My Lords, I also welcome the detailed account that the noble Earl has given of the steps that have been, and are being, taken to remedy the circumstances that bring us here today. There is some interest in the notion that the Secretary of State felt it necessary to apologise to the court. Perhaps that might become a policy throughout government. Perhaps the noble Earl might like to reflect the welcome that that has received in this House when next he goes to No. 10 Downing Street.

I guess that the noble Earl has before him the Question that I asked on 4 September and the response from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. On that occasion, I asked about the question of export licences and I was assured—I stress again that I am quoting the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—that,

“we have adhered to the undertaking to grant no new licences”.—[Official Report, 4/9/19; col. 1005.]

It now appears that that statement, which I have no doubt was given in good faith, requires revision.

What is the financial value of arms being exported to Saudi Arabia since 20 June under existing licences? I ask this because the undertaking given to the court only applied to new licences. Relevant to some of the points made by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Labour Party a moment ago is the question of the total amount and total effectiveness of arms originating in United Kingdom and sent to Saudi Arabia, and the use to which they are put.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said he would write to me. Again, I am sure that that was said in good faith, and I hope that that might now be pursued—perhaps more easily be pursued given the nature of the investigations that are being carried out. However much we welcome the steps that are now being taken, the truth is that this is yet another matter of gross embarrassment for this Government.

My Lords, my initial indignation about the Statement has been replaced rather by disappointment. Let me begin by saying that I have very great sympathy with the Leader of the House having to repeat this. It is a Statement that is vacuous; it lacks contrition or substance; and it fails, in my view, to make the kind of public apology to Her Majesty the Queen that is necessary in circumstances where she has been drawn into the political arena—not helped, if I may say so, by some of the observations of a previous Prime Minister.

The Statement says that:

“It is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary”,

but that is the oldest form of weasel words. It goes on to say:

“the court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy”,

emphasising the belief that the court was wrong. Then we look at the next paragraph, which says:

“So we have Opposition MPs who block and delay everything, running to the courts”.

What is that other than deliberately pejorative language, no doubt for the purpose in mind? To “block” is a pejorative word and “delay” even more.

Then we come to the least attractive feature of this Statement, which says that measures are delayed,

“including legislation on the NHS”,

suggesting that those that who run to the courts obstruct the good practice and the expansion of the National Health Service. If ever there were a piece of sleight of hand, to put it mildly, it is contained in that. Even more so is,

“and keeping violent criminals in jail”.

So those who went to court are to be blamed for adverse effects on the National Health Service and on keeping violent criminals in jail. That is why I am disappointed.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity to rise to the occasion, but he chose not to take it. I fear that that is precisely the judgment that not only Members of this House have formed, but which the public increasingly will form. It says a great deal about this Prime Minister—I will not rehearse his failures, as put so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace—that, at a time such as this, he is incapable of rising to the occasion.

I ask the Leader of the House one question: why did she feel it necessary to ask to see the legal advice about Prorogation? If Prorogation is a routine matter, as has been suggested, why was it necessary for her to be shown the legal advice that justified it? The inference that some might draw is that this was already accepted to be an unusual Prorogation.

My Lords, my initial indignation about the Statement has been replaced rather by disappointment. Let me begin by saying that I have very great sympathy with the Leader of the House having to repeat this. It is a Statement that is vacuous; it lacks contrition or substance; and it fails, in my view, to make the kind of public apology to Her Majesty the Queen that is necessary in circumstances where she has been drawn into the political arena—not helped, if I may say so, by some of the observations of a previous Prime Minister.

The Statement says that:

“It is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary”,

but that is the oldest form of weasel words. It goes on to say:

“the court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy”,

emphasising the belief that the court was wrong. Then we look at the next paragraph, which says:

“So we have Opposition MPs who block and delay everything, running to the courts”.

What is that other than deliberately pejorative language, no doubt for the purpose in mind? To “block” is a pejorative word and “delay” even more.

Then we come to the least attractive feature of this Statement, which says that measures are delayed,

“including legislation on the NHS”,

suggesting that those that who run to the courts obstruct the good practice and the expansion of the National Health Service. If ever there were a piece of sleight of hand, to put it mildly, it is contained in that. Even more so is,

“and keeping violent criminals in jail”.

So those who went to court are to be blamed for adverse effects on the National Health Service and on keeping violent criminals in jail. That is why I am disappointed.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity to rise to the occasion, but he chose not to take it. I fear that that is precisely the judgment that not only Members of this House have formed, but which the public increasingly will form. It says a great deal about this Prime Minister—I will not rehearse his failures, as put so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace—that, at a time such as this, he is incapable of rising to the occasion.

I ask the Leader of the House one question: why did she feel it necessary to ask to see the legal advice about Prorogation? If Prorogation is a routine matter, as has been suggested, why was it necessary for her to be shown the legal advice that justified it? The inference that some might draw is that this was already accepted to be an unusual Prorogation.

My Lords, my initial indignation about the Statement has been replaced rather by disappointment. Let me begin by saying that I have very great sympathy with the Leader of the House having to repeat this. It is a Statement that is vacuous; it lacks contrition or substance; and it fails, in my view, to make the kind of public apology to Her Majesty the Queen that is necessary in circumstances where she has been drawn into the political arena—not helped, if I may say so, by some of the observations of a previous Prime Minister.

The Statement says that:

“It is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary”,

but that is the oldest form of weasel words. It goes on to say:

“the court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy”,

emphasising the belief that the court was wrong. Then we look at the next paragraph, which says:

“So we have Opposition MPs who block and delay everything, running to the courts”.

What is that other than deliberately pejorative language, no doubt for the purpose in mind? To “block” is a pejorative word and “delay” even more.

Then we come to the least attractive feature of this Statement, which says that measures are delayed,

“including legislation on the NHS”,

suggesting that those that who run to the courts obstruct the good practice and the expansion of the National Health Service. If ever there were a piece of sleight of hand, to put it mildly, it is contained in that. Even more so is,

“and keeping violent criminals in jail”.

So those who went to court are to be blamed for adverse effects on the National Health Service and on keeping violent criminals in jail. That is why I am disappointed.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity to rise to the occasion, but he chose not to take it. I fear that that is precisely the judgment that not only Members of this House have formed, but which the public increasingly will form. It says a great deal about this Prime Minister—I will not rehearse his failures, as put so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace—that, at a time such as this, he is incapable of rising to the occasion.

I ask the Leader of the House one question: why did she feel it necessary to ask to see the legal advice about Prorogation? If Prorogation is a routine matter, as has been suggested, why was it necessary for her to be shown the legal advice that justified it? The inference that some might draw is that this was already accepted to be an unusual Prorogation.

The noble Earl will be aware that, in the course of delivering the judgment of the court, the noble and learned Baroness, the President of the Supreme Court, observed that the Government had put forward no reason for seeking Prorogation—in contrast, perhaps, to Sir John Major, who submitted evidence to the Supreme Court. Why did the Prime Minister not do the same? Why did he not provide a sworn affidavit, for example? Was he concerned that he might be guilty of perjury if he did so?