Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I fear that if we had removed Clause 3, although I was very sympathetic to that line of argument, as the noble Lord knows, we would have had the same result. The Commons, whipped, would have sent back the Bill with Clause 3 reinserted. We should not delude ourselves.

Both noble Lords on the Cross Benches performed a signal service. It was right that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, should take the initiative that he did. I supported him then, and I would support him again, but not tonight, because we both made it plain, as did others, that this had to be the decision of the House of Commons. I think Members have made an unfortunate and potentially dangerous decision, bearing in the mind the delicate position of the monarch. I am very sorry they have deleted the wisdom that we inserted into the Bill. But it has, and there for the moment is an end to it.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. This is a bizarre situation, in that we said to the House of Commons, “We think, O House of Commons, that you ought to have a bit more power on one of the most important acts of the political calendar; namely, the calling of an election.” It is an act, of course, which affects every one of them intimately whereas it affects us not at all. They have said, “It’s very kind of you to suggest that we have more power, but, actually, we don’t want it.” That seems bizarre and surprising, but if the Commons in their collective wisdom decide that they would rather the Queen retain a power than that they be given one which we have very generously offered to them, it seems churlish of us to insist on it. Therefore, I do not propose that we do.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too offer my sympathies to the Minister for having to take forward this Bill under the duress of a heavy cold. I hope that my comments will not add too much to his coughing and spluttering.

This is an exceptionally short Bill but still a very significant one. The Act that it replaces was said by David Cameron to be

“the biggest transfer of powers from the Executive in centuries.”

If we accept his judgment, it follows that the repeal of the Act to return to the position that preceded its passage marks a major transfer of powers back to the Executive. So the key question before us is whether such a transfer is justified. On these Benches, we believe that it is not.

The purpose of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was to provide a stable framework within which the coalition Government formed in 2010 could operate. In his Second Reading speech in another place, even Michael Gove accepted that it had been successful in achieving this and had prevented the Tories “collapsing the Government” early to gain a political advantage.

The reason we have this Bill before us today is that the previous minority Conservative Government were frustrated in calling an election because they did not have a parliamentary majority. Yet, even with the Act in place, Theresa May was able to call an election, having had a revelation while up a mountain, and Boris Johnson was able to call an election three years early in the wholly exceptional circumstances of 2019.

The advantages of having a fixed term are clear. It brings some certainty and reduces the advantage the Prime Minister has in choosing an election date that maximises his or her chance of victory. Research in the UK by Schleicher and Belu shows that, where elections have been called opportunistically before the statutory end point of a Parliament, it has given the incumbents an average increase in vote share of 3.5% over what might otherwise have been expected, which has translated into an 11% seat advantage. In circumstances where no party has a majority in the Commons—a highly likely scenario for the UK in the future—it gives the largest party a massive advantage.

Fixed terms also provide the parties with a more level playing field on electoral expenditure.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I am most grateful. What was the massive advantage in 2017?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the massive advantage was perceived in the mind of the Prime Minister. The massive disadvantage was her judgment, not that she did not have the opportunity to exercise that judgment. We think the exercise of that judgment, on what was by any accounts if not a whim then a very short period of decision-making, is a bad idea for democracy.

As I was saying, fixed terms provide parties with a more level playing field on electoral expenditure. If the Government can plan for an early election, they can ratchet up spending in the year before the planned, but unannounced, date. Opposition parties will typically be unable to take the risk of planning and spending on the basis of an early election date. For these reasons, a fixed-term Parliament is the international norm. Some three-quarters of the world’s major democracies have a fixed term. So do the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland legislatures. No doubt that is why Labour was so enthusiastically in favour of introducing a fixed-term Parliament in Gordon Brown’s manifesto in 2010. I am not arguing that every single aspect of the current Act is incapable of improvement, but I am seeking to defend the principle which lies behind it.

So if we are to reverse the biggest transfer of executive power from the Executive in centuries and hand it back to the Prime Minister, you would hope that there would be a compelling reason for doing so. In moving Second Reading in another place, Michael Gove said that this compelling reason was that

“it gives power to the people.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/21; col. 788.]

This is pure doublespeak. It does not give power to the people; it gives it to the Prime Minster, pure and simple.

I suspect that this Prime Minster will not follow the precedent of his predecessor by having a revelation during a long mountain walk, but he might have it on the roundabout at Peppa Pig World and come back the next day and simply call an election. How do the people have any say in that decision? They clearly do not. They do have the power to vote the Prime Minister back or not at the subsequent election, but, if you really wanted to give power to the people, surely a Prime Minister would follow the public mood and, when it was supportive of an early election, call one. But that is exactly the time when a Prime Minister is least likely to call an election, because the people want elections when they want to change the Government, not retain them. So the democratic argument for prime ministerial discretion on calling an early election is entirely bogus.

This Bill seeks to put the clock back and reinstate prime ministerial powers over Parliament. But it goes further than that. With Clause 3, it seeks to increase prime ministerial power further by removing the power of the court to adjudicate on the way in which that power is exercised. As we saw in 2019, judicial oversight is not just a theoretical possibility but, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, an actual possibility, and the Prime Minister simply wants to cut out this possibility in future.

