled about timelines. We all know from large public works that there is often a tendency to delay, but I hope that once we get out it will not be very long until we get back in.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, any amendment which improves the Bill is obviously a good thing, but I was not clear from what my noble friend said how this amendment does so. It is not clear to me how the words,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”,

and,

“at the earliest opportunity that its work and democratic and constitutional functions can reasonably be delivered in the restored Palace”,

are in any way different. Could my noble friend answer that when she responds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

If I can interject in this discussion, there is a real danger that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is right, but it does not have to be like that. That is why I am very supportive of Amendments 9 and 27, which are exceedingly important. When the Minister winds up, I would appreciate it if she could comment on Amendment 27 and the annual report to Parliament on “the areas in which” those who have contracts operate.

It seems that the decisions will have been made by then. They are very dependent on the nature of the procurement exercise, which is why Amendment 9 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is terribly important. It seeks to insert provisions that,

“opportunities to secure economic or other benefits of the Parliamentary building works are available in all areas of the United Kingdom”,

which implies that the start of the procurement process will be geared to deliver that objective. The Government and those responsible for making the decisions about procurement need to plan this very carefully. It will not be enough for the procurement system simply to take national contractors from a national list, with companies that say they can employ people from all parts of the country. In reality, what will almost certainly happen is that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will be proved right because the labour force will come from a narrower part of the UK—London and the south-east. I want to avoid that.

It is important that procurement reaches SMEs, not just big national companies. It needs to get specialist professions such as specialist architects, and get to companies based purely in the regions of England, or based only in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. It will not be enough for only national contractors to get the lion’s share of the business. I hope the Government will plan to achieve all this in a proactive way. I fully understand the legal position in relation to procurement law, but this is surely about enabling proper competition, not simply relying on a system which does not promote genuine competition. To do that requires competition to be enabled rather than minimised.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in following on from my noble friend I welcome these amendments. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, refer to skills and apprenticeships. I return to a subject which I raised at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and I served on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster and will readily remember the evidence we received regarding the importance of skills. However, we are talking about skills in the heritage sector, where there may be a shortage at the moment, and there could well be lead times in training people to deploy those skills when it comes to R&R.

One of the recommendations which the Joint Committee made in paragraph 306 of its report is that,

“market engagement should begin early, and be facilitated by the early establishment of a shadow Sponsor Board and shadow Delivery Authority”.

I understand that we do not have a shadow delivery authority at the moment, but it would be helpful if, in responding to the debate—if not tonight then in writing—the Minister could tell us what steps have already been taken to pursue that market engagement and identify where there might be bottlenecks, and see what could be actively done at the moment to try to ensure that there will be an adequate supply of skilled tradespeople when the time comes to undertake this important work.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, sometimes competitive tender can breed low bidding rates, and contractors make up their profits through claims. Is the idea to generate negotiated unit prices or have competitive bidding?

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, just said about the Archives. There are real risks in maintaining them in their present physical location.

As has been noted by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Newby, I served on the Joint Committee on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, the report of which was published in September 2016, almost three years ago. That paved the way for the Bill before us today, via resolutions that were passed by each House of Parliament in the early weeks of 2018.

I have a vivid memory of the day before that Joint Committee first sat in September 2015 of visiting the internal works in the basement of the Palace of Westminster. I was struck by the state of the mechanical and electrical services and rapidly concluded that doing nothing, kicking the can down the road, was not an option. Indeed, that was very much the conclusion that the Joint Committee came to. It identified an overwhelming need for the works to go ahead, and that they should be undertaken most effectively by a full decant of the Palace of Westminster. The Joint Committee made recommendations about the governance, especially for a sponsor body comprising Members of both Houses as well as external members, and a delivery authority with necessary technical expertise, and about the necessity for clear accountability for Parliament to be responsive to the requirements of the public, staff and Members.

These recommendations are largely reflected in the Bill before us. There has of course been the addition of the estimates commission and an understanding of the inevitable sensitivity about cost and the monitoring of it. I suspect that is probably a worthwhile addition to the Bill.

