Arrangement of Business
Lord Lilley Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, would there not be more time for Back-Benchers if we ended the quite unjustifiable right of the Lib Dems to reply to every debate?
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, how is this to be communicated to all those Members of your Lordships’ House who are not present this morning?
Northern Ireland Protocol
Lord Lilley Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement—that was quite a feat of endurance. He should be grateful that we have a time limit today; the Prime Minister was on his feet for over two hours yesterday.
I also thank the Minister for his comments about Betty Boothroyd—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. So many Members of this House will have memories of her that we cherish and enjoy sharing. I can hear her voice today: I remember answering the phone and hearing her opening words, “Now listen, luvvie”—and of course I would. As sad as we are at her passing, we can only celebrate a long life, well lived. We look forward to the opportunity to commemorate her and share our stories with a smile.
It is with real sadness that I echo the comments about the shocking and cowardly attack on PSNI Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell. The impact on him, his family, his friends, his colleagues and all who know him is devastating. For DCI Caldwell and his family, life may never be the same again. For his colleagues and the community he serves, this is a stark reminder that there remain a few who do not share their commitment to peace. The most moving, emotional and, in many ways, uplifting scenes that I saw on TV this past weekend were of the people of Omagh—a town that suffered so much—standing united to proclaim, “No going back”. They represent the people of Northern Ireland. The immediate and unequivocal joint statement from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the UUP was, in so many ways, a manifestation of how far we have come since the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998. The shooting of DCI Caldwell is a reminder of just how crucial it is to continue working together to uphold peace and support Northern Ireland’s institutions.
When the people of Northern Ireland overwhelmingly endorsed the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government took on responsibility as a joint guarantor, so a key question for many of us, when the protocol was negotiated and signed by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, was its compatibility with the agreement. We knew it could never be perfect, but we also recognised that the assurances given by Mr Johnson that there would be
“no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind”
on goods crossing the Irish Sea post Brexit were not based in reality. Who can forget his flamboyant promise to an audience of Northern Ireland businesspeople that they should call him if anyone tried to get them to complete a form? That was not just wrong; the lack of honesty was disrespectful to those who had raised legitimate concerns.
The solution to the problems was never going to be the aggressive approach of, in effect, tearing up an international treaty that the Prime Minister and Ministers had negotiated and signed. Not only would it not work but it would signal to the world that the UK could not now be trusted to keep its word. That is a dangerous position to be in when we have to negotiate post-Brexit trade deals.
It is no surprise that, during our long and at times passionate debate on the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, the key questions from across the House were: why were Ministers not at the negotiating table trying to resolve legitimate outstanding issues with the protocol, rather than standing at the Dispatch Box trying to defend the unilateral tearing up of that binding international treaty? Why were the Government not engaging effectively with unionists’ concerns? Why were they not listening to businesses about the need for common sense, clarity and honesty? Why did the Government negotiate and sign the treaty, given its failings?
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland with Keir Starmer and Peter Kyle, businesses had a common message for us. They had different concerns about the protocol, but they all wanted to make it work and they all had suggestions of how, through negotiation, changes could be made that would minimise problems. My party has always said that if the Prime Minister were serious about negotiating a deal with our partners in the EU, we would back him. So we welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement and the publication of the Windsor Framework announced by Mr Sunak and President von der Leyen. It proves that the complex legal and trade issues are best resolved through diplomacy, not unilateral action or headline-seeking bluster. We welcome the Prime Minister’s change of approach.
We also welcome that Mr Sunak has now, as part of the agreement, finally committed not to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. We will never know how much sooner this new framework could have been agreed if the time and energy put into that Bill had been used instead to focus on negotiations from the beginning.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position. I suggest that he should apologise to those who have had to deal with these negotiations to change the protocol that he supported. Had he not—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
No, I am not giving way. I am not prepared to give way to the noble Lord who tried to heckle me from a sedentary position. He will have the opportunity to ask questions later. If he wants to heckle, he should understand that people respond to heckles like that. We just do not know—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
No, I am not giving way, and he should not heckle. He should behave in this House; he has been here long enough.