If that is his aim, there is a much more satisfactory and democratic way of doing this, which is to make the calling of an election before the end of the full allotted span of a Parliament subject to a vote in the Commons. This reins in the executive power that the Bill seeks to give the Prime Minister, without unduly hobbling his or her ability to call an election—because, at the very least, the Prime Minister would have to consult Cabinet colleagues and persuade their party to vote for such an election.

In practice, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister will be denied an election by Parliament—by the Commons. Oppositions nearly always want elections and, if the Prime Minister is able to persuade neither their colleagues nor the Opposition to vote for one, the likelihood is that it would not be in the national interest. We will therefore support an amendment in Committee to make the premature calling of an election subject to a vote by the Commons. By doing so, we would remove the problem of the ouster clause and restrain prime ministerial power but allow MPs to decide whether it is in the national interest to have an election when the Prime Minister wants to call one. My colleagues will raise other aspects of the Bill both today and in subsequent stages, but, if the Lords can persuade the Commons to take back some control of the electoral process, I believe that it will have fulfilled its constitutional role.

To return to first principles, the British public do not elect a Government; they elect a Parliament, and an Executive are then drawn from that Parliament. Parliament is the servant of the people, and Parliament, not the Executive, should have the decisive vote on when the people should have their say.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I support the comments from other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. It is important that Parliament sets an example to the nation. If the coronavirus were to be so devastating that we have to close every organisation that brings several hundred people together, it would devastate the economic and social life of the nation. So far, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that would be necessary for the rest of the nation. For Parliament to appear almost to be taking the lead in wishing to hide away is a very bad signal to the rest of the country. Can the noble Lord assure us that that approach will not be followed by the Government?

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I have advised my noble friend that I would try to raise this and I strongly support what has been said. There may be a case for restricting the number of people who sit in the Galleries—everybody has access to Parliament through the television—but for Parliament itself to abdicate would be entirely wrong. Never has it been more important to hold the Government to account and to hear what they are proposing to do.

In that context, I raise a second point, of which I have again advised my noble friend. I was appalled to see that we are going to have weekly updates of the statistics. We have been having them daily, and we have been told where the outbreaks are. It is very important that we are kept fully informed and that Statements are made regularly in both Houses, so that we can question the Government. I strongly urge my noble friend to say that the daily update will be maintained and that there will be no question whatever of the suspension of Parliament in the foreseeable future.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, the noble Lord was entirely right to touch on some of those things. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the manner in which she introduced the amendment. We have listened to the other place, which it is our duty to do. I am one of those who, although I share some of the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lisvane, like him, I do not believe that we should push this one any further tonight.

We have had a good day’s debate, but it is important that we try to lower the temperature a bit on both sides of the argument. It has got a little unpleasant from time to time, even in your Lordships’ House. We need to respect each other’s integrity and sincerity. There is no one in your Lordships’ House whose patriotism should be impugned as it was this afternoon. We need to work closely together. We are going to leave the European Union. Those of us who are unhappy about that have to recognise it but, equally, those who take a different line have to recognise that a minority of the whole electorate voted to leave and that, of those who voted, 48% voted the other way.

We are leaving, and this Bill is part of that process. However, in accepting what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, and endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has said, I urge everyone, present and absent, to try to ensure that future debates are conducted in slightly more of an atmosphere of mutual respect. This House has an honoured and honourable role to play. I believe that it has done its duty extremely effectively over the past few months. I hope that we shall continue to do that and that in doing it we shall not be sniped at by those whose sniping reveals only their own contempt for the parliamentary process.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to accept the amendment that your Lordships’ House passed on this issue, but at least we now have a workable amendment.

I have just one question for the Leader. She said that she was confident that the committees would be able to respond “at pace” to the flow of statutory instruments coming before them. I am absolutely confident that they can respond at pace, but can the Government produce the statutory instruments at pace? Furthermore, if 1,000 statutory instruments will be required to implement this Bill when enacted, and given the probability of a transition phase, how many of those 1,000 statutory instruments have to be enacted before 29 March 2019?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said. It is 6.40 pm. It would be unprecedented to break for dinner at this time. I do not suggest that there is anything other than concern for your Lordships’ stomachs in the mind of the Government Chief Whip, but I ask him to reconsider whether he wishes to put this matter to a vote.

[Lord Cormack]

We can negate it with our voices—we do not need to go into the Lobbies.

[Lord Newby]

I suspect that the mood of the House is to negate it—and the quicker we do it, the better.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

Parliament must have that ability and most Members of Parliament are Back-Benchers, so it is axiomatic that that is the case and I hope that we will come to an agreement on Report that will, in effect, satisfy the purpose of these different but complementary amendments.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as a co-signatory to Amendments 334 and 343, I support them and the thrust of the debate. It can be summarised in a sentence from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who said that it was neither necessary nor desirable to have 29 March in the Bill, which was why that date was not in the Bill in the first case.

