European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Wednesday 4th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 September 2019 - (4 Sep 2019)
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Wednesday 4th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 September 2019 - (4 Sep 2019)
17:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I want to say at the start that every Member of this House, whatever view they hold on the fundamental political question before us, is trying, as they see best, to act in the national interest and in the interests of their constituents. The problem—the reason why we are here today—is, of course, that each of us has a slightly different view of what those best interests are.
I recognise that we have only a very short amount of time in which to debate this Bill. Let me respond on that point by quoting—I can do no better—the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who said:
“it can only be done at high speed, because there is no time left.—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1065.]
Wherever we stand on this issue, we know there is very little time left, and following the decision on Prorogation, there is even less time than would have been available previously. Therefore, I hope that, recognising that we have strongly held views, we will treat each other with respect and consideration during this debate.
The purpose of the Bill is simple: to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 31 October without an agreement. The Bill has wide cross-party support; may I say that it is a great pleasure to be just above the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on the list of names? The Bill is backed by Members who have very different views on how the matter of Brexit should be finally resolved, including Members who until very recently were senior members of the Cabinet. People could describe this as a somewhat unlikely alliance, but what unites us is a conviction that there is no mandate for no deal, and that the consequences for the economy and for our country would be highly damaging. Those supporting the Bill believe that no deal is not in the national interest.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about no deal. There are multiple sector deals. So does he not see those sector deals as being multiple deals in their own right?
Hilary Benn
I do not know where these sector deals are. My concern, and the reason for this Bill and the support I hope it will enjoy in the House today, is that the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he is prepared to leave on 31 October without a deal. Those who I hope will support the Bill today do not wish that to happen.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that these debates have been going on for long periods and many of us have tried to learn lessons from them, and that in that process people have changed their mind or the order of importance they give to things in respect of preventing a no-deal Brexit? One of the amendments today seeks to give people another look at what we might call the “May plus” proposal. Some people turned that down at the time but feel that if they had had then the experience that they have now they might have voted differently. Given all the rush that there, necessarily, has been, has he had the chance to look at that amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), which now has quite a large amount of support? Can we have another look at that as an alternative to a hard Brexit?
Hilary Benn
I have not had a chance to read the final version, and it will be tabled with the Clerks during this Second Reading debate, but I am aware of the intention of the amendment and I completely understand what my hon. Friends are trying to achieve. We cannot continue to delay taking a decision, and I shall come back to that point later in my speech. I will, of course, also listen to the debate that follows in Committee. I would just say that the Bill is deliberately open as to the purpose of the extension; it provides a framework for reporting and debate. As I have just pointed out, it is supported by right hon. and hon. Members who have already voted for a deal and would vote for one again. It is important that we focus on the principal purpose, which is to prevent a no-deal Brexit, and keep the coalition that shares that view together. I will have more to say about that—
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, irrespective of the speed with which all this is being done, a matter of such importance should really be dealt with in the context of a general election?
Hilary Benn
There may well be a general election at some point, but this legislation needs to be passed. It needs to go through the other place and receive Royal Assent, and it needs to be given effect. In other words, we must secure that extension to article 50, otherwise there is a risk that the election would result in our leaving without a deal, which, as it may turn out at 7 o’clock tonight, is not what the House of Commons wants. We should respect the view of the House of Commons.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
If this Bill passes and is given Royal Assent, can the right hon. Gentleman think of any other reason why the Labour party would not accept a general election?
Hilary Benn
I think I have just explained the reason, which has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and others. We must deal with first things first, and preventing a no-deal Brexit is the central, most important question facing the country.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my query. The reality is that an election at this stage, or even next week, would undermine the purpose of the legislation. We cannot support one.
Hilary Benn
I can only agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being one of the Bill’s sponsors.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will take just one more intervention at this stage, because many people want to speak and time is short.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I applaud the right hon. Gentleman’s call for respect on all sides; we need to calm down the whole debate. I voted for the deal twice; he voted against the deal three times, presumably because he thought it was not in the country’s best interests. How does he think this procedure to delay any agreement yet further is going to produce an offer from the EU that might actually tempt him into voting for something because it is in the better interests of the UK than what has gone before? How can that possibly come about through this procedure?
Hilary Benn
The reason why I voted against the deal three times was not really to do with the withdrawal agreement—the legally binding treaty; it was to do with the nature of the political declaration and the absolute lack of clarity about where the then Prime Minister wanted to take the country. That is my view and other Members have different views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
If Members will forgive me, I am not going to give way again at this point. I have been reasonably generous and I am conscious of the time.
It is important that we acknowledge the evidence before us about the consequences of no deal, because that evidence is the fundamental reason behind the Bill. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) when she spoke to her Bill earlier this year, it was reported that the Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser, Sir Mark Sedwill, had told the previous Cabinet that no deal would make our country “less safe”. If the National Security Adviser says that to the Cabinet, we ought to pay attention.
We have all seen the Government’s own economic assessment, which makes it clear that no deal would cause the greatest loss to the economy. Make UK, the body that represents British manufacturing industry, has described no deal as
“an act of economic vandalism”.
Since we last debated the question of an extension, new information about the consequences of no deal has come to light. The Government themselves have now admitted that there would be damage to companies. They have said that they are prepared to compensate certain businesses and industries. This is the first time in my experience that a Government have advocated a policy that they know will do economic damage.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
Let me finish this point.
Operation Yellowhammer, on which the report was published in The Sunday Times, talked about the potential for protests; significant delays for lorries at Dover and other ports—the Exiting the European Union Committee heard powerful evidence on that subject only this morning—a potential impact on medicines; a decrease in the supply of fresh foods and some price rises; an impact on petrol refineries; huge uncertainty for businesses; and serious damage to farmers. Given the progress that Northern Ireland has made in the past 20 years, in some ways most worrying of all was the expression of the view that the current open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic could be unsustainable because of economic, legal and biosecurity risks.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am of course keen to support the Bill. My right hon. Friend made the point about security. Is he aware that the Home Affairs Committee repeatedly heard evidence from senior police officers and security officials about the devastating impact of a no-deal Brexit? We keep hearing all the time from the Government about bilateral security treaties, but they are not in place and we do not have agreements to keep our borders safe from terrorists, criminals, paedophiles and others who would exploit our national security.
Hilary Benn
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is one of the many unanswered questions about what happens the other side of Halloween. I shall come back to that point a little later in my speech.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
May I clarify something? Members of the Labour party have commented in the media, and I think the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, that the Bill stops no deal. We should be clear that the Bill does not stop no deal; it prolongs the time until the date we leave. The likelihood is that, unless something changes dramatically, we will be at exactly this same point a few weeks before the new deadline. The only way to stop no deal is to revoke article 50. If that is really what Opposition Members want, they should be honest with the British public.
