European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 3rd April 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly agreed to.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
We will oppose this Bill. It is being passed in haste, and the fact that we have a time limit of two minutes for a number of speeches this evening is an indication of the fact that the Bill is being passed in haste. It is constitutionally irregular and, frankly, it fails to understand the decision-making process by which any discussion of an extension or agreement of an extension at the European Council will be reached. I will come to that in the limited time I have in which to speak.
It is not just me who has concerns about the Bill on behalf of the Government. Objections to the Bill have been raised by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker); and the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). All have raised concerns about the Bill—particularly the fact that it is being rushed through in such short order—and indeed about the precedent it sets for this and successive Governments.
The Bill also calls into question the royal prerogative. It has been a long-standing practice that Heads of Government can enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that would constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. Let me give an example of how such constraints could have adverse effects and, in particular, given that the House has voted against no deal, how the Bill could increase the risk of an accidental no-deal exit. On Wednesday 10 April the European Council could propose an extension of an alternative length, yet under the Bill the Prime Minister would then have to return on Thursday 11 April to put that proposal to the House. However, by 11 April the European Council will have concluded and the leaders will have returned to their member states. We would then need to confirm the UK’s agreement to the European Council’s decision and get its approval for that by 11 pm on 12 April.
At the heart of this is the fact that last Friday the House voted against the withdrawal agreement, which was the only legal right the House had to an extension to 22 May, which, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, was at the heart of your decision to grant that vote, because, as the Attorney General set out, that was an additional right bestowed on the House as a result of the previous European Council. We have no automatic right to a legal extension. That right was forgone as a result of the House’s decision last Friday. Yet the Bill would put the House in the position of having to agree after the European Council has concluded and the leaders have returned to their member states.
Stephen Barclay
It is not usually my practice to quote from The Guardian, but I suspect that it is the right hon. Gentleman’s newspaper of choice. We all remember its front-page headline, “No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No”—it was quoted by many EU leaders—because this House failed to agree on the various options.
The Prime Minister has sought to compromise. Indeed, part of the challenge she has had with her deal is the fact that people on both wings of the debate feel that it is too much of a compromise. She has sought to compromise in the national interest, reflecting the fact, as Members have said, that 48% of the public did not vote to leave. That is why she reached out to the Leader of the Opposition, but for several weeks he refused to meet her. Indeed, he even refused to meet just because the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) happened to be in the room, which was apparently beyond the pale. I am pleased that today I was able to join the Prime Minister at a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition.
The fact that the House has consistently voted for what it is against, rather than what it is for, and indeed its decision on Friday not to approve the withdrawal agreement, is the very essence of running down the clock, because it waived our right to an extension to 22 May and therefore allowed an extension only to 12 April. It is very odd for the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), having voted for that reduction in time, now to complain about it.
We are passing the Bill in haste and do not have adequate time to debate it in the manner that I would like us to—there is only one minute left on the clock. There are problems with the speed of its passage, the constitutional principle of it and the way it will interact with any decision reached by the Council that differs from the earlier decision taken by the House. I hope that the constitutional experts in the other place will address some of the Bill’s flaws. It is because of those defects that the Government will oppose the Bill, and I urge Members to oppose this defective Bill.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 3rd April 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
21:54 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 400 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:26 - The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 123 / Noes: 488 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:47 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 509 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly agreed to.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will not repeat the general points I made on Second Reading, but I want to briefly outline the Opposition’s views on the amendments.
We will obviously support amendments 13 and 14, which are helpful drafting amendments, and will vote for clauses 1 and 2 to stand part of the Bill. We will support the Government’s new clause 13 with a clarification from the Minister. Normally we would support the affirmative procedure, but we accept the Government’s reasoning in this case, given the fast-moving situation and the need to ensure consistency between EU and UK law. We will support the new clause subject to an assurance from the Minister now that if one of the principal Opposition parties prays against the statutory instrument, the Government will urgently facilitate a debate on the Floor of the House.