One of the other things we reflected on was timing, and we tried to convey a sense of urgency in that report. Admittedly, we did not anticipate the 2017 general election, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, will recall that we had in mind that all who were elected in what we then thought would be a 2020 general election should have an opportunity to speak in the House of Commons before decant, and that those who were elected in the 2025 general election should have the opportunity to speak in the actual House of Commons after Parliament returned.

I am not quite sure what kind of timeline is anticipated now, but we took the view that, because of the deteriorating condition of the Palace of Westminster, the R&R programme should begin at the earliest possible date. I note Clause 1(3), which I think is faithful to the terms of the resolutions passed by both Houses. It says,

“the functions under this Act in relation to the works must be exercised with a view to facilitating the return of that House to the Palace of Westminster as soon as is reasonably practicable”.

That is a very welcome sentiment, but we are entitled to ask what it is anticipated that it will mean in practice. When replying to the debate, could the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House tell us the current thinking on the timeline?

I was somewhat alarmed by paragraph 160 of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which rehearses some of the difficulties and possible delays in the Northern Estate programme, with particular reference to Richmond House and the Ministry of Defence car park. It refers to,

“delay (possibly resulting in decant being postponed for several years, until 2028)”.

In other words, it suggests the possibility of the decant starting just around the time that the Joint Committee on which I served thought we would be coming back into the Palace of Westminster. Given the risks of staying on this building—the risks of incremental failure and the risk of a significant failure—it would be useful to hear what is being done to try to tackle and reduce some of these possible delays, not least in relation to Richmond House and the Ministry of Defence car park.

Another issue of great importance is parliamentary accountability. Of course, the real clients are the public—the citizens of the United Kingdom—who wish not only to preserve our heritage but to see a Parliament that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. However, we also know that day to day, in practical terms, the Members of both Houses—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, have some pretty strong views on things and do not hesitate to make them known—have the potential to be quite demanding as this project proceeds. That is why it is important that we have a sponsor body.

Sir David Natzler, the former Clerk of the House of Commons, in his evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, indicated that Sir Charles Barry had had to appear before over 100 parliamentary committees because there was not a sponsor body; my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to Mr Barry’s War and the importance of being able to channel and focus the legitimate concerns and interests of Members of each House. It is important that each House balances accountability and oversight on one hand with not wanting to micromanage on the other. We should let the bodies that we are creating with this Bill get on with the job.

Clause 6(2) of the Bill provides for the possibility of a parliamentary relationship agreement; the content of that agreement will be important. Paragraph 103 of the Joint Committee report on the draft Bill recommends that,

“parliamentary members of the Sponsor Body should be responsible for answering parliamentary questions”,

and that that should be dealt with in the parliamentary relationship agreement rather than in the Bill. Again, it would be helpful if we could get some indication as to the current thinking on this. Is it, for example, as with the Church Commissioners in the other place or the Senior Deputy Speaker here, who often are able to come to be Dispatch Box and answer on behalf of other bodies? It might be useful to have a member of the sponsor body who is a Member of your Lordships’ House, who would be identified as the person who perhaps responded to debates or Questions when they were raised by Members.

As regards the duties on the sponsor board, I welcome the duty specified in Clause 2(4)(h); the noble Baroness the Leader of the House indicated that that was brought in by amendment in the other place and that the Government will wish to reflect on it. On the one hand, we do not want to become too specific, but it is important that we try to find ways in which the benefits—the work that will be created for small and medium-sized enterprises—can be shared across the United Kingdom. Also, we should look in particular at the importance of and the opportunity for apprenticeships, particularly in specialist skills in the heritage and conservation sector. That was brought home to us very much on the Joint Committee. To be able to train people up in these specialist skills would be a worthwhile legacy, but not to do it could lead to delays and bottlenecks. Therefore, as paragraph 306 of the Joint Committee report said in September 2016:

“Conducting the works in one phase will make a significant demand on market capacity … A wide range of specialist trades will be required in a short space of time, and the Delivery Authority will need to be able to be capable of managing a large and complex supply chain”.