Hilary Benn
If someone says, “You can jump off a cliff, with all the damaging consequences, in a couple of weeks’ time, or we could put it off for three months—which would you like?”, the sensible course of action to take, given the damage that it would do to the country, is to put it off. I accept that ultimately we need to find a way forward. I have my own views, as have other Members, about how that should be done, but that is not the purpose of the Bill. It would, though, provide for a framework within which the Government could decide what they are going to do.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
Three independent and highly respected bodies—the Health Foundation, the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund—have written an open letter to all MPs setting out in stark terms how there would be significant damage to health and care services from a no-deal Brexit and, more importantly, to the people who depend on them—the people we are supposed to be in the House to protect.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Lady. Other Members will have lots of other experience of the potential consequences. These are not risks that we should take with our economy, businesses, jobs, livelihoods and health. I hope these risks remind everyone in the House that, for all the focus on process, motions and procedure, this debate is about the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have on the lives of the people we represent.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)
I understand that there is a political imperative to “get this done” and to “move on”, but is not the point that the practical imperative is that no deal will not allow us to move on? It will resolve nothing and will lead to many of the implications that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about. If we have no withdrawal agreement on 31 October, we will have to seek a withdrawal agreement on 1 November.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Throughout a lot of these debates we have not discussed anything like enough what will happen the other side of 31 October, if the Prime Minister is able to get his way. I shall come to that point in a moment.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
With this Bill, the Chairman of the Select Committee is trying to prolong no damage until as far as 31 January. Make UK is absolutely correct that anything else but the current deal we have will damage the economy. We all have to get our heads around the fact that the best way to stop any damage at all is to revoke article 50. I have tabled an amendment to that end; it would include a helpful letter in the schedule. It needs one signature—that of the Prime Minister—and this nightmare will be over in that length of time.
Hilary Benn
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because just as no deal is unacceptable, so revocation—which is basically saying, “Let’s cancel the whole result of the referendum”—is not acceptable either. I have expressed previously in the House my view about how we should resolve this matter by going back to the people. Other Members have different views, but that is not the issue today.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
If I may say so, I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he chairs the Select Committee and takes vital evidence. Is that not really the point, over and above the Bill? That is precisely the sort of work that should be done. Questions should be asked of Ministers. This place should be making sure that we are ready for no deal, yet we are being closed down next week when we should be sitting and asking questions. The right hon. Gentleman’s Committee, and others, should be able to do their valuable work.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. One consequence of Prorogation is that our Select Committees cannot meet. We cannot scrutinise the Government and hold them to account. That is what we are missing.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that there appear to be Members in this House who know more about making cars than those who make cars, more about building planes than those who build planes and more about engineering than the engineers? The simple truth is that the overwhelming and unmistakeable voice of the world of work and industry, and of all the employers’ organisations and trade unions, is that a no-deal Brexit would have catastrophic consequences, with tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs, making our country poorer in every sense of the word for years to come.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Those industries and sectors, whose representatives we have all met and whose evidence we have heard, are troubled that the message that comes from their expertise and knowledge—after all, they are the people who create the wealth of the country—is not being heard by a Government who say, “We are prepared to leave with no deal on 31 October.”
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend has a room next door to mine. Of course I will give way, and then I will make progress.
Phil Wilson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. This morning, I received a letter from North East England Chamber of Commerce, in which it says:
“Over the past three years we have been clear and consistent: preserving the trading conditions and relationship we currently enjoy with the EU ought to be the primary objective of any Brexit outcome. Sadly, the Government’s willingness to embrace No Deal as an acceptable end to the Brexit negotiations flies in the face of this.”
It goes on to say that it is a disastrous outcome for the north-east of England. Do these comments not go to prove that his Bill is an absolute necessity?
Hilary Benn
They absolutely do.
Having now, in a sense, concluded a discussion and reflection on the economic and other consequences of no deal, I want to turn to what the Bill actually does. It intends to stop this happening by seeking an extension to article 50 in certain very specific circumstances.
It is very important to understand that the Bill allows the Prime Minister the opportunity to reach a new agreement with the European Union at the European Council and to seek Parliament’s consent to any such agreement. That is condition No. 1. It also allows the Government to bring a motion to the House of Commons to seek our consent for leaving without a deal—for example, if discussions at the European Council prove unsuccessful. I think that the Government would find it rather difficult to get such a motion through the House of Commons, but the Bill allows them to seek to do that. Clause 1 specifically provides for both those eventualities, and if either of the conditions is met there can be no further extension. If, however, neither of those conditions has been met by 19 October, which was chosen very deliberately as it is the day after the conclusion of the European Council, the Prime Minister must ask the EU for a further extension until 31 January 2020 in the form of the letter set out in the schedule to the Bill.
Clause 3 deals with what happens next. If the European Council accedes to that request, the Prime Minister must agree to it. If, however, the Council proposes an extension to a different date, the Prime Minister must agree to that as well, unless the House of Commons decides not to pass a motion agreeing to it. That is what clause 3(3) does.
It has been wrongly claimed in some commentaries that the EU could propose an extension of any length—six months, 20 years, a millennium—and the Prime Minister would be required to accept it, but that is not so. In those circumstances, the House could decide. Furthermore, if a deal is reached after the Prime Minister has asked for an extension, that would override any extension, so it also allows him, if he can, to reach a deal after the European Council concludes on 18 October.
Hilary Benn
I will give way in a moment.
In other words, the Bill gives the Prime Minister the flexibility that he wants and needs to get a deal if he can. It does not render further negotiation pointless—if the Prime Minister were here I would say this forcefully to him—but what does is the Prime Minister’s apparent refusal to put any proposals to the EU if this Bill passes, which I can describe only as a very odd state of affairs.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Clause 3(2) is very clear that the period of two days begins with
“the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made.”
We were told very clearly during proceedings on the change of date, after the two previous occasions when the Government accepted an extension, that we were merely implementing a decision that was already made and binding in European Union law. The right hon. Gentleman’s proposal depends on the European Union making a conditional offer that comes into force only if it chooses to make it conditional on subsequent approval by the House of Commons. He has no way of binding the European Union’s procedures by domestic legislation.
Hilary Benn
If the Bill is passed, the House of Commons will pass it in the knowledge that it is seeking in the circumstances set out an extension to 31 January. If, however, the European Union proposes a different date, it seems to be only right and proper that the Prime Minister should be able to say, either, “Yes, that is fine by me,” or, “I will need to go back and check.” I agree with the hon Gentleman that, of course, we cannot bind the European Union in the way it seeks to work, but it is not at all unusual for member states to say, “Well, we will need to go back and check with our Parliament.” I am certain, given the importance of this issue, that the European Union would be able to find another procedure, which might not involve the European Council meeting again, to confirm the decision it made in making the offer in the first place.
The second point is that the two days is intended precisely to give the Prime Minister the chance to come back to the House in those circumstances.
Dr Johnson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. My reading of this Bill is that it does not stop no deal—it postpones it potentially for three months—but it does make it virtually impossible for our Prime Minister to negotiate. Therefore, it is a political Bill, which, sadly, some on our Benches have supported. What it does is tell the European Union that, if it does not choose to negotiate and it does not choose to give us a better deal, it has the opportunity to offer us an extension of whatever it wants this House to take.
Hilary Benn
I have dealt with that last point—an extension of whatever length. There is a means by which the Government can ask the House not to approve that, and then the House would have to make a decision in the light of what had been offered by the European Union. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s central premise that this somehow undermines the Prime Minister’s negotiating ability.
Hilary Benn
I am responding to the hon. Lady if she just bears with me. I do not regard the threat of a no-deal Brexit as part of a credible negotiating strategy.
Hilary Benn
Will the hon. Lady bear with me? The previous Prime Minister spent nearly two years saying that no deal is better than a bad deal and it did not seem to work then, and I do not think it will work now.