How much sooner could this new framework have been agreed if the time and energy put into the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill had been put into negotiating the framework? The outline of a deal has been clear for months. Business organisations have been crying out for certainty for even longer, not only because of short-term stock issues or the burdens of additional paperwork but because the uncertainty was creating systemic problems on the ground. A lack of clarity on trade terms, both within the UK internal market and with the EU, was extremely challenging to those seeking to attract investment into Northern Ireland’s economy.
As the detail of the agreement is examined, debated and challenged, we urge the Prime Minister to be honest about the compromises that have had to be reached —compromises made in the best interests of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.
When arguing against the protocol, a key issue raised by the DUP, as we heard in yesterday’s debate on the Northern Ireland executive formation Bill, is the democratic deficit caused by the protocol. Those concerns must be understood but, as my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who has considerable experience on this issue, asked the House yesterday, is there not a bigger democratic deficit in the people of Northern Ireland not having a functioning Assembly or Executive? Crucial decisions are either not being taken or being taken by civil servants rather than Ministers. Meanwhile, the people of Northern Ireland are not being served properly in the face of a cost of living crisis affecting the entire UK. If we are making the case that the Good Friday agreement is undermined by the protocol, we must understand that the absence of those political and related institutions is also breaching the agreement.
The tone of DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson’s comments yesterday, when he said he would examine the detail of the new framework, is welcome, as is the Prime Minister’s commitment to giving Northern Ireland’s political parties the time and space for their own deliberations and to address any points raised. This new agreement should provide a path through the political stalemate and towards the restoration of power-sharing, even if that is not immediate. In this 25th anniversary year of the Good Friday agreement, I hope we can move forward in a spirit of co-operation rather than seeking more negotiations.
The Windsor Framework will not in isolation solve all Northern Ireland’s problems, nor completely reset the UK’s relationship with the EU. Beyond the protocol, the Government are pressing ahead with the revocation of vast swathes of retained EU law at the end of this year. Such a step would likely have implications for the trade and co-operation agreement, which relies on minimum standards in several areas. We accept that the Government want a framework for replacing retained EU law and that we need to establish the future status of laws carried over from our time in the European Union.
However, having sought the Windsor Framework to provide certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland, it is counterintuitive to create uncertainty for businesses across the whole UK by introducing a regulatory cliff edge at the end of this year. Surely it is illogical, impractical and reckless to allow potentially important pieces of law to fall off the statute book by default because a department lacks the capacity to identify and rewrite them in the next 10 months. Perhaps the Leader can help me on this. Was it discussed with the Commission President yesterday? Can he now look again at our common-sense and pragmatic approach to review the process of existing retained law?
In conclusion, this important deal may not be perfect, but it represents a significant step forward. In welcoming it, we should pause for a moment to consider the wider context. For the past six and a half years, the at times toxic debate around Brexit, both in Parliament and in the wider country, has cast a shadow over our politics and civic debate. One of the worst aspects has been that the expression of any doubt about the process, let alone the outcome, has generated abuse and false accusations of not respecting the referendum. At the very outset of our debates, I said that the process and delivery of Brexit should not be led by those who had no doubt, because it is through doubt that we have challenge. It is through challenge that we have scrutiny and through scrutiny that we get better decisions and better legislation. The Prime Minister’s Statement is an admission that the Government made mistakes in negotiating and signing the protocol, and that there was a lack of honesty. We welcome today’s Statement. As we move forward, this should be an opportunity to reset our politics.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have only just served out breakfast to your Lordships’ House, so I am not going to describe when we might reach dinnertime. I think that the intent and aim is there that we should proceed constructively. Indeed, the Windsor Framework envisages not consent mechanisms but mechanisms for consideration and discussion of some of the aspects of the agreement going forward. Nor am I going to speculate on specific instances or committees. I repeat that, in these difficult times, when we face peril and violence in eastern Europe among other things, we hope that the earnest and the spirit that the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission both put on the table will be fruitful in many ways.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Would my noble friend agree that the unionists in Northern Ireland are sensible to want a full analysis from the lawyers before they decide whether this is something they can implement? However, all of us can agree that the Prime Minister has achieved a major step forward. This is infinitely superior to what was in the protocol and validates his decision to ignore those who wanted to make a temporary and transitional arrangement permanent and implement it in full, as so many on the other side of the House did. Was not the Prime Minister right to follow Teddy Roosevelt’s advice and negotiate with a quiet voice but carrying a big stick?