We will oppose all the other amendments. Let me explain briefly why. Amendments 20 and 1 and new clause 5 seek to impose different dates. We should have learned from the withdrawal Act that putting exit dates in statute denies the flexibility we might need, and those amendments are clearly designed to frustrate the Bill’s objectives. We oppose amendment 21 because we believe it is right for the Government to come back to the House if the EU offers a different date. We oppose Government amendment 22 because it undermines the purpose of the Bill in relation to parliamentary approval to seek or agree an extension.
We oppose amendment 6 because it is designed to frustrate the process and, as Members have pointed, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting. We oppose new clause 4 because it would limit Parliament’s opportunity to shape decisions. I am surprised that, after his lengthy contribution, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is not here to hear our views on these points.
We oppose new clause 7 because it seeks to put a date in the Bill without saying so. It puts the cart before the horse. We should determine what extension we need and then deal with the consequences—even if that means elections, although that is not ideal—and not limit ourselves in that way. If we need a longer extension, we will presumably want the UK to have a voice in EU institutions—not simply the Parliament, but the Council and the Commission—and a judge in the Court of Justice. On that basis, we oppose that new clause and the other amendments that I have identified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I shall be brief, as this briefest of Committee stages demands. The Government continue to oppose the Bill, but given that it has reached Committee, I will speak to the Government amendments.
As the Secretary of State set out earlier, the Government have no choice but to improve the Bill and limit its most damaging effects. Our amendment 22 addresses the dangerous and perhaps unintended constitutional precedent that could be set by the Bill, which calls into question the Government’s ability to seek and agree an extension with the European Union using the royal prerogative. It is a well-established constitutional principle that Heads of Government are able to enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. The Government’s authority in this matter must not be undermined, as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said.
Exit day in international and domestic law is 12 April. The Bill creates a real risk that we could be timed out and be unable to agree an extension with our European partners and implement it in domestic law. The Bill as drafted actually increases the likelihood of an accidental no deal—an outcome that the House has repeatedly voted against. The new process created by the Bill could mean that we are timed out and no extension could be agreed. For example, on 10 April, the EU could propose an extension of an alternative length. Under the Bill, the Prime Minister must then return to the House to put forward that proposal, but by 11 April—by the time the House has had time to consider that—the Council would be over. We would need to confirm UK agreement to the EU proposal and get an EU Council decision before 11 pm on 12 April, and I struggle to see how we could carry out such a negotiation through correspondence in the 24 hours before we leave. The Bill therefore increases the likelihood of an accidental no deal. We seek to avoid that through amendment 22, which would ensure that the Government can agree an extension, regardless of the process set out in the Bill, in the national interest.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Minister clarify how he intends to use the power under new clause 13? By my reading of it, the Government could negotiate a very long extension, put it through using the negative procedure and then cut it very short indeed using the negative procedure. What reassurances can he give us that this will not become a power that either this Government or some future Government could abuse to undermine the will of the House and force us into a no-deal Brexit?
Mr Walker
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the power, which is simply to reflect in the UK the agreement that would by this stage have been reached with the EU on any extension. It is not about setting a completely different date; it is about reflecting that agreement.
To come to the assurances sought by both the SNP and the Opposition Front Benchers, if a statutory instrument under the negative procedure was prayed against, we would of course facilitate an urgent debate in that context. However, we have to bear in mind the reason why we are seeking this change of moving from the affirmative to the negative procedure, which is simply to provide the speed that I think this House would want in the context of a deal having being agreed.
I do not intend to detain the Committee much longer on this issue, but it is worth bearing in mind that the current arrangements require an SI to be debated and approved in both Houses under the draft affirmative procedure, the time for which could put at risk the critical process of approval. New clause 13 therefore seeks to amend the parliamentary scrutiny procedures applying to the power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that can be used to amend the definition of exit day. The scrutiny will be changed from the draft affirmative to the draft negative procedure. It is only prudent that we are able to make the SI under the negative procedure to ensure that our statute book reflects what is agreed in international law, avoiding a crash-out exit. For those reasons, I urge right hon. and hon. Members across the House to support the new clause.