Dr Johnson
If I am correct, it would mean that if the European Union offered us a 10-year extension, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, the choice for this House would be a 10-year extension or the no deal he so wishes to avoid.
Hilary Benn
No, that is not the case. In those circumstances, the House could decide to ask the Prime Minister to go back. The central point is that it gives the House of Commons the ability to express a view, but if the extension was to 31 January we would have already decided that we were prepared to accept that. Therefore, it is only if the Prime Minister does not get a deal that the Bill prevents him from taking us out of the EU without an agreement.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union baldly states that we leave after two years
“unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
There is no obligation on the European Union to decide to make a conditional offer—it can decide—yet the Bill requires the Prime Minister, in those circumstances, to accept the terms that are on offer, and that is it. The Bill hands the decision back to the European Union, rather than to this House.
Hilary Benn
I do not agree. Of course, we all recognise that with any of these provisions there is no guarantee that the European Union will grant a further request from the United Kingdom for another extension of article 50. It takes only one member state of the European Union to say, “No, I’m not giving the United Kingdom a further extension” for us to be in even greater difficulty than we are already.
The provision seeks to require the Prime Minister to ask for and agree to an extension, because that is what is required to prevent the current Prime Minister from taking us out of the EU on 31 October without a deal. We did not have to put those provisions in the earlier Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford because the former Prime Minister readily accepted the decision of the House of Commons, but we are now in different circumstances.
Clause 2 covers what happens if an extension is proposed and agreed. Members have asked, quite rightly, what the extension is for. The immediate answer is, of course, to avoid a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, but clause 2 provides a framework under which the Government will publish a report to the House on 30 November—this comes back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) raised with me earlier—and move a motion to the effect that the House has approved the report. That gives the Government a chance to say, “What are we going to do next?” It is also something that we can point to with the European Union. Members should remember that, last time, Mr Tusk said, “Use the time well,” and it is important that we in this House show that we are not just saying, “Right, we want a further extension, and then we are going to twiddle our thumbs for another three months.”
The Bill suggests a process. If the report is amended or rejected, there must be further reports from the Government on 10 January and every 28 days thereafter, either until an agreement is reached with the EU or until otherwise indicated by a resolution of the House. I think the framework in clause 2 will help to answer the question about what we intend to do with the additional time, and that will be a matter for Parliament.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Surely, one of the things that we would want to do during that time is to try to find a solution to the Irish question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the EU Commission taskforce is reporting that the Prime Minister is reneging on his commitment to protect the all-Ireland economy and meaningful north-south co-operation? Clearly, the time should be used to ensure that there is decent co-operation.
Hilary Benn
I have read those reports and they are of concern to me, as I know they are to the right hon. Gentleman and many others in the House.
The aim of the clause is not, as I think the Leader of the House suggested yesterday, to create a “marionette Government” but, I would argue, to give the Government the time they need to do their job. I say that because it is not clear what is happening at the moment, as we discussed yesterday, and how much negotiation is taking place when no proposals have been made. It is very hard to understand that, because I would have thought that the Government had been working flat out since July. It is also important to make the point that even if agreement was reached, it is very hard to see how it would be possible to get the House’s approval and pass all the legislation between 18 October or so and 31 October.
My final point is this. What would happen if we left with no deal? The Prime Minister talks about getting it done and ending the uncertainty, but the truth is—the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) made this point powerfully—that no deal would not end anything. It would simply plunge us into greater uncertainty—uncertainty about the degree and length of disruption, uncertainty about the border arrangements in Northern Ireland, and uncertainty about our future trading relationship with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners, the other members of the European Union.
Given that it has taken three years to get this far—in other words, not very far at all—and given that it took Canada seven years to negotiate a deal and the Prime Minister says he wants a super-Canada deal, it is going to take years to agree a new relationship. Every single EU member state, member state parliament and regional parliament will have to agree to any deal. No deal will not be the end of Brexit; it will only be the end of the beginning. In that time, faced with that degree of uncertainty, businesses will have countless decisions to make about where to invest, what to make and where, what to do about the sudden disappearance of all the arrangements that they have come to know and work within, and what to do about the sudden imposition of tariffs. It would be utterly irresponsible to allow that to happen. We have a duty to prevent it, and I hope the House will vote for this Bill tonight.
Mr Speaker
In an attempt to accommodate lots of Members who wish to take part, I am obliged to impose a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)
I rise to speak as the proud but slightly bemused independent Member for North East Bedfordshire. I commend my friend, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for his remarks and the way in which he went through the technicalities of the Bill. I have no wish to do the same and do not wish to detain the House on those matters. Let me make just three brief points in support of the Bill.
First, is the Bill a stumbling block to negotiations? No, it is not. The Bill does not prevent the Prime Minister or the Government from negotiating. The reason that we do not yet have a deal or might not get one is not this Bill. Ever since the referendum and the start of negotiations, a variety of reasons have been cited for not getting a deal. In no particular order, it has been: a remainer Parliament, a remainer Prime Minister, Olly Robbins, the EU, Michel Barnier, Martin Selmayr—always a different reason. We were told recently that all could be solved if only we elected a Prime Minister who was a Brexiteer with an absolute determination to leave, no questions asked, because the EU would then fold and we would have the deal that the UK always wanted. We have such a Prime Minister, whose determination is clear, and the EU has not folded, so this time we are being told that it is us—that it is me. That is nonsense.
There are two reasons why we have not had a deal. First, Members in this House have not voted for a deal. If they had looked at it hard two years ago, they would have bitten your hand off to accept all the provisions in the withdrawal agreement and the transition period, which a Brexiteer will now be in charge of. The second reason is that many in the UK have failed to grasp that it is we who are leaving the EU. That means that it is a negotiation between us. We have never really understood the EU or its arguments, believing that a negotiation was a series of demands from the United Kingdom, not a negotiation. That and the language that we have used—built on 20-odd years of the drip, drip of poison about the EU—has made sure that we did not get a deal.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman and I came to this House in the same year, so I am sad to hear his announcement that he is going. Does he agree that the kind of language being used from the Government Front Bench and in the media about those who are trying to prevent no deal, such as “traitors” and “collaborators”—all of that war-like language—is less than helpful?
Alistair Burt
Absolutely. In my conclusion, I shall talk a bit about that and how we have got to reset, but the hon. Lady makes a good point.
Secondly, why do we want to avoid no deal? I will not repeat all the things that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, which are obvious; the economics are clear. For me, there are three reasons. The first is the threat to the Union. I am a Scot, my mother and father are from Scotland. I am a proud Scot. I am also British through and through. I could not believe a recent poll of Conservative members that said they would abandon almost anything, including the Union, providing they left the EU. I regard that as a terrible threat. We should not risk it.
My second reason is Ireland, which is treated by some here as some sort of irrelevance and a place that has made up the border issue to prevent us from leaving the EU. With our history in relation to Ireland and everything that happened there, it became our best friend in the European Union. Our choice to leave—our Brexit—has put Ireland in the most catastrophic situation of any country, and we now expect it to accept another English demand that it should do something. Have we no understanding of what that relationship means and the damage done?
My third reason for wanting to avoid no deal is the damage to Europe and the relationship with Europe itself. I grew up as part of the first generation to avoid war in Europe for countless hundreds of years. I arrived in the House of Commons when there were giants here such as Denis Healey, Willie Whitelaw and Ted Heath—people for whom Europe was the place where they and their friends had fought and died—and they wanted something different. That has always motivated me in my sense of Europe. Whether we are in the European Union or not, that relationship with Europe is clouded by the sort of language that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned. I do not want to see that relationship threatened by a no deal.