Afghanistan
Lord Lilley Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, after hubris comes nemesis. Let us not dwell on the nemesis—the humiliation visited on America and her allies—but identify the hubris that led to it. It was right and inevitable that America, following the twin towers atrocity visited on that great country, should take punitive action against the perpetrators. That meant demanding that the state that had harboured al-Qaeda hand over its leaders, eradicate its bases and expel its supporters. Failing which, the US was perfectly entitled to enforce its demands from the air or with boots on the ground. But, as the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, said, that being done, it should have left. The hubris was to imagine that the US or NATO had the power or the right to transform the character and culture of a distant nation—something neither the British Empire at its zenith nor the Soviet Union with all its ruthlessness could achieve.
What is the moral of this tale? It is that morality depends on recognising reality. We have no obligation to attempt what we do not have the power to achieve. As Enoch Powell once put it, in the form of an equation, power equals force divided by distance multiplied by will. What we have the power to enforce in our own neighbourhood we may not have the power to attain where we cannot deploy force, or where any forces are tenuated by lengthy supply lines. Where we can exert force, we will have the will to exercise it effectively only if it is clearly in the interests—moral as well as material—of our own nation, as otherwise it will not be sustainable.
The hubristic belief that we can exercise military power we do not possess is matched by and often rooted in an illusion that we have a moral authority and moral obligations on a global scale. There is not a problem in the farthest corner of the globe that we do not demand Ministers take responsibility for; there is not an issue, from global warming to migration, biodiversity and global poverty, on which we do not imagine that the rest of the world is hanging on our actions to follow our example. How strange that, despite the loss of empire, liberal imperialism has flourished and grown—not least in this House and on the Opposition Benches.
I do not advocate that we retreat within our own carapace in these islands, and still less that we abandon genuine moral responsibilities, but we must recognise that our obligations extend no further than our power to fulfil them. We should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because we vainly imagine we are leading the world.
House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings
Lord Lilley Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the staff and everyone who has made it possible for us to continue to meet, hold Government to account and consider legislation. Whatever the shortcomings of the technology, it is infinitely better than not being able to do anything at all.
But what do we do? What is our function? As a Member of the other place, I used to invite my constituents, street by street, in coach-loads, down to the House and show them around, so that over the years I had literally thousands who came here. Quite frequently, someone would say, “Mr Lilley, wonderful building, but isn’t it just a talking shop and a waste of time?” To which my reply was, “You’re right, it’s a talking shop; you’re wrong it’s a waste of time.” There are only two ways to govern a country. One is for the Government to say, “These are the laws, these are the taxes; obey the laws, pay the taxes. You’ve got no say in the matter and we’ll brook no argument.” The other is the way we have developed in this place over 1,000 years, where no law can be passed, no tax can be imposed, without it first being debated in principle, then line by line, by the elected representatives of the people in that House, which has the ultimate say through its vote, and in this House, where a wider range of expertise can be brought to bear.
In this House, the importance of words and debate is even greater than down there, because our only power, ultimately, is to persuade or to send legislation back down to the other end and ask them to think again so we prolong the debate and have further discussion and debate here. Over the years, we have developed ways of doing that which have been thought effective. But we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, now carried out a controlled experiment of operating in a different fashion, and we have to consider what the results of that experiment are.
Two things have struck me. The first is that debate via Zoom is far less effective than debate in person. I am not against the use of modern technology; I think I was the first Secretary of State who insisted on using Zoom—well, some primitive system of video conferencing —to talk with my officials in further-flung parts of the United Kingdom. It is good for many things. It is good for presentations; it is quite good for simple questions and answers; it is not much use for interrogation. We have seen that reading speeches to the screen is a travesty. Interventions are almost impossible, which makes holding Ministers to account far more difficult. The palpable sense of the mood of the House cannot be expressed if people are dispersed in their drawing rooms or driving their cars or whatever while considering what is going on. We cannot let a hybrid House become the norm in future.
The second thing I learnt is that it is not just words in the Chamber that are important. I have missed, almost equally, words about the place. I decided that, from 1 September, I was going to come back here every day that I could—a decision reinforced by the fact that the builders working in the basement below me were making so much noise that I had to come in. However, I have found that the words I used to be able to exchange with someone next to me on the Benches are impossible to exchange when we are sitting two metres apart. The words in the Corridor, on the way to, or in, the voting Lobbies, not least in the refreshment establishments in this place, were important. We should not be ashamed of that. Just as armies march on their stomachs, legislatures ruminate over their victuals; that rumination is important.
