Debates between Lord True and Lord Hayward during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Fri 6th Sep 2019
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Lords Chamber

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Hayward
Lord True Portrait Lord True
- Hansard - -

But the matter is much simpler, and those outside this House will understand where we are.

Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my noble friend for giving way, and in asking this question I remind him of the last time that a Government went to “let the people decide”. It was in 1974—which is an interesting parallel that he might not wish to follow. I will ask about the wording, in the opposite direction to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The amendment refers to the “first general election” of 2019. Are we expecting to have more than one in 2019?

Lord True Portrait Lord True
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the words are as tabled and the House has any opportunity—it can use whatever excuse and whatever thing it wants to say—to vote down this amendment. I was advised by the clerks on the wording of the amendment and its purpose—

Business of the House

Debate between Lord True and Lord Hayward
Wednesday 4th September 2019

(4 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True Portrait Lord True
- Hansard - -

I do not want to get into the issue of Prorogation, simply because of the time. But I spoke about Prorogation the last time we discussed these things. We all know that Prorogation is perfectly normal. There is always a Queen’s Speech. There has been one every year and the next Government will introduce a Queen’s Speech after the general election. In response to the noble Baroness, I will make the point that, if there were an election and a new Session, there would be more time to have such a Bill after that than there is in the next two days. There would be several days in which we could discuss it, not two days. It is not necessary to do it now. Indeed, after an election, if the party opposite won, we would not need a Bill because it would ask for an extension anyway—and if our side won, the Bill would not go forward. So the whole thing is entirely unnecessary, and this House is being asked to sign away hundreds of years of tradition on a pretext.

I support my noble friend. There are questions that the noble Baroness should answer. What does the Salisbury doctrine apply to? In her doctrine, we must defer to the Commons. Does self-regulation always mean a Motion from the Leader of the Opposition? Her guillotine says that if it passes, no one else may put any proposition to the House in the time that we are discussing this Bill, except the Leader of the Opposition. There are questions that need to be answered. I strongly support the view of my noble friend that we should take the Committee opportunity to get some answers from the Leader of the Opposition.

Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will my noble friend include on the list of questions that he is putting to the Leader of the Opposition that of whether this Motion would be necessary if we did not have Prorogation?

Lord True Portrait Lord True
- Hansard - -

The Motion is not at all necessary, irrespective of Prorogation. I just made that point. There will be more time in a new Parliament to deal with this Bill than in these two days.

Motion