Alistair Burt
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman involuntarily for most of the years that I have been here—most, not all, because I went to campaign for him in his by-election of 1984. I have no wish to hear from him voluntarily. [Laughter.] Let me go on.
Thirdly, let me end where I began, as the Independent Member for North East Bedfordshire. I do not complain at the removal of the Whip—voting on an issue of confidence, I accept the rules—but I say to my colleagues: just think how this looks. Last week, the Conservative party lost Ruth Davidson, and George Young in the House of Lords resigned the Whip. This morning, we lost my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) —who made the economy we were cheering just a few minutes ago. What are people going to think about what we have left and what we have lost? Some will have been very happy at the fact that some have been purged—purged. A few weeks ago, one of our colleagues retweeted an article in The Daily Telegraph that looked forward to the purging of remoaners in the Conservative party. That was disgraceful. I say to my colleagues, if we are being purged now, who is next? Watch a film called “Good Night, and Good Luck”, and you will take my point.
This may be the last substantive speech I make here as I am not standing again—and who knows when the election will come? I will leave with the best of memories of this place, friends and colleagues on all sides. The obsession that my party has developed may have sought to devalue my past as a friend of the EU, of our sister centre-right parties, and of many friends, and it may have curtailed my future, but it will not rob me of what I believe. I will walk out of here looking up at the sky, not down at my shoes. [Applause.]
Jane Dodds (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be speaking in this particular debate.
May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr Chris Davies? He worked hard for our local communities, raising awareness of the very difficult issue of mental health and suicide in farmers. I thank him for his service. Chris followed hard on the heels of the highly respected Liberal Democrat MP, Roger Williams. Roger’s are large boots to fill and, if I can even partly match his passion, service and commitment, I shall be very pleased.
It is a huge privilege to represent Brecon and Radnorshire, one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. It is also the largest constituency in England and Wales— something that I am sure some Members here will have discovered during the recent by-election when searching for another elusive farmhouse up yet another long and scenic track. Brecon and Radnorshire is home to strong and resilient communities, some of which are Welsh-speaking. Sadly, many of our libraries, banks and post offices in these communities have closed in recent years. Despite this, there is a real joy for life in the old counties of Radnorshire and Brecknockshire, as well as a healthy rivalry between them, that makes sure that the mid-Wales spirit—yr ysbryd—is alive and well.
Many Members here will have had the luxury of making their maiden speeches in the weeks and months following a general election, looking forward to the many years of a full parliamentary term. My maiden speech could not be made in more different circumstances. [Laughter.]
On the night of the by-election, I promised the people of Brecon and Radnorshire that I would tell the Prime Minister exactly why a no-deal Brexit would be damaging for my constituents. Well, I am delighted that last night my very first vote as the Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire was to help Parliament take back control of the agenda and to do everything possible to prevent us leaving the EU without a deal, including speaking in this debate today. When it comes to a no-deal Brexit, we need to stop talking in terms of the hypothetical and the theoretical and start talking with candour about the real and damaging consequences it would bring.
A no-deal Brexit would be damaging for everyone in my constituency, but particularly for the people who are the lifeblood of Brecon and Radnorshire—the farmers. Welsh farmers, as we heard this morning, export 40% of their lamb, and over 90% of that goes to the EU. Currently, if farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire export to the EU, export tariffs are—let me have a think—zero. A no-deal Brexit would mean 40% tariffs on Welsh lamb exports. That would risk putting farmers in my constituency and right across Wales out of business.
I will be using my votes today to ensure that a no-deal Brexit is avoided, as it would be catastrophic for the people of Brecon and Radnorshire. Whether people voted remain or leave, they did not vote for a no-deal Brexit that would make them poorer. They did not vote for long waits for life-saving medicines and they did not vote for a decline in our country’s environmental standards.
I am extremely privileged to be able to serve the wonderful people of Brecon and Radnorshire and I shall do my utmost to be an MP they are proud of. Diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you very much.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. I think the House greatly enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady, and we wish her well. I call Mr Philip Hammond.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want us to leave the European Union with a deal and I voted three times to leave the European Union with a deal. I regret the fact that it has become necessary for this Bill to be brought forward now, and it is necessary now for two reasons: first, because Parliament stands prorogued, so we will not have time potentially to bring Parliament back after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had the 30 days that he asked for, to see whether he has been successful in getting a deal; and, secondly, because members of the Government have speculated openly that the Government may not comply with legislation even if it is passed and we therefore need to allow time for not merely legislation but litigation as well.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On that point, we have heard noises to that effect from certain members of the Government and Government sources. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if this Bill is passed, it is very important that the Prime Minister adheres to its terms, because it is a fundamental duty of Government to uphold the rule of law?
Mr Hammond
I absolutely agree, but we have heard clearly that we cannot rule out the possibility that the Government will dispute the interpretation of the Bill and that there will be a need for litigation in the courts, to ensure that its effect is delivered.
We need to act because there is no mandate for a no-deal Brexit, and a no-deal Brexit will be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. I remind my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that many of us who are now on the Back Benches have had the privilege of seeing the detailed analysis from within Government about the precise and damaging effects of such a no-deal Brexit.
We need to act for another reason. The Prime Minister repeats two statements. He says that he is sincerely trying to get a deal, and he says that we will leave on 31 October come what may, do or die. Regrettably, those two statements are incompatible. Even if the fantasy deal that the Prime Minister sets out, where the EU concedes to every demand of the United Kingdom and removes every one of its red lines, were agreed tomorrow, it would still not be possible to get through all the stages of process required, including passage through both Houses of this Parliament, by 31 October. So we had to act.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) set out brilliantly the purposes of the Bill and how it works. Time is limited, so I do not intend to rehearse those arguments. I want simply to focus on two claims that are made against Conservative supporters of this Bill—or former Conservative supporters of this Bill—by the Government and seek to rebut them. Presumably these claims have been made as a justification for the mass purge that occurred last night.
The first claim is that, by removing the threat of no deal on 31 October, we are cutting the legs from under the Government in their negotiations with the EU. That is wrong. It is wrong because, actually, there is no negotiation going on with the EU. We have had confirmation from multiple sources across the European Union that nothing is happening, and confirmation from within Government that nothing is happening. The Government have declined to bring forward any proposals or serve any proposals on the European Union. It betrays a deep misunderstanding of the way European politics works. Yes, European politics is every bit as scrappy as British politics, but across the continent of Europe people who are sworn enemies and debate vigorously are used to having to make deals because, for the overwhelming majority of our colleagues in Europe, coalition Government is the norm. They have a different system from our adversarial system.
The EU has taken a remarkably consistent approach throughout these negotiations. On the format of the negotiations, on its mandate and on its commitment to transparency, it publishes everything openly. Nothing that we are doing here is going to undermine the Prime Minister’s ability to negotiate with the EU. The thing that will undermine it is his unwillingness to pursue a realistic negotiating objective. If he tried to achieve significant changes to the way the backstop works, that would be a major concession by the EU, but I do think that my right hon. Friend—as a new Prime Minister, leading a new Government—would stand at least a reasonable chance of getting a hearing and maybe succeeding. However, by setting the bar, as he has, at the total removal of the backstop, he has set the bar at a level that is impossible for the European Union to comply with.