However, I continue to urge Members to reject this Bill, which is not needed to avoid no deal because the Government have already undertaken to seek an extension to ensure that we avoid no deal. Like many colleagues who have spoken today, I want that extension to be a technical one to ensure that we leave with a deal. With that, I am keen to hear from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.
Yvette Cooper
I want to respond briefly to what has been a thoughtful debate on the detailed amendments that have been tabled.
To pick up where the Minister left off, I am happy to follow the Labour Front-Bench recommendation to accept new clause 13, given the tight timetable that the Minister will be operating on. It is not a core part of the Bill.
I believe that we should oppose amendments 20 and 1 and new clauses 5 and 4. They all, in different ways, attempt to restrict the Prime Minister’s flexibility to put a proposal to this House. Once the Prime Minister has put her proposal to the House, it will at that point be up to the House to reject or amend it. All the points made by hon. Members wanting to restrict the primary legislation can be argued when that motion is put forward. That is the proper time to debate those points.
On new clause 7, I understand the concerns about the European elections, because I personally do not think that it makes much sense for departing member states that are part of the article 50 process to be covered in the same way. However, I draw Members’ attention to the legal opinion drawn up by Lord David Anderson, QC, and five other top lawyers, which says:
“The right to participate in EP elections may be derogated from under EU law,”
and lists a series of other points. I understand that there will be political debates about that; I also think that all hon. Members will consider that the most important thing is for us to get this right, rather than be constrained by this issue. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate to accept new clause 7. Nevertheless, Members and the Government should take seriously that legal opinion, which lists a series of ways in which it is thought possible, short of treaty change, to avert the UK having to participate in European elections.
Let me turn to amendment 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and Government amendment 22, which is an important one. The Minister asked me why a similar provision had been included in previous drafts of the Bill. The reason was that in previous attempts we thought that we would be legislating at a much earlier stage and that therefore there might be a period of weeks in which the Prime Minister should not be restricted from seeking an extension of article 50 in advance, if that was thought necessary in order to prepare. We did not want to restrict the Prime Minister’s hand in that way. Our concern about how the provision is framed now is that it appears to undermine the purpose of the Bill, and I am not sure whether that is the Minister’s intention. Therefore, we should perhaps have further discussions if his amendment is not passed. I would resist it tonight, because I do not want to undermine the purpose of the Bill, although it is obviously important to ensure complete clarity about the Prime Minister’s flexibility to take decisions in the European Council, which of course she has.
Mr Robin Walker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that clarification. The Government will still press amendment 22, and we feel it right to do so to protect the powers under the royal prerogative. I can assure her that it is about providing that flexibility. Of course, the process that those on her party’s Front Bench and our Front Bench are engaged with might require that flexibility, whatever the House chooses to do on this legislation. We obviously continue to oppose the Bill, and I should also mention, as I did not mention it in my speech, that we encourage colleagues to support amendment 21.
Yvette Cooper
I would argue that Government amendment 22 and amendment 21 should both be opposed at this stage, but if they do not pass and the Bill passes to the other place, I would be keen to have further discussions with the Minister about how we can ensure appropriate clarity for something that I think we all want to see and ensure that the Government can do this in an orderly way.
On that basis, I hope that we can support the drafting amendments to which I have referred. I will personally support new clause 13, but would urge the Committee to resist the other amendments and hope that there can be further constructive discussions to ensure that the Bill does what we want it to do, which is simply to support the Prime Minister’s work to avert no deal and to ensure that we do not end up putting our constituents at risk during the important process that the Prime Minister has instigated, which we hope can successfully achieve agreement on a way forward.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 21, page 1, line 21, leave out subsections (6) and (7)—(George Eustice.)