Therefore I very much hope that, while it may be going too far to specify apprenticeships in the Bill, nevertheless we will get some acknowledgement of the importance of that and of addressing the need for specialist skills, which has been identified. Perhaps some indication could also be given as to what has already been done to deal with market engagement.

There is a huge challenge here: value for money, and balancing heritage with practicability and legitimate issues such as access. However, as the Public Accounts Committee of the other place said in its 45th report, we should be getting on with it. The most efficient thing is to get on with it. That is what I hope we will do, and why I hope we will give the Bill a good passage through your Lordships’ House.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House confirm that, if a matter is referred to independent arbitration and if any issue of European Union law should arise, it should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a binding ruling, with the arbitration panel obliged to settle a dispute in accordance with the ruling given by the CJEU? That makes a nonsense of saying that the CJEU will not have any relevance after Brexit.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The arbitration panel would be the body to consider, decide and resolve disputes. The panel will consider a dispute, make a ruling based on findings of fact and reach conclusions on questions of law or of interpretation of the agreement, other than on points of EU law. If the panel decides that there is a question of EU law which requires interpretation, it will submit a question to the CJEU, but it is for the panel alone to decide whether to refer that question or not, and the resolution of the dispute remains solely with the arbitration panel.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, when on a number of occasions in recent years I have shown visitors around this iconic building, I was always struck by just how impressed they were by the place in which we work and how often they said that it was good of me to give my time to do it. To that, I usually said that it is actually very good for us to do it because it means that we do not get blasé about the place in which we have the privilege to work. It is important that we are able to share this building with those who visit us because it does not belong to those of us who at any particular time have the good fortune to be a Member of the House of Lords or the House of Commons—rather, we are custodians of this building. We hold it in trust for the people and for future generations. That is the spirit in which we should approach the decision before us today.

As a member of the Joint Committee, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in thanking the clerks and officials who give us enormous help and support. As a member of the committee, I very much welcome the decisive vote of the House of Commons last Wednesday. I calculate that it was almost 54%, and that is a mandate for decant meaning decant. The House of Commons essentially endorsed the recommendations of the Joint Committee, admittedly 17 months after the report and, significantly, five and half years since both Houses published a report outlining the significant extent of the works required and the risks associated with not tackling the work in a coherent and timely manner.

When I was appointed to the committee, I was not sure what course its work would take and what kind of recommendations we would come up with, but having had a tour of the basement the day before the committee had its first meeting in September 2015 and seen for myself the state of the mechanical and electrical services, I was in no doubt that doing nothing or kicking the can further down the road was not an option. I do not think words can convey the full extent of the risks and hazards to be found when water pipes lie next to electricity cables of varying ages and states of decay in proximity to steam pipes, not to mention telephone cables and IT cabling. As my noble friend Lord Newby said, the large sewage pipe that runs the whole length of the building was put in in 1888. We also heard about asbestos. It is known about in some places, but its full extent is probably not known. There are probably some places in which asbestos will be found when the work starts. That makes it very important that the renovation work goes ahead very carefully and sensitively. Noble Lords who have not seen the basement for themselves and who still entertain some reservations about embarking on a course of restoration and renewal should take the opportunity to go down and see what is there.

There are risks. There are risks of incremental failures and there is a risk of significant failure, which is why I think getting the work started in 2025 is probably too far away. The longer that we do not take action, the greater the risk of something happening. The Joint Committee carefully scrutinised the options. We believe that spinning the work out over several decades would not only be impracticable but would probably be the most costly means of going about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, spoke graphically about building organs outwith the body and what would happen if we decanted in Houses. In addition, no doubt the precedent of the post-war period would be raised, and I am sure we can envisage a situation where the Commons would think it quite appropriate that when it decanted into your Lordships’ Chamber we would go elsewhere and we would stay elsewhere while the Commons went back to their Chamber on completion. I doubt whether our generosity would be reciprocated.