The second claim that is made against us is that by supporting this Bill we are handing power to the Leader of the Opposition. I would sooner boil my head than hand power to the Leader of the Opposition. Most of us will have no truck with the concept of a vote of no confidence. The purpose of this Bill is to instruct this Government and this Administration how to conduct the UK’s future arrangements with the European Union. It is not an attempt to remove this Government and it is certainly not an attempt to hand power to the Leader of the Opposition. It is not we who are heightening the risk of a Government led by the Leader of the Opposition. It is my right hon. Friend by pursuing a course of action that, if unchallenged, can only lead to a no-deal Brexit.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I rise in support of the Bill. The Prime Minister has decided that the UK should leave the EU on 31 October with or without a deal. He says that he is making progress in talks with a view to getting a deal, but he is not. Chancellor Merkel says no proposals have been put forward by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland says no proposals have been put forward by the Government. Across the EU, everybody says no proposals have been put forward by the Government. Yesterday, the Government did not deny that they have not put forward proposals in these negotiations; they just dodged questions and refused to answer honest questions about whether there is any evidence of any progress in the talks.
The Government are convincing no one, and at Prime Minister’s questions today the Prime Minister tied himself completely in knots in suggesting that he had not put forward any proposals because this Bill might pass later this week. So for the last six weeks, he has not done anything in case a Bill he had not heard of gets Royal Assent sometime soon. Ridiculous! There is no progress, and there is no workable alternative on the table to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. Indeed—this point has already been touched on—far from making progress on this crucial point, it was reported yesterday that the Government are seeking to backtrack, and to revisit the commitments to protect the all-Ireland economy, including the December joint report.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My wife comes from County Armagh, and I was married some two miles from the border at the height of the troubles. Is it not arguable that the present border arrangements in the island of Ireland contribute massively to the present peace process that we enjoy?
Keir Starmer
Massively. They are the manifestation of peace in Northern Ireland. As I have said many times, they are more than a question of getting goods and people across a line; they are the manifestation of peace that allows different communities to live together in peace.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am enormously grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that it is very strange, to put it mildly—bearing in mind that the Republic of Ireland is our nearest EU neighbour, shares a land frontier with part of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland and is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement—that if the Prime Minister has been so, so, so busy negotiating over this summer, as he claims, he has not actually found time to go to Dublin to meet the Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, and discuss any proposals that he might have? Is that not extraordinary?
Keir Starmer
Yes, it is extraordinary, but it sits with the other evidence that there are not any proposals being put forward and that there are not any negotiations actually taking place. Therefore, we are not closer to a deal now than we were when this Prime Minister took office; in truth, we are further away. That appears from leaks to be the Prime Minister’s chief of staff’s policy position, because he talks of negotiations, apparently, for domestic consumption, yet the talks are a sham.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure me that we will not fall into the trap being set by the Prime Minister, and that we will not support a general election before not only this Bill is enacted, but its provisions, including an extension, have been implemented?
Keir Starmer
I can confirm that we will not be voting with the Government tonight and that we will keep our focus on the task in hand, which is to ensure that we do not leave the EU without a deal, and that requires the passing and implementation of this Bill.
Ms Angela Eagle
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress and give way in a moment.
So the truth is that we are on course for a no-deal Brexit for which there is no mandate from the public or from this Parliament. We might think that in those circumstances this Parliament would be sitting every available day between now and 31 October, to avert this threat, to scrutinise the Prime Minister’s plan—if there is one—and to find a way forward, if we can. We would all willingly sit on those days to find that way forward, but no: from next week the Prime Minister wants to shut this place down for five weeks in this crucial period. He thinks that we and the public will be fooled by the obvious untruth that Prorogation is merely for a Queen’s Speech. The five-week Prorogation is to silence this House and frustrate attempts to prevent no deal, and any suggestion to the contrary from anyone, in my view, is disingenuous.
Ms Eagle
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the characterisation by Conservative central office, which is appearing on Twitter and on its other social media even now, as we debate this extremely important Bill—hashtagging this Bill the #SurrenderBill—is beneath contempt?
Keir Starmer
It is beneath contempt, and I can only imagine how businesses—the people who work in businesses and the management of businesses—will look on in horror, because they have repeatedly told me and many other Members of this House their deep concerns about no deal, and we are protecting this country against no deal.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress and then I will give way.
In circumstances in which there is no progress in the negotiations, we are hurtling towards no deal and the Prime Minister is closing down this place, we have no alternative but to pursue this Bill. We have to act with urgency and to pass binding legislation to rule out no deal by the time this House prorogues. That is what this Bill will achieve today.
I want to put on record my thanks to the right hon. and hon. Members who have worked over many weeks on this Bill, in particular the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), as well as the leaders of the Scottish National party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, Plaid and Change UK, because this has genuinely been a cross-party Bill. On behalf of all my colleagues, I acknowledge the courage of the 21 former Conservative MPs who voted as a matter of principle in the Standing Order No. 24 debate last night, putting their country before their career. We acknowledge their courage and what they did as a matter of principle.
Why has there been such concerted effort? It is not usual to find an alliance of all Opposition parties and cross-party MPs. The answer is that we all appreciate the appalling damage no deal would cause to jobs, to industry, to our NHS, to security, and to peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we were all shocked, if not surprised, at the warnings contained in the leaked Yellowhammer documents: food and fuel shortages, delay to medicines, and chaos at ports and channel crossings, all affecting the poorest communities. What leapt out to me from the Yellowhammer documents was the honest advice to the Government that, try as they might, the civil servants could not find a way of avoiding the conclusion that if we leave without a deal there will have to be infrastructure in Northern Ireland.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)
Is it not ironic that in the very week the Government announce an advertising campaign called “Get ready for Brexit”, they simultaneously refuse to release any details about what we are meant to be getting ready for? Would Ministers not be better advised to be transparent about the impact of no deal, and, frankly, about the fact that it sounds to me like there was never a detailed plan on how to deliver Brexit? There has not been one in three years, and I really worry that it never existed in the first place.
Keir Starmer
Of course that information should be put in the public domain, so that everybody understands the impact of no deal. The fact that the Government do not want it in the public domain speaks volumes. The mantra is that they cannot put our proposals in public because they do not negotiate in public, but they can surely put them before the partners they are supposed to be negotiating with. They just are not there.
Jonathan Edwards
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr Speaker
Order. Could I just make the point that there are lots of people who want to speak? There is very little time, and if there are continual interventions very large numbers of colleagues who wish to speak will not do so—simple as that.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. The Welsh Government have been provided with a copy of the original Yellowhammer document. Will he call on his colleagues to publish it?
Keir Starmer
I will, but I am not sure that my calling for that is enough in itself to get it published. We will see what else we can do. Mr Speaker, I will press on, because I do know there are other speakers to come.
This is a very simple Bill. It is deliberately constrained. It does not answer the question, “What else needs to happen?” It gives the Prime Minister the chance to get a deal and to get it through. It gives the Prime Minister the chance to have the courage to come to the Dispatch Box and say, “My policy is to leave without a deal. Do I have a majority for it?” If he did that, we would not need to go down this route. He will not do that, however, because he knows what the result will be. Only if there is a no deal and only if there is no approval for leaving without a deal do the provisions in the Bill requiring an extension kick in.