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 4th April 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord, with all his experience, has pre-empted what I was about to say next. The European Union has played a blinder. Recently, I gave a master class at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, where I am chair of the advisory board, using Brexit as a case study in textbook negotiating techniques. We have made all the mistakes—including on process, which the European Union dictated.
The biggest reason we are in the position we are is that the 27 different, disparate countries of the EU had one very clear mandate and one negotiator. How many times have our negotiators changed? The position of Brexit Secretary is a revolving door. That is why the EU has done so well: it has negotiated brilliantly and with a clear mandate.
Michel Barnier, in his speech on 1 April in Brussels, said clearly that the EU would accept the current deal, a customs union, a relationship similar to that with Norway or no deal, for which it claims it is better prepared than we are, having taken protective measures—though it has not done so willingly. Lastly, Michel Barnier said the EU will accept an extension, but it will need strong justification. What will that justification be? He has been clear that there will be a painful “political cost” for this extension and, if we have not left by 23 May, we will have to take part in the European elections. He also made it very clear that a long extension is for,
“a member on its way out”.
The uncertainty is something the EU will hate.
This evening, I was meant to be giving a lecture for the London Business School about brands. I thought about the brands of Great Britain and the UK—
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The noble Lord should have gone.
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord may not like what I am saying, but it is true. There is lots he has not heard. It is so heartening to see heckling from a sedentary position from a Minister; it makes me even prouder of this House.
I thought about the brands of Great Britain and the UK and the world saying, “What is this great country, at the top of the world table, doing to itself?”
We must pass this Bill. We must extend Article 50. It must be a long extension and we must put it back to the people—today’s people, not the people who voted three years ago. We must put it back to today’s electorate, reflecting today’s world and today’s facts, not those of three years ago. When people are given that chance, it will be a two-thirds majority to remain in the European Union—the best deal by far.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, as this is not, of course, a government Bill, I am sure noble Lords will be delighted to know that I can keep my remarks brief. Legislation has been debated, scrutinised and passed by this House since July 2016 to prepare for our exit from the EU, including many statutory instruments that noble Lords have scrutinised thoroughly to ensure that in any scenario, our statute book will function properly and appropriately. At the most recent count, more than 500 statutory instruments have been considered by the SLSC and more than 200 SIs debated by this House under the affirmative procedure. However, the Bill before us today in the name of the right honourable Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford offers little but constitutional ambiguity and greater, not less, uncertainty. The Government strongly oppose the Bill.
I agree with many of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, my noble friends Lord Howard of Lympne, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The approach to this Bill risks setting an unhealthy and constitutionally irregular precedent for this and future Governments. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked me a simple question: do we need this Bill at all? The simple answer is no. Most importantly, the fundamental flaws in its drafting not only undermine what it seeks to achieve but may even increase the risk of an accidental no deal next week. I also note the Lords Constitution Committee’s report and thank it for its efforts to produce its report so quickly.
Noble Lords will recognise the ambiguity that would arise should the Bill pass, particularly regarding the royal prerogative and the long-established convention that the Government of the day lead on our international negotiations. Heads of Government are able to enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. This Bill not only calls that ability into question, it does nothing to provide any clarity on what we should, in fact, seek.
The other place has consistently demanded greater certainty for businesses and for citizens. Despite this, noble Lords will no doubt be very alive to the risk that the conditions imposed by the Bill bring to life the very real possibility that we cannot agree an extension in time, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, by my noble friend Lord Cathcart and at the end by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. This is because the Bill creates a new parliamentary process whereby any counteroffer on the extension of the Article 50 period by the EU must be put to Parliament and agreed on the day after the offer is made by the EU. As we saw at the European Council on 21 and 22 March, when the original extension was agreed, it requires a request by the UK, a decision by the 27 EU member states and then agreement from the UK.