Clearly, but subject to further validation, as we indicated, the most cost-effective way for the work to be completed by the proposed delivery authority is a complete decant of the Palace of Westminster during the period of the works. It is important to emphasise that this is just the Palace, because it does not affect other parts of the Parliamentary Estate, where Members could remain.

That then raised the question of where we should go, on a temporary basis. It is important to stress that too, because I recall that when our committee was meeting, a number of people expressed concerns that once we went, we would never get back in. This Motion makes it very clear that this is a temporary matter and that Parliament will return to our respective Chambers once the work is completed. We had many meetings looking at the options as to where we could go—I recall at one point the idea of floating Chambers on the Thames. But for your Lordships’ House—subject to further feasibility work—I was satisfied that the Queen Elizabeth II Centre was the best option for accommodating the Chamber, core functions of our work, committee rooms and some Member accommodation. Importantly, it would still allow access for members of the public to see what we were about. Of course, it will be less convenient than what we have at the moment, and will mean perhaps adjusting the times we have for Divisions—electronic voting, which I might prefer having had experience of it in the Scottish Parliament, was not something we as a committee felt able to entertain, as it was a bit beyond our remit. We may not have the dining rooms, and the Library may be less appealing and less extensive than what we have now, but it is a small price to pay for enabling the work to go ahead.

Reference has already been made to the proposed delivery authority and further validation of the conclusions which the Joint Committee reached. We were very fortunate to have the services of both the noble Lords, Lord Deighton and Lord Carter, on our committee to give us advice on the governance arrangements as we move forward. That was an important part of our recommendations to ensure that the works are carried out effectively, to time and to budget. The sponsor board will represent people from both Houses, to ensure that the interests of Parliament continue to be represented. The delivery authority will initially be charged with validating the Joint Committee’s recommendations and submitting designs, budgets and schedules for further parliamentary approval, and then for carrying out the works.

One other issue that engaged us was the scope of the work. Do we just do the bare minimum or is it an opportunity to equip our Parliament for the 21st century? We were very clear that cost-effectiveness was an important consideration. But we were also clear that it was important as we go forward into the future that the public have proper access to their legislators. Then there was the issue of disability access—not only for mobility but to improve arrangements for those who have visual or aural impairment. This was brought home to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who talked about how many of our committees are not particularly well adapted for people who have hearing difficulties. It is also an opportunity for us to incorporate the best environmental standards and to take effective energy conservation measures, while ensuring of course that we have proper regard for security. There are also opportunities, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, indicated, for small and medium-sized enterprises —not just those in the London area—to take part and to engage in some of the work that will be done, as well as for creating apprenticeships.

One of the moments I remember as we were considering the scope was when representatives from the Parliamentary Press Gallery gave evidence to us. We asked them about the scope and what would happen. Mr Grew is reported at paragraph 246 as saying:

“You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. You will face criticism from the press if you decide to spend money to refurbish the building for the 21st Century. Similarly, if it falls down, you will probably face even greater criticism. It is a political decision that will take with it the consequences that come with political decisions”.


He went on to say that if Parliament were only to conduct the bare minimum of works required, it would,

“be missing the biggest opportunity in a century to remake, reform and reshape the building to make it fit ... future proofing is the way to go”.

I congratulate the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on bringing forward today’s Motion to us so promptly after the Commons voted. It allows us that opportunity to take the important steps to moving to a 21st-century Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, as many noble Lords have already indicated, at one level this is indeed a technical Bill. If we are to leave the European Union, there is a legal and practical necessity to have continuity and certainty. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, has just articulated so clearly and forcefully, it is impossible to ignore the context in which this legislation comes before us. Given its technical necessity, it is only fair that we ask whether it actually delivers in providing continuity and legal certainty. We have already heard the view of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee that as it stands it is constitutionally unacceptable.

Perhaps one of the clearest clauses in the Bill is Clause 1:

“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day”.