Mr Speaker, this is an extraordinary route, but these are extraordinary times. We have to act. We have to act now. Today is the last chance to prevent no deal, and we must seize it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
With immediate effect, we now need a three-minute time limit. Otherwise, colleagues who want to speak will not have the chance to do so.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Perhaps I can start by agreeing with something that others have said, which is that, regardless of one’s views on this subject, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and others who spoken in this debate are acting the national interest in bringing up these issues in the way that they do. They do not deserve to be name-called as a result. Having said that, however, I disagree with the Bill.
The Bill does three things: it sets out that the Government should get specific parliamentary authority for any deal they negotiate; it sets out that they should get specific authority for any exit from the EU without a deal; and it sets out that, failing either of those, they should enact a three-month further extension in our departure from the EU. I am afraid that my view is that the first two of those are unnecessary and the third is undesirable. In two and a half minutes, I will try to explain why.
On the first, it seems to me that our existing procedures allow for the Government to bring forward any deal that they negotiate, for us to approve it or not. It would be an international treaty, and the processes are already in place for us to do that.
Secondly, in relation to a no-deal outcome, what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and colleagues have put forward is on the premise that there is no mandate for no deal. It is certainly true that the leave campaign in the 2016 referendum did not advocate no deal. That was not its preference and, as I understand it, that is still not the Government’s preference, but nor was it put to the electorate that we would leave only if there was a deal with the EU. That could never have been guaranteed. There was no pattern to follow and no example for us to look at, and it could never have been certain that the EU would put forward a proposal that we found acceptable. Indeed, some of us who argued for remain in the referendum campaign said, “If you decide to leave, you take a leap in the dark. You cannot know what the future will look like and you cannot know what, if any, deal we will be offered by the EU or by anyone else.” The electorate, as it was their absolute right to do, listened to those arguments, rejected them and decided to leave anyway. It was their decision to make and, in my view, they were perfectly entitled to make it.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Ind)
Even if I accepted my right hon. and learned Friend’s main point about the way that the referendum campaign was conducted by leave, which I do not, does he not accept that in a democracy, minorities have rights? A minority as big as 48%, and a majority in Northern Ireland, in Scotland and in our northern cities, should not be so dismissed.
Jeremy Wright
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that minorities should not be dismissed, and frankly, the way in which we conduct this debate should reflect the fact that 48% of the public voted in a different way from the prevailing outcome. I do not think that we have succeeded in that as a Parliament or in a broader national debate. The truth is that we—Parliament—set out the rules for this referendum in the European Union Referendum Act 2015. As she has just said, many of us participated in the referendum campaign on both sides of the argument, and we stressed that it was the public’s decision to make. When they had made it, we— Parliament—decided to trigger article 50 of the EU treaty.
As someone who has spent more time than is good for anyone looking at article 50, I can tell the House that it does not require the leaving country to do so with a deal. When we—Parliament—decided to trigger the article 50 process, we knew, or we should have known, that one possible outcome was a no-deal outcome. It was not one that we wished to see and not one that we expected to see, but it was one that could have happened, so I am afraid that on this fundamental point, I cannot agree that we do not have a mandate for no deal and therefore that we must proceed as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central sets out in the Bill.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill and the tone with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) introduced it. It reminded me of the famous book, “Profiles in Courage”, by John F. Kennedy, in which he said that
“there are few if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side.”
We would do well to remember that in this House. Coherent, persuasive and passionate arguments and points have been made by people with every single type of view on Brexit, and we ought to respect one another and conduct the debate in that spirit.
This is not an easy thing for me to vote for, because I have spent the last few years arguing passionately that delay has consequences, that companies in my constituency need certainty and that the public cannot take much more of this. They want to see us come together, compromise and respect the 48% of people who came out and said that they wanted close ties with the EU.
Lisa Nandy
I will not, because of time. They also want to see us respect the fact that 52% of those who voted wanted to leave the EU. We said it was their choice, and we have a duty to try to enact it.
But the truth is this Bill is the right thing to do. There are many people in my constituency—a third—who voted remain and want us to stop this process altogether. There are others—I would say the most significant group—who want to cut all ties and leave the EU altogether. They shout louder than the others and often drown out the voices calling for consensus, but it is my job to make sure they do not, because they do not have the right to put food manufacturing companies in my constituency out of business. We lived through the closure of the mines in Wigan and we live with the consequences still. It was a tragedy for many families from which some never recovered. I will not let those small and medium-sized employers in my constituency, which make up the bulk of employment, be put out of business because we cannot get our act together as a House, because we cannot stop this reckless Prime Minister, because we cannot work together to achieve the deal we have promised the people.
People do not have the right to say to the child in my constituency waiting for a potentially life-saving clinical trial, “You will not get it”. A mum stopped me at the train station to say she was stockpiling medicine. They do not have the right to keep her up at night because she does not know if her child will survive. That is why this matters. After years of saying that no deal was a hoax, that it was a bluff, that it would not happen, we in this House have woken up to the reality of it, and now we have to make sure it does not happen. We have to go out and win that argument with the public, so that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) so rightly and eloquently said, we can walk out of here looking at the sky, not at our shoes.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Ind)
I rise to support this Bill, but before I do so, I want to make it clear that I have always believed that the referendum result must be honoured. Indeed, I voted for the withdrawal agreement on every occasion it was presented to the House, which is more than can be said for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and other members of the Cabinet whose serial disloyalty has been such an inspiration to so many of us. I think that history will in due course favour the view articulated so clearly last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that a threat to commit an act of self-harm if your counterparts in negotiations do not do exactly as you wish is not likely to be an effective or successful negotiating strategy.
The Bill is modest in its ambitions but powerful in its mandate. It merely seeks to avert the immediate risk of the disaster of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October and thereby seeks to give the Government and the House a further opportunity to achieve a resolution of this profoundly difficult issue. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertion, the Bill does not deprive him of the ability or flexibility to achieve a negotiated settlement with the EU on 17 October, but it does ensure that if he should fail, as with his current demands I think he is likely to do, there will be time for him to rethink his remarks.
I will not be standing at the next election.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Ind)
Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me—I think this view is shared not just on the Conservative Benches but across the House—that that would be a great loss to our Parliament?
Sir Nicholas Soames
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have such high regard.
I will not be standing at the next election, and I am thus approaching the end of 37 years’ service to this House, of which I have been proud and honoured beyond words to be a Member. I am truly very sad that it should end in this way. It is my fervent hope that this House will rediscover the spirit of compromise, humility and understanding that will enable us finally to push ahead with the vital work in the interests of the whole country that has inevitably had to be so sadly neglected while we have devoted so much time to wrestling with Brexit. I urge the House to support the Bill.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds) on her maiden speech. I warn her that, although it may not look like it or feel like it, in normal parliamentary times I would still be in my first term, and there are a number of twists and turns that we have seen and that she should continue to expect.
As the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) has just illustrated so eloquently, there are very few positives to be taken from this process, but one of them has been the way in which those of us who disagree vociferously on many issues have been able to cross party lines and reach out. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech and for his service as well, and I thank other colleagues with whom I have had the privilege of being able to deal.