Another my constituents would ask me was, “Mr Lilley, how do you possibly read all the laws, statutory instruments and Select Committee reports before you take part in debates?” I said, “I don’t, always; I read the ones that I know are of specific interest to me.” But then, as I was having tea in the Tea Room, a drink in the Bishops’ Bar or lunch in the Dining Room, someone would say to me, “Hey, Lilley, you’re very keen on public expenditure. Have you seen that statutory instrument? It could cost a fortune.” Or they would say to someone else, “Look, Baroness, here is something which I think is really damaging to women’s rights. Have you looked at it?” That is the way we harness the research and reading of the whole House to direct our efforts and make it more effective. That is impossible if we are not all here, or here in large numbers, to participate in the debate.
I am sure that there will be positive lessons to be learnt. The question is whether we should try to take decisions about what lessons to learn from a mode of operation which is less effective. Or, should we wait until we are largely all back here and can take decisions effectively, and then decide, from the base of how we used to work before 23 March last year, what changes we should add to it? That is a far better way of doing it and that is why I shall support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack—even if he does not move it.
Business of the House
Lord Lilley Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for some clarity around dates—or maybe not.
On the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, it is a sensible precaution to take all its stages tomorrow, with that Bill then sunsetted until we can give proper consideration in any way we wish when dealing with the Trade Bill. I think I understand from what the noble Baroness said that there is no desire to lose the Trade Bill, although it has had a gestation period longer than most elephants at the moment. Can she confirm and put it on record that we will return to it?
I question why it is now, on 16 December—I should probably be home having dinner with my husband on our wedding anniversary—the Government have suddenly decided that they have discovered we need these provisions in place in the next few days. I would have thought that would have been evident prior to today or the last few days. Can the noble Baroness clarify why that is?
I do not ever recall a similar statement to this in the over 20 years I have been in Parliament. It is a quite extraordinary announcement. I feel a bit like I am living through a poor parody of Noel Edmonds’ “Deal or No Deal”, but without Mr Blobby—perhaps we all have our nominations for who Mr Blobby might be. The referendum to leave the EU was in June 2016. In December 2019, the noble Baroness’s party fought and won an election on getting Brexit done.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]
Lord Lilley ExcerptsFriday 13th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2019-21 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, there are two possible approaches to reform of any of our institutions. One is to ask: does it work in practice? The other is to ask: does it work in theory? The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for whom I have enormous respect, and other supporters of the Bill, tend to take the theoretical approach. They argue that the hereditary element of your Lordships’ House cannot be justified on abstract principles of democracy, equality, fairness, gender balance or whatever. So it must go, and abolishing by-elections will mean that the hereditary element will duly wither away. However, the whole of your Lordships’ House, indeed of our whole constitution, from monarchy to common law, falls foul of those abstract principles and, by the same logic, they too would have to be replaced.
Our constitution was never designed according to abstract principles. It is the product of human action, not design—“Like Topsy It Just Growed”. It grew by trial and error; it incorporates the wisdom of experience; what survives has done so because it works. The test we should apply before reforming our institutions should always be: does it work in practice? If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it. If there are practical problems then focus on them, taking care not to damage what works well. Long before I came here, I discovered that this House does work well in practice and the hereditary element plays a valuable part in making it do so. This is a revising Chamber; its sole power is to make the other place think again. As a Minister, it often asked me to think again, by amending legislation that I sent here. My first response was always: “How dare they?”, but I cannot recall a single occasion on which I did not accept, at least in spirit, the suggestions incorporated in those amendments.
I also found that the best Ministers assigned to my department were hereditaries; it turned out that way. They were often younger than life Peers, since the Grim Reaper had taken their parent early, but they were well prepared, having known all their lives that they might find themselves here one day. They often brought a more balanced approach than those who reach here after climbing the greasy pole of politics or some other profession. It would be bizarre if those who rail against the unelected nature of this place were to abolish the sole elected element within it. It would be perverse if noble Lords who owe their place to patronage were to remove the only Members of this House who are beholden to no one for being here. There may be a case for widening the franchise in the by-elections to all Members of each party group in this House—I think there is—but if we accept the theoretical case put forward today to abolish the hereditaries, we accept a mode of reasoning which could fatefully strike at the existence of this House itself.