I am pleased to say that yesterday the other place approved a government amendment to the Bill to change the parliamentary scrutiny procedure that applies to an SI, amending the definition of “exit day” from affirmative to negative.
The Bill creates processes that increase the risk of us being timed out, but, even if agreement were possible in time, we would still need to ensure that any extension agreed in international law was reflected in our domestic statute book. The Government considered it prudent to seek to amend the Bill to make the SI needed for this purpose subject to the negative procedure to ensure that our statute book reflects international law.
However, I regret that the other place did not pass the amendment that the Government put forward to address the dangerous constitutional precedent set by this Bill overall. It would have protected the Government’s ability to reach an agreement with the EU on an extension to Article 50. In doing so, it would have clarified the position on the royal prerogative to ensure that nothing in the Bill would prevent the Government being able to seek and agree an extension.
The Bill therefore remains fundamentally flawed. It could tie the hands of the Government and bring about a situation contrary to the purpose expressed by its movers. This legislation is not a sensible or desirable approach to take and I urge noble Lords not to support it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Before he sits down, could the Minister answer two questions? I asked the first earlier, and I would be grateful for an answer. Have the Government taken the necessary steps to prepare for a European election should the extension go beyond 23 May? Secondly, I found missing in his remarks any recognition that the elected House had actually taken a decision—that it had adopted this Bill and sent it to us. If we adopt it on Monday, is he seriously saying that the Government consider themselves to be somehow above decisions taken by the two Houses? If so, that is a very peculiar constitutional suggestion.
Lord Callanan
Of course we do not. I can answer both his questions with the same statement. The Government will abide by the law of this country in all circumstances—both European Parliament election law and any law made by this Parliament—in the appropriate fashion.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateMonday 8th April 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 April 2019 - (8 Apr 2019)
16:53 - Division on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 46 - Clause 2 agreed.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I will respond on my Amendment 5, which is the one that has been moved. A couple of points need to be emphasised.
As has been discussed already, we are in unusual circumstances, and they demand some unusual responses. This Bill does not take away or give back the entirety of the royal prerogative. It says—this is why I made an intervention earlier—that it is for the other place, on a Motion put forward by the Prime Minister, to say what date she should seek. It may be that the European Council will accept that date, in which case it is done so far as the negotiations are concerned. It may come back with a different date, and the questions we have been considering are for those circumstances. Does she have to seek approval during the next two to three days before she can respond to it, or is she able to respond by agreeing to it or by putting forward a slightly different proposal?
There are two different amendments—my amendment would remove the fetters requiring her to come back, and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would enable her to reach an agreement without having had that prior approval. It seems to me that a balance is being struck between royal prerogative and necessary control by Parliament. It is absolutely the case—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said—that of course the royal prerogative can be adjusted and amended by what Parliament says. On this occasion, the other place has said: “We believe that we should tell the Prime Minister what date she should seek. What happens after that will depend upon the circumstances but, whatever it is, it has to be done in this time”.
I invite the House to agree Amendment 5 and then we can move on to the other amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was kind enough to point out, I have not benefited from the disadvantages of a legal education, but I think I know flawed and badly drafted legislation when I see it. Nevertheless, it remains the reality that this has been approved by the House of Commons, and that is a principle that I believe should be respected. Noble Lords opposite can be assured that I will remind them of their newfound enthusiasm to respect the will of the House of Commons when we come to future legislation.
I will comment first on the amendments. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, the Government support Amendment 5, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. This seeks to remove Clause 1(6) and (7) from the Bill. As currently drafted, should the European Council propose a different date to extend Article 50 from that agreed in Parliament by virtue of approval of the Motion as set out in the Bill, the Bill would require the Prime Minister to return to the House of Commons on 11 April and put the EU’s counterproposal to that House for approval through a further Motion. As the Government set out last week, we have very real concerns about how that would work in practice.