Noble Lords on different sides of the argument have suggested why there may be a need to be flexible at the end. Can the Minister help me to understand the draft agreement, published last week, which seems to admit of one of them? In Article 168—entry into force and application—a paragraph is printed in yellow, which means that the negotiators have agreed on the policy objective. So, the Government have agreed the following policy objective:

“This Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019. In case, prior to that date, the depositary of this Agreement has not received the written notification of the completion of the necessary internal procedures by each Party, this Agreement may not enter into force”.


That seems to admit of two possibilities. One is that there is a slight delay until the depositary has received the necessary notification of all parties to the agreement, including the European Parliament as well as this one, having gone through those procedures. The other potential meaning—I cannot believe that it is the meaning but it is not clear—is that if by, say, 1 April the European Parliament has not notified its agreement to the agreement, the agreement would fall. I cannot believe that that is the meaning. I thought that the meaning must be that if the formalities of the parties of the agreement have not been completed, the agreement is in abeyance until they have been. It raises the interesting subsequent question as to how the two-year period in Article 50 is interpreted. Can the Minister attempt to explain that position and what the Government understand by the meaning of Article 168 to me?

The bigger point I seek to make is that there are a number of reasons why it may be in everybody’s interests to slightly change the date on which our exit is triggered. The way in which the Bill has been amended does not facilitate that process and it should therefore revert to its original drafting.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, people voted on 57 varieties of the future of this country. The vast bulk of people, as all the polls show, did not vote to leave the single market; now they are being told they have got to. The idea that the referendum vote reflected the settled will of 52% of the people on what they wanted our future relationship with Europe to be is, in my view, extremely simplistic. It is not borne out by conversations with individuals or the polling evidence. I do not believe that that vote should be the last word.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Is it not at least equally simplistic to assume that, after long negotiations and if we have parted company, our European friends and neighbours would wish to have us back?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, that will be part of the consideration at the time. All the evidence to date is that our European friends and neighbours are shaking their heads with disbelief at what we are doing and saying, “For goodness’ sake, why are you doing this?”.

Bank of England

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Thursday 30th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the various proposals on the table for the devolution of income tax were set out in the Command Paper that was published earlier in the month. The exact nature of further devolution of income tax is under consideration in the Lord Smith process. As part of that, the financial and political consequences of various possibilities in respect of income tax are being actively considered.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is there not much to be said for the old adage that if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, that is an extremely sweeping statement and I would need prior notice before I felt that I could absolutely agree with it in every case.

Tobacco: Smuggling

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Thursday 16th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

The headline figure in terms of prosecutions over the past few years is very significant here, and the key point. Some 3,700 people have been successfully prosecuted since 2000. I think that I am right in saying that there is no diminution in the number of cases or the amount of success that we are having on the prosecution front.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, when the last Northern Ireland Affairs Committee looked into this grave issue, we found that a very large percentage of the smuggling into Northern Ireland involved substances far more noxious than tobacco. Can the noble Lord say how much of this smuggling is of genuine cigarettes, which are harmful enough, and how much is of more dangerous substances?

[Lord Newby]

Whether it is in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, the people who smuggle cigarettes do, indeed, tend to smuggle other things, typically drugs, and sometimes even more dangerous things than that. I do not have an exact breakdown, but a lot of this smuggling is carried out on a large scale by criminal gangs who are looking to smuggle anything they can with a high value, of which cigarettes typically are only one component.

Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Newby

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, about the immense amount of work that has been done to get the Measures tabled, and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his introduction of them.

The Measures do not deal with the level of fees. They state how they are to be set—there is a great infrastructure for that—but there is a big issue about how we should set the fee. When I raised that question in the Ecclesiastical Committee, the response was that, at the moment, if anyone asked the church to justify the figures in terms of actual costs, it would be hard put to do so. An attempt was to be made to work up a realistic estimate of the cost of providing authorised ministry buildings, and so forth.

If I may say so, that will require the judgment of Solomon. First, the amount of authorised ministry—I declare an interest as a clergy spouse—varies so enormously from case to case. Certainly with funerals, the amount of time that can be taken where there has been a tragic death in the family is phenomenal, and is one of the most important things that the clergy do. That is extremely difficult.

I also hope that, without wanting to ramp the fees up, the committee or sub-committee that looks into it will not just look at the marginal costs. Going back to the point about cathedrals, you cannot have a wedding in a church unless the church has been kept up for the years before the wedding. Simply charging for so many hours of the clergywoman's time plus a bit of heating costs and whatever does not get to the bottom of the real value.

I also had a slightly mischievous thought when the right reverend Prelate was talking about a national table of fees. Some churches are extremely sought after, particularly for weddings. It is not because the population of the parish is particularly devout. It occurred to me that without necessarily adopting the Ryanair approach to pricing for churches, there is a different quality between a wedding conducted in a country church in July and in an inner-city church in January. I wonder whether it might be possible to contemplate seasonal variation.

[Lord Cormack]

What if it rains on the day?

[Lord Newby]

We might need to have a rebate in the event of rain. Some people get married in a particular kind of church at a particular time of year purely because they are paying for a better facility. In these harsh economic times, the church ought at least to explore that possibility.