Global Britain
Lord Lilley Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend reassure those noble Lords who seem to think that a customs union arrangement would be superior to the free trade agreement that we seek because it would avoid, among other things, the need for customs declarations, that this is not a view shared by most other countries, including the main partners of the European Union? Switzerland does not seek a customs union; its traders have to fill in customs declarations. Norway and the other EFTA members do not seek a customs union; they have to fill in customs declarations. Canada and Mexico do not seek a customs union with America; they have to fill in customs declarations. Why are they all assumed to be wrong and self-harming when we are not?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend for his observations. As I have said, in parallel with the negotiations we will be having with the EU, we intend to launch negotiations with other global partners so that we can end up having strong, positive trade deals with the EU and across the globe and make sure that we continue to play a role as the global Britain we all know we are.
Business of the House
Lord Lilley Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
I acknowledge that the noble Lord moved from the Labour Benches to the Cross Benches after a long period. Having been invited to comment—I said something about the right reverend Prelates earlier that I perhaps should not have—I say that when I first had an acquaintance with this House, the Cross-Benchers in this House were the absolute guardians of the way in which this House should conduct itself. When things were put forward that were unusual, out of the ordinary, procedurally questionable or whatever, you knew that the Cross-Benchers would find that difficult and hard to accept. I cannot conceive that in 1999 the Cross-Benchers would have voted for a guillotine Motion of this kind. If history shows that things are changing, that is depressing and we will have to accept it.
I will conclude my remarks, which I was trying to do before I was interrupted by the former Labour Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Warner—
Lord Lilley (Con)
Before my noble friend concludes his remarks, can he reflect on the fact that the only remotely plausible argument against the case he has been making is a shortage of time, but some 900 days ago Parliament initiated the Article 50 process, which meant that from that point onwards it was the law of the land that we left the European Union with or without a withdrawal agreement? We have had some 900 days for Parliament, if it objected to the second option, to legislate in the way it is now trying to do at the last minute to prevent that option. For them to claim after 900 days that there is a shortage of time is implausible at best.
Lord True
My noble friend is entirely right. I had started to say that there is a difference of opinion across the House, but surely that means that there should be an independent judgment on the propriety of this procedure. We in this House all accept the wisdom of our cross-party committees. Why should it not be put to the Constitution Committee whether this kind of procedure is conducive to the good operation of our constitution and parliamentary government?
I remember that when the European withdrawal Bill was going through, not so very long ago, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was then the Chief Whip of our party, was constantly put under pressure by some people on our side—I was not one of them because I detest the idea of a guillotine—to constrain proceedings. No one would say that certain Peers in this House were short of words during proceedings on that Act. However, my noble friend did not do that. He had the power but did not use it to constrain the House. Unfortunately, today we are seeing that the other side have a different view.
All my amendment asks is that an independent verdict be sought from the Constitution Committee on whether it is a good thing—
European Council
Lord Lilley Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Paragraph 10 of the EU Council decision states:
“If the United Kingdom is still a Member State on 23-26 May 2019, and if it has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement by 22 May 2019, it will be under an obligation to hold the elections to the European Parliament in accordance with Union law. In the event that those elections do not take place in the United Kingdom, the extension should cease on 31 May 2019”.
So it is within the conclusions of the European Council decision.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Perhaps the House can hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Lord Lilley
Does my noble friend recall that the one proposal that won majority support in the House of Commons was the Brady amendment to replace the Irish protocol by an invisible Irish border? Since then, Mr Barnier, Mr Tusk and Mr Varadkar have all said that, in the event that we leave without a deal, there will be an invisible Irish border. More recently, the current chairman of the CDU and future chancellor, AKK—potentially the most powerful woman in Europe —has said that nobody in Europe would stand in the way if we asked for a few extra days to negotiate an invisible border in Ireland. Why are the Government not pursuing the Brady amendment, or the Malthouse compromise, which I understand has never been put to the European Commission, or taking up the idea suggested by AKK? Do we think that our views of what the Europeans will do are more relevant than hers?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have consistently sought to change the withdrawal agreement and make changes to the backstop. The Prime Minister, following the passing of the Brady amendment, sought further changes and, as result of those conversations, on 11 March, a package was agreed which was put into a joint interpretive instrument and supplement to the political declaration. This was formally approved by the European Council on 22 March, so the Prime Minister did indeed, following that vote in the House of Commons, achieve changes to the backstop. Of course, we have also agreed with the EU to consider a joint work stream to develop alternative arrangements, which was one of the elements of the Malthouse compromise that my noble friend talked about, to ensure the absence of a hard border in Northern Ireland. So we have indeed been working to achieve the things that the House of Commons requested in the Brady amendment.