The Government hope that Amendment 7 will also be successful, which would allow us to reach agreement with the EU on Wednesday, so long as that extension ends no later than 22 May. The Government have been clear, as I said earlier, that we are seeking an extension to 30 June.
In response to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, scheduling of any further debates after the European Council on 10 April is a matter for the other place. I am sure it is paying close attention to our debates.
Lord Goldsmith
I think the Minister said, in relation to the date, “not later than 22 May”. It should be “not earlier than 22 May”. Perhaps he can confirm that. It is obviously a very important difference.
Lord Callanan
Yes, I take the noble and learned Lord’s point. He is right on that.
As I said, I am sure that the other place is paying close attention to our debates and will address this when the Bill returns to the House of Commons for further debate this evening.
Lord Callanan
Let me reassure my noble friend Lord Forsyth that I am not responsible for this Bill either, although I have to say that I am quite enjoying watching the Opposition perform procedural somersaults and disavow everything that has been said previously on matters such as respecting the House of Commons, affirmative resolutions and everything else. Nevertheless, we return to the subject.
It is the position of the Government that Clause 2 should remain part of the Bill. I appreciate the concerns expressed on this issue and the sentiments behind them, and of course I recall vividly the lengthy debate we had on parliamentary scrutiny of the use of delegated powers more generally during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill. I seem to recall the Liberals arguing for precisely the opposite position at that stage, but consistency has never been their strong point. As noble Lords are aware, the Government do not support the Bill or the conditions it is attempting to impose on government. However, as I said earlier, given the support commanded in the other place, the Government have decided that they must intervene to improve and limit its most damaging effects.
The Bill creates a new parliamentary process that the Government must adhere to in order to agree an extension of Article 50 with the European Union, if the European Council proposes an end date to the extension different to that proposed by the House of Commons. Given that the European Council is on Wednesday 10 April and exit day is just two days later, there is a real risk that we will be timed out of agreeing an extension and therefore accidentally leave the EU without a deal. It would be extremely ironic, and it is clear the supporters of this Bill are opposed to that outcome.
Noble Lords will be well aware—indeed, I answered questions on this topic earlier today—that agreeing an extension is not a decision the UK can take alone. It must be agreed unanimously with all other 27 EU member states. Following this, we must also amend the date of exit in domestic law to ensure that the statute book accurately reflects what is set out in international law.
Under the draft affirmative procedure, both Houses are required to debate and approve the statutory instrument, which significantly increases the risk of this not being in force in time for 11 pm on 12 April. At that point all other EU exit SIs will come into force, regardless of the agreed extension date, causing considerable uncertainty and confusion for many. It is for that reason that the Government tabled this amendment—now Clause 2 of the Bill—in the other place, changing the procedure applying to the power in the 2018 Act from the draft affirmative to the negative procedure, and it is for this reason that the elected Chamber supported that approach. Nobody wants to take that risk.
Furthermore, not only has Parliament repeatedly argued in favour of an extension to Article 50 and against leaving the EU without a deal, both Houses have already debated and approved one SI to defer exit day. There is clearly widespread approval to use this power in such a way. As I am sure noble Lords are all aware, while the power has a significant effect—ensuring a functioning statute book—its scope is limited to changing exit day to the date already agreed in international law by the Prime Minister, and the SI cannot be made until that point. It is for this reason that the Government tabled the new clause and that the elected Chamber voted with a large majority to support this. I hope this House will support the same sentiment and allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Framlingham
In among what is obviously an increasing shambles, can the Minister confirm that we leave the European Union this Friday by an existing Act of Parliament, and that the Government have conceded that—although this is not their chosen course of action—it could be quite successfully managed?
Lord Callanan
I answered a question from the noble Lord earlier today on that, and I am not sure there is much benefit in going back over those subjects. We are extensively prepared for no deal because that is the legal default, but we are now supporting this legislation—however flawed—that has been sent to us by the House of Commons.