That got me thinking. The European Communities Act 1972, a much shorter piece of legislation than this, has in fact stood the test of time. Yes, there has been litigation, but over 45 years it has performed its function remarkably well, notwithstanding the changes that have taken place since then. I dare anyone to suggest that the Bill that we are currently debating is anywhere near as robust and fit for purpose for such a major constitutional change. Its shortcomings will be well-rehearsed in this debate and scrutinised during its passage through your Lordships’ House, but I want to make a few remarks about it in relation to the devolution settlement. Here the Bill not only fails to deliver certainty; it undermines the certainty of that settlement, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, forensically demonstrated in his contribution.

I believe the Bill turns the architecture of devolution on its head, more through a lack of proper thought and sensitivity than through malign intent. It also shows little respect for the devolved Administrations or for parity of esteem, which now seems to be out of the window. The structure of devolution in Scotland, as set out in the Scotland Act 1998, is that everything is devolved unless expressly reserved. That situation has stood the test of time. However, here we have proposals created by the Bill, especially Clause 11, where, in areas that otherwise fall entirely within devolved competence, extensive powers to amend retained European Union law fall to United Kingdom Ministers, rather than to the devolved Administrations.

I turn to two pieces of evidence given to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. First, Professor Richard Rawlings of University College London said:

“At one and the same time, Westminster and Whitehall are freed up to shape a post-Brexit world in crucial respects, and the devolved institutions are locked down and required to wait for partial release”.


Secondly, Professor Tom Mullen of Glasgow University argues that Clause 11 alters,

“the framework of the devolution settlements by replacing a cross-cutting constraint on devolved competence with what is effectively a new set of reservations. It would also overlay the current reserved powers model of devolution with a conferred powers model in relation to retained EU law. This is not a mere technicality; rather the reserved powers model is a central element of the constitutional strength of the current devolution arrangements”.

These are quite bold statements from constitutional experts that go to the heart of what is wrong with the Bill as currently constituted.

While we will obviously deal with these matters regarding the structure of Clause 11, there are a number of other points that we will want to look at as your Lordships’ House considers the Bill in Committee. There is the apparent failure to recognise the statutory delay between a Bill passing in the Scottish Parliament and receiving Royal Assent, which is relevant for references to enactments in the Bill. Why is it that Scottish Ministers have some powers to deal with deficiencies in retained European Union law, but not if it is a deficiency in direct EU legislation, which is left solely for UK Ministers? No explanation has been given as to why that difference is made. Why are sweeping powers for UK Ministers found in Clauses 7 and 8 subject to a sunset provision, but apparently not the powers in Clauses 10 and 11, and in Schedule 2, which relate to powers relating to the devolved Administrations? Why is there a sunset clause for one set of powers and not for those that deal with the devolved Administrations? Absence of sufficient requirements for, or consultation with or consent from, Scottish and Welsh Ministers in devolved areas adds up to a disregard for the idea of parity of esteem.

The Government have accepted, and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said again today, that Clause 11 is deficient, and they have promised amendments. It is important that we know, as the Bill progresses, when we are likely to see these amendments. A legislative consent Motion is not a legal requirement, but we should all know that it is very much a political requirement if devolution and the fabric of our United Kingdom are to remain.

I believe we could have an opportunity to have a silver lining to the dark cloud of Brexit and do some things better in our arrangements with the devolved Administrations. The Welsh Assembly Government have floated the idea of joint ministerial committees on a statutory footing. We need ways to find better dispute resolution mechanisms than we have at the moment under the memorandums of understanding.

In its report on the Bill, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, reflecting on Clause 11, said in its first report:

“A set of effective relationships based on mutual trust and effective communication and consultation are essential for the internal governance of the UK, following its departure from the European Union”.


I fear that the Bill as it stands does little to foster mutual trust. It suggests that there has been ineffectual communication and its drafting is conspicuously lacking in provision for consultation. In our deliberations and scrutiny, I believe we can start to make amends by making amendments.