Business of the House
Lord Lilley Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker
With great respect, I must remind the noble Lord that he is not in the House of Commons. We do not have points of order in this House.
Lord True
My Lords, I am introducing an amendment to a Motion, which is a different matter. I ask the noble Lord and others to consider that this is a matter of extreme importance to the House. In this little book—I do not know if the noble Lord has ever read it or knows what it is—are the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House, which have been established over centuries to protect our procedures and to help secure the liberties of the British people. They should not be lightly set aside. We set them aside frequently when there is an emergency, but on no basis of credible argument can what is going on today be considered an emergency. It is a charade—“chicanery” was the word used earlier—to enlist this great House in the political activities of the Labour Party, with which certain useful people in other parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, may go along.
The Liberal Democrat Leader should have been heard. Why did the noble Lord, Lord Warner, tell the House to choke off debate when the leading member of the Liberal Democrats wanted to follow the important remarks of the Leader of the House? It was wrong. That procedure of closure is also in our Standing Orders but it is not without reason that there is a note saying that it should not be lightly entered into. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, entered into it rather lightly.
What we have here is a pre-cooked plot—the gaff was blown by Sir Oliver Letwin in the other place yesterday—but it is the tip of the iceberg. One of my colleagues said earlier that if your Lordships consent to this kind of procedure being standard, what will happen when another Government are formed and a different person on the Front Bench says, “We set aside these Standing Orders. Your Lordships may consider this to be a scrutinising House but, no, it all has to be done in a day”? That is where we are heading.
That is not my surmise or what I am suggesting; it is what we see from the Official Opposition. As to the person who may be sitting here in a few months’ time if there were an election, what demur or doubt would she have in bringing forward such a Motion to frustrate your Lordships’ ability to consider and scrutinise legislation? Once you begin with a little sin and a little lie, big ones readily follow. We should be extremely cautious in assenting to this setting aside of Standing Orders.
Lord Lilley
Has my noble friend noticed the internal inconsistency of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter? It begins by referring back to the resolution of the House on 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government “should provide sufficient time”. It then goes on to curtail the time available to the House to consider this. How can both halves of the Motion be passed in one breath?
Lord True
My noble friend is right. He has anticipated the fast-approaching conclusion of what I will say.
It cannot be right not to allow sufficient time to consider a Bill which, as we have heard from my Front Bench, is still flawed; on which committees that have reported raised doubts; and which was being amended on the hoof by its own proponents in the House of Commons last night. There is no argument in logic because the Prime Minister has said that she will ask for a delay. There is no argument in procedure to say that we have to pass the Bill today. It is a political position taken up by the Official Opposition—I repeat, the Official Opposition—and we should not support it.
Everything I have sought to do in politics—and, by the way, I was proud to be the bag carrier, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, so kindly put it, to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—both in administration and local government, and the privilege I have in being a Member of your Lordships’ House, is to speak for freedom. One of things that defines the freedom of this House is its free procedures: the right of us all to put down an amendment and to have it heard, not closed; and the right of us all to put down a Motion and have it closed, not waved away. These things may seem small and arcane to those on the outside but, to me, they are a small part of freedom—and I have always wished to live and conclude my life in that. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I wish I thought that the Members sitting around the noble Lord who has just spoken would take any notice of his message but, having listened for more than four hours to a set of procedural issues that have nothing to do with the Bill we are supposed to be discussing today, I suggest to the House that we put the question.