Nick Boles
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene briefly. He has just paid tribute to the cross-party work to secure the Bill—hopefully—this evening. Does he agree that it is crucial—and I know that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is also part of our coalition, has made plain his view—for us not only to secure the Bill in law, but to secure its implementation before any election is called or held, and not to allow the possibility of a re-elected Johnson Government who would then reintroduce a no-deal Brexit on 31 October?
Stephen Gethins
Yes. As usual, the hon. Gentleman has been a good colleague, and has made an excellent point. In a Parliament of minorities, we must work together. We want a general election, but we will not have a general election on the terms of this Government, because we do not trust them. None of us can trust them, and we should be absolutely clear about that.
Over the past few years—and I say this personally—it has often been humbling to see people give up careers and livelihoods for what they think is right, and we have seen the best of that over the past few days. There are Members opposite, and Members on these Benches who may not have started on these Benches, who know that a no-deal Brexit will damage their constituents. I never thought that I would be here proposing a Bill with the likes of the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond). To be fair to them, I do not think they thought that they would be here proposing a Bill—which might be passed—with a member of the Scottish National party. However, that is the position in which we have been left.
The Bill does not go as far as I might have liked. My SNP colleagues and I do not want to see Scotland taken out of the European Union against its will, and we want to stop Brexit. However, I know that others who have signed the Bill and will vote for it want to deliver Brexit. We disagree on that, which is fine, but we agree fundamentally that a no-deal Brexit is unacceptable and must be stopped at all costs.
This legislation is important, and I am sorry that we have a Government who cannot be trusted and who have tried every trick in the book to avoid scrutiny and democracy. Can Members imagine how we can be in a position whereby, over the weekend, the Government could be asked a legitimate question about whether or not they respect the rule of law? I hope that Members will reflect on that during the coming days. Unfortunately, it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s approach. He is the least trustworthy resident of No. 10 Downing Street whom anyone can remember. We are in our present position because of a mess of his making. He had no plans before the referendum, and he has no plans now.
There is nothing new in the negotiations, and the Ministers have told us nothing new about them. Instead, we have a Government who are perfectly willing to let the rest of the population endure food price increases when too many people already depend on food banks, medical shortages that will hit the most needy and vulnerable, and damage to public services that have already been hit by a decade of austerity, depriving our young people of education and employment opportunities that my generation enjoyed and benefited from.
All of us in Parliament should be doing our utmost to support and protect those people. That is a basic tenet of our democracy. This slash-and-burn approach to politics will damage everyone across these islands and Europe for decades, but most of all it will damage people in the United Kingdom. We can stop it now, and we can do so with legislation. We owe that to the most vulnerable, and to those who will be worst affected.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I want to refer briefly to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I simply want to explain very simply that I was going to intervene because he referred to the sacrifice that people had made in the last war and I want to put it on record that my father was killed in the last war, and I think I understand not only the issues involved in that, but also the fact that he fought for freedom, and I believe that that is our heritage, and that is what we should fight for—not to be governed by other people. I just leave that on the record.
I happen also to very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on what is an extremely rare occasion when somebody has actually explained, as I have a number of times, that there is nothing in this arrangement that has been foisted upon us that would prevent us from leaving without a deal. We can do so if we wish to do so, and there is nothing in the referendum Act, or any question in the Act, which constrains us from that course of action.
Fundamentally, I simply want to make the following point. I would not call this the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; I would call it the European Union (Subservience) Bill. We have only to look at the words in the Bill, and in the very short time that I have available I will simply refer to a few of its phrases. Clause 1 says:
“The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period”.
Clause 3 states:
“If the European Council decides to agree an extension…the Prime Minister must, immediately after such a decision is made, notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension”
and so on.
Clause 4 says, in relation to the withdrawal Act of 2018 that, where regulations are to be made, for the definition of exit day
“for ‘may’ substitute ‘must’.”
This is a disgraceful reversal of our constitutional arrangements. We operate in a free Parliament where we have elections that are taken periodically—every five years as a normal rule—and we make our decisions. We have a system of parliamentary Government, not government by Parliament; that is a fundamental constitutional principle. This Bill offends that principle, and that is why I am deeply opposed to its proposals.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (IGC)
I strongly support the Bill before the House and have long believed that a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous. Resolving this issue and stopping our country crashing out of the EU is of the utmost urgency, as I believe that the Prime Minister wants no deal. All the actions of the current Prime Minister support that view as does everything he has said since becoming Prime Minister. He is sending our country hurtling towards no deal. This is a prospect no one voted for, or campaigned for, in 2016. It is simply wrong to be playing with people’s lives, jobs, businesses and wellbeing in this way.
At Brimsdown in Enfield we have the second largest industrial estate in London. It is a vital part of our local economy, with 8,000 people employed in 240 companies on site. Many of these companies trade throughout the EU. If we crash out with no deal and these companies get hit by tariffs on their exports, Brimsdown and Enfield will suffer.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday promised to help firms hit by no-deal tariffs but gave no full details on how that would work in practice, nor is he willing to publish estimates of the impact no-deal tariffs could have on various sectors. How much financial support would be made available to companies? How long would that support last for? Which businesses would and would not be covered by Government subsidy? There are so many questions and never any answers.
In Enfield we also have very high levels of deprivation that are growing apace. We have nearly 40,000 children living on or below the poverty line, but a no-deal Brexit or a general election are not going to stop this nightmare; they would exacerbate exponentially the problems my constituents are facing.
We hear much about the technicalities of all this every time it is debated, and particularly today. Those who want a no-deal Brexit or any kind of Brexit at any price want to talk all the time about technicalities. I want to see Members of this House take real responsibility for the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have on our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable of them. It is an abrogation of our responsibility as their representatives to go down this road, and let us be clear that a no deal will just be the start. I believe that the only way out of this mess is to go back to the people with a people’s vote on Brexit, but at the very least we must take the catastrophe of no deal off the table now. I urge all Members to support the Bill today.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Ind)
I want to put on record what a pleasure it has been to serve my constituents in Eddisbury. I think they would be amazed to know that the purge of the Conservative party that took place yesterday led to their Member of Parliament being expelled from the party, together with eight Privy Counsellors, two former Chancellors, a former Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has been a political inspiration to me for years. The economic arguments are well known, but in my constituency, where the chemicals, car, pharmaceuticals, aerospace and nuclear industries and the food and drink sectors are all key sectors in the north-west, 80,000 jobs are at risk in a no-deal Brexit. I do not regret putting my job on the line to save my constituents’ jobs, but I do regret that the Prime Minister forced me to do it. I want to say to Conservative colleagues that no deal is not the end of Brexit. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) said yesterday that he wanted Brexit to be over, to focus on other issues that matter to his constituents. I agree; so do I. I voted for the deal three times. However, keeping the threat of no deal on the table does not achieve this.
I say this to my Prime Minister: the reason that your negotiations are undermined is not because of a no-deal Brexit, but because the Europeans cannot see the steps that you are taking to build consensus in this House and get any concessions given to you through Parliament. That is what puts you in the weaker position, not a threat of no deal. Without the public and Europe being able to see how you are trying to build consensus in this House, and how this party, this Government, this House and this Parliament are trying to work together to get a solution, you will not get concessions from Europe. It is the people in this House who voted down the compromise—the withdrawal agreement—that have brought us to the brink of a no-deal precipice. I believe in the principle that Parliament should have a say in one of the biggest questions of our times, and tonight we should stand up.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend is on a point that has not been sufficiently emphasised. Does she agree that, at root, the horrors that those of us who find ourselves estranged from the party we love have gone through over the past 18 months derive from the inability of successive Governments to find a compromise?
