Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord McLoughlin

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, the Government Chief Whip in his opening statement said that he is not an expert on the Parliament Act; I think he is soon going to become one. Perhaps I may ask him a question to ensure that the briefing covers it, if it does not already. In the event that this Bill does not make progress in this House and therefore is reintroduced to the Commons next year, for the Parliament Act to be used, would it have to be introduced by a private Member or could the Government introduce it, allowing the Parliament Act then to take effect, without it being as a result of the Private Members’ ballot in the House of Commons?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for being so helpful to all sides in this whole procedure. Following on from the point from the noble Lord, Lord Moore, in the various public events that I have done in the last week, I have been told by members of the public, “Oh, we see that the Parliament Act is going to be invoked for the Bill, so what’s the point?”. Some of them have been supporters of the Bill, while some have been worried about it, but everybody seems to think that that is happening. It has been done by media briefings, and it is quite demoralising to be in a situation where you are told that you are, in effect, wasting your time.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in preparing for today and worrying about getting the wording right on the amendments I want to speak on, I have read this Bill a number of times—which is an understatement—and try to take seriously the role that we are given in terms of scrutiny. Where I have not known anything about a matter, I have just not said anything; I have, as has been suggested, listened. However, this is not about an imagined Bill; it is about the Bill we have before us and gaps in it that some of us are worried about: what is not said and what will happen if those gaps are not filled.

It is very important, whatever side we are on, to treat one another as though we are acting in good faith, because we are. What is discrediting to the House is a media briefing suggesting that there is some cynical plot of outside forces and that, somehow, we are all influenced by hidden religious views—I think that was one phrase used. This Bill requires us to be deeply moral and ethical, whatever side we are on, because we are talking about life and death issues, a change in the constitution of the NHS and so on. However, we have to assume that we are acting in good faith, because we are acting in good faith. It is nerve-wracking enough taking on an issue like this without being told by the media, as I was last night on “Newsnight” in the gap, “Oh well, you lot are just being manipulated by forces”.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord McLoughlin

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the changes that the Government have brought forward, but I also think that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is one that the Government should very seriously consider, and I shall support it later on this evening—and I shall support it for a simple reason. The question as to whether or not we leave the European Union has been settled. I was on a different side to my noble friend Lord Hamilton—I believed that we should remain in—but I accept that that debate has gone and that I lost it. We now have to move on, and we must find a way in which to give the House of Commons and the House of Lords a say over the legislation that is going to replace it.

The sad story of this Bill so far is that we were told that there were 3,000 pieces of legislation, then it was 4,000 pieces—and we now have 900 pieces that can be got rid of very quickly. One thing that is changing dramatically is how a lot of detailed changes have to be made at pace, and it is not always going to be the case that there will be time for primary legislation going through both Houses of Parliament. That is why we need to adapt ourselves to a very different mode of doing regulations. Some of the regulations are technical and the House will not necessarily want to take a particular view but, when they are of a more practical nature, I think that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses that says to the Government: “Hold on, let’s discuss this”. That is what happened when we had the initial withdrawal Bill and, in a way, the proposals that have been put forward today are mirror images of those particular ways forward.

The changes that the Minister has brought forward, which are very welcome, came very late in the day, and nobody really knew what was happening until late last week—and we are debating them here this afternoon. So I very much hope that the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will give the Government time to reflect and see that they have nothing to fear from a Joint Committee of both Houses looking at these matters. After all, if the Government have a majority, it will probably have one on that committee as well—and that is a sensible way forward, giving that parliamentary accountability that we all wish to see.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I would like to focus my probing on Amendment 1—