Noble Lords
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we have had two speakers in favour of the amendment. I repeat two things I have said before. One is that the best advice is that we should all have a cup of tea. I second that one. The other is that, as I said at the beginning, if Members are against the Motion I tabled that we should hear the Bill today, the correct course is to vote against my Motion. Tabling a series of amendments where every speech has been against my Motion, rather than in favour of the different amendments, just shows that if this is not a filibuster, it is a technique to spin this out. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who said that it was incorrect of certain people to move the closure Motion. That is partly because the device of having umpteen different amendments was a way of arguing against my Motion rather than the amendments being correct and useful for the sake of the House.
Various people may have moved the closure Motions, but I remind the House—the House does not need reminding because Members were all here—that every one passed by the will of your Lordships’ House, not by that of those who moved the amendments. If noble Lords did not want the closure, they would have voted against it. In fact, the Motions were all passed by 2:1.
On the previous amendment, we heard about the tyranny of the elected House and that we have a despotic majority, all because we want the Bill heard in this House in a timely manner. It is surely best for this House that we do not continue with lots of speeches about all the amendments that are actually only about my Motion. It would be very nice if we could get to my Motion, so that those who really object to what we are trying to do, which is to get the Bill heard in this House, can vote against it. Let us see what is the will of your Lordships. For the moment, I suggest, without moving it formally, that we move to the vote on this amendment, and I urge the House to decline to agree it.
Lord Lilley
My Lords, I respectfully follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. The simple truth is that almost everyone who has spoken, with the exception of her, has said that this is purely about constitutional aspects and not about Brexit. I agree with her that it is about both. I am a new boy, so I shall deal briefly with the constitutional aspects of this procedure. As a new boy, I knew one thing about this House: it has the power to make the other House think again. I have enormous respect for that power, and it is a power exercised only after due consideration.
As Secretary of State for Social Security for five years, I used to introduce a lot of legislation. Almost invariably, it would get through the lower House with very little amendment or change. It would come to this House and the next day, my officials would come to me to say, “Very sorry, Secretary of State, the Lords have gone and amended your legislation”. Initially, I tended to be shocked, horrified and angry, until I looked at the changes which this House had made. I cannot recall a single occasion when I did not, on inspecting those changes, accept them either in whole or in part, in spirit or in letter. This House does a good job in making that House think again, but it can do that only if it takes time to consider things and brings all the available expertise it can provide itself and acquire from outside.
It seems that the one reason we should not take this all in one day—the reason we have not taken Bills all in one day in the past—is that, by taking it over two or three days, we give time for outside experts to make representations to us. I know this House brings to bear enormous expertise, but it also has enormous contacts outside, which it draws on in that interlude between Second Reading and Committee and between Committee and Report. If we deny ourselves those interludes, we deny ourselves access to that expertise and the ability to make the high-quality changes, reforms and suggestions to the other House to make it think again, which I certainly found enormously valuable when I was down there. That is the central issue that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as acting Prime Minister for the day, will respond to in due course.
By way of exculpation, I will also explain why I endeavoured to raise a point of order with our Lord Speaker. I was referring to paragraph 29 of the Standing Orders of this House, which says:
“No speaking after Question put … When at the end of a debate the Question has been put, no Lord is to speak save on a point of order”.
I have since discussed it with the clerks and the Lord Speaker, and they are inclined to think that that needs rectifying, since elsewhere it says that no points of order are allowed. Perhaps in ancient times, when this was first written, “point of order” had a different meaning. I have not been here long enough—I was certainly not here in 1674, when this rule was first adumbrated—to know why. Of course, the whole rule that there should be no debate after a Question has been put was adumbrated back in 1674, so it may be that in rectifying this we will find that there can be a little debate, discussion or explanation as to why a noble Lord should want to truncate and prevent debate in this House, the whole purpose of which is debate. I put that forward to explain that I was not endeavouring to be out of order but to follow the rules of the House, as they had been drawn to my attention.
But this is not about just constitutional issues; it is about Brexit itself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out. She said that the only justification for doing what we are doing—for not abiding by our normal procedures, allowing proper discussion or allowing expertise from outside to be drawn into it—was that prolonging it increases the risk that we leave in what she calls a no-deal Brexit: on WTO terms, with all the mini-deals that have been agreed between us and the EU. She considers that a disaster. I consider that a far greater disaster would be to set aside the will of the people, as solemnly requested in a referendum, with a promise repeated by all the leaders of all the parties and all our former Prime Ministers that, whatever the decision, they would implement it.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
How many people who voted in that referendum are still alive? How many new people are on the register? What would the noble Lord say is the relationship between those who voted and those now on the register? How long does he believe we should continue—five years, 10 years? Should a referendum taken 10 years ago be binding on us for ever? It is absolute nonsense.