Antoinette Sandbach
I completely agree. This is a result of the inability of successive Governments to work cross-party across the House to seek common ground, common agreement and common principles. I know many people in this place from all sides of the political divide, and I am certain that there is a will and a way to get through this, but I just have not seen the leadership from the Front Benches to argue for it. That has been my biggest shame in being a Member of this Parliament for the past three years: not seeing proper leadership out there to build our country back together again, to get people to work together and to explain in our constituencies why we should honour the referendum result but do so in a way that will maximise the chances of a positive relationship with Europe and give us the best foundations to build on for the future. That is why I say that Parliament should have a say in the biggest question of our time. If we cannot get that leadership on the Front Benches, Parliament needs to provide that leadership to the country.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
May I extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames)? I will miss our occasional lift encounters in Portcullis House—[Interruption.] Hang on, do not use up all my three minutes on that, because it is not for today.
I have voted for a deal twice, and I would have voted for the withdrawal agreement Bill, so I have probably voted for a deal more times than some prominent members of the present Government. However, I have also opposed no deal more times than some of the ex-Cabinet members and Ministers who are supporting this Bill today. I have been trying to seek compromise, but the decision on the UK’s departure from the European Union that we delegated to the British people has been dogged by a lack of compromise on both sides. Hard-line leavers and hard-line remainers have succeeded in turning a complicated decision into a crisis. Between them, they are eroding the trust and patience of the British people.
Today’s debate is born of the understandable fear that the UK will leave with no deal and that that will cause avoidable damage to our economy. It is born of a fear that the Prime Minister—I hope I am not using unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker—is insincere in his stated intention of reaching a deal with the EU27. However, others in the House must also be self-critical. It is disingenuous for someone to tell the public that they are against no deal if they are really also against any deal and, indeed, against Brexit. If the EU27 can accept a deal, however revised, it must be better for the UK and the EU27 than no deal.
Therefore, if the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) are selected today, I urge colleagues to support them, because they would tie an extension to securing a deal, which is the proper way forward.
Jeremy Wright
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and pay tribute to her for the way in which she has sought compromise. Many of us have voted for deals of various kinds, and I agree with what she says about the approach set out by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), which has considerable potential. Does she agree that one of the other reasons why we should seek to resolve this by way of a deal, and do so quickly, is that the longer the argument goes on, the more divided our society remains and the harder it will be to knit it back together? The danger of an approach that simply asks for a further extension, without any real idea of what we will use the extension for, is that that argument is perpetuated and the damage continues to be done.
Caroline Flint
I absolutely agree. One of my greatest concerns in all this is that, following a referendum that saw such a massive record turnout, there are many people who will never vote again if we continue to thwart a conclusion, and that will damage our democracy for decades to come. I am saddened that some in this House think that our only obligation is to the 48% and that others think we only need to consider the 52%. We need to respect the British people, whether they voted leave or remain and whichever party they support. We must show them that we can move forward and not simply block progress at every stage.
I want to look my leave voters in the eye and say, “Yes, I respected, as a remain voter, the decision to leave. We have now left. We will regain control of our laws and borders.” To remain supporters, whom I stood alongside in 2016, I want to say, “Yes, we respected the decision to leave, but we have successfully protected the things that you and I value most: open trade with the EU, workers’ rights, high environmental standards, rights for Brits abroad, respect for EU citizens working here, student exchange programmes, joint research projects”—I could go on. All of that can be secured, but only with a deal.
No deal is a decision, but one that defers 100 decisions. I urge the Government to secure a deal before 31 October, and I am willing to work every day and every hour to make that happen. However, other colleagues must also show some compromise as well. We must link an extension to securing a deal, because an extension with no purpose is not the way forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I would like to call two more speakers, but I want the Secretary of State to be on his feet no later than 4.50 pm.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and I agree with virtually everything she says.
It is a pleasure to have listened to my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), with whom I have served in this House for 36 years. I know they do not want to stand again, but if they were to stand, I would want to stand with them shoulder to shoulder as a Conservative candidate.
There are procedures for dealing with this sort of issue, but I very much hope that those like my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) who voted for their conscience—I do not agree with him, but he did vote for his conscience—can find a way to stand again for our party. The trouble with purges is that if one group of people is purged, another group of people might have to be purged when we try to push a deal through Parliament, so I think we need compromise.
Indeed, that is the whole point of what I want to say today. I am a Brexiteer and my constituency voted 62:38 for Brexit, but I am in a bit of a minority here because I voted for the deal three times. We hear so much about how terrible a no deal is, but so many people in this place voted against the deal three times. We could have had Brexit by now. This whole thing could have been resolved, and I still want to resolve it. I still believe it is perfectly possible to make progress in these negotiations in the coming weeks.
So much ink has been wasted on the backstop, and there has been so much debate about something that will never happen. I do not believe, and I do not think anybody believes for a moment, that the backstop will ever happen. Nobody intends to impose a hard border, and there are so many ways to resolve this. We are this close to resolving the issue, and there has been so much talk about how we do not trust the Prime Minister and how he wants a no deal. I genuinely believe that he and the Cabinet want to achieve an orderly Brexit, but the problem they face is that the present deal simply cannot get through Parliament, so they have to make progress.
We had the Brady amendment, so we can win a vote in this place. I do not want to make a bore of myself by going on about devices such as the Vienna convention, which I have mentioned many times, but they are all possible. The trouble with this Bill is that if it is passed—I know this has been said many times, but it is an unanswerable point—there will be absolutely no incentive for the EU to make any progress, and therefore it drives a coach and horses through our negotiating tactics.
I end with an argument that might appeal to the Labour party. At the October 1957 Labour party conference, Aneurin Bevan said:
“if you carry this resolution”—
the resolution was on unilateral disarmament—
“you will send a Foreign Secretary…naked into the conference chamber.”
That is what we will be doing if we pass this Bill, so let us compromise, let us draw together and let us get a deal.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port has been producing cars for over 50 years. It employs around 1,000 people, with many thousands more in the supply chain and associated businesses, but statements made by the parent group over the summer have made it crystal clear that the plant’s very existence is dependent on the UK avoiding a no-deal Brexit.
We know the plant faces challenges, as every car manufacturer does, but in the past, with the help of the Government, management and unions, everyone has pulled together to make it work, but now we have the absurdity of the Government actively pursuing a policy that will destroy the industry. WTO terms mean a 10% tariff on all car exports, and around 80% of the vehicles built in Ellesmere Port are exported to the EU. We know the plant just will not be able to compete with other plants across Europe with a 10% albatross around its neck. It is as stark as that: no deal means no Vauxhall.
I have always said that I will abide by the outcome of the referendum, but that does not mean I will do so at any cost, and certainly not at the cost of my constituents’ jobs, which is where we are now. The Government are effectively asking me to put my constituents on the dole queue, and I cannot in all conscience do that. I am astounded that any Government would choose that course of action, so let us be clear about where we are.
The Conservative party, which used to have a reputation as the party of business, has purged itself of 21 Members who voted against a policy that they know could knock 10% off the economy. If anyone had said a year ago that that is where we would find ourselves, I would not have believed them, but such is the reckless ideological madness we see from the Government. That is exactly where we are today.