Lord Lilley
I entirely agree. It is quite reasonable to have a referendum every 45 years, which is the time we had to wait before this second referendum. People’s opinions change over time. Back in 1975, I campaigned for us to remain in the EU. I was young and inexperienced. I was recruited for the campaign to keep Britain in Europe by a particularly beautiful girl, who is now my wife, so I plead that one’s opinions can change—as hers and mine have—with experience. We all have more experience now than we had three years ago of the sort of organisation we are dealing with in the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, the former Governor of the Bank of England, has said, that is what we should be thinking about far more than the niceties of a withdrawal agreement.
One thing is certain. During the referendum campaign no one asked, “Would you like to vote to ask permission to leave?” That is like a primary school child putting up their hand in the classroom and saying, “Please, miss, may I leave the European Union?” That is a nonsense. We voted to leave. The Prime Minister of the day said that if we left, we would leave on WTO terms. I want to argue that that is not too frightening. On the contrary, although it is not the best thing—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Is the noble Lord addressing himself to the words of the amendment?
Lord Lilley
I am—just as she did. Initially she said that she was addressing all the amendments with the argument that if we did not leave now, there would be a problem. I am arguing that if we—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I said that we should deal with this Bill in time for it to have effect. That was the point I made—that if we did not deal with the Bill before we ran out of time, there was no point in having it. I did not go into the issue of Brexit.
Lord Lilley
On the contrary, the noble Baroness is rather forgetful, because I noted down the five points she made about what would happen if we did leave with no deal. They were about citizens’ rights, tariffs and industry; I have forgotten the other two.
Lord Strasburger
I wonder whether the noble Lord has completed his remarks on the amendment. If so, will he please sit down?
Lord Lilley
No, but when I have I certainly shall. I am trying to get on because I want to deal with the central argument that was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter: namely, that it would be a disaster if we do not get this legislation through because of the amendments that we are now considering and if we leave with no deal on WTO terms. I maintain that it would not be a disaster. What would be a disaster would be denying democracy—
Lord Lilley
I am sorry but I will not give way.
Let me get to the point. There are three advantages if we leave without a deal. No doubt it would be best to have a free trade agreement—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It is the convention that we address the words in the amendment and I am not entirely convinced that the noble Lord is doing that at the moment.
Lord Lilley
Let me therefore do so. The amendment,
“notes that more than one day is required for this House to have sufficient time to scrutinise the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill”.
I submit that several days are required and that it is worth taking those days, even if it means leaving on WTO terms—because they are quite acceptable. First, we would keep £39 billion. That was the opinion of this House. I trust the committee which concluded that and I would be quite happy to submit to international arbitration, because I certainly would not want to not meet any legal obligations that we have. So £39 billion is a positive.
Secondly, we would end uncertainty.
Lord Lilley
As I say, the second advantage is that it would truncate uncertainty. That will unleash the investment that has been held up. We all agree that uncertainty is bad for business. That is the one negative thing that this long process has had, but ending it means that people will start investing either to take advantage of the opportunities or to cope with the difficulties.
The third advantage is that it will force Ireland, the European Union and the British Government to implement—
Lord Lilley
I am sorry, if the House is reluctant to listen to the facts, as I have noticed that sometimes it is, that is a shame, because it is important that we take into account the advantages of what is before us. We should take note in particular of what the Irish Government have said. Leo Varadkar said that, in the event of no deal:
“I have made it very clear to my counterpart in the UK and also to all other EU prime ministers that under no circumstances will there be a border. Full stop”.
Mr Juncker gave an assurance to the Irish Parliament that if negotiations fail—
Lord Lilley
I am sorry: people want me to finish so I am getting on as rapidly as I can. He said that if negotiations fail with the Tory Government on the exit agreement, he would give a clear commitment that the European Union would not need to impose border customs posts or any other kind of infrastructure on the frontier in order to protect European borders. We have said that in no circumstances will the British Government do so. As we have seen recently, that will force the creation of an invisible border in Ireland which will resolve that problem. I think that those are big advantages.
I will happily go on if the House wishes me to do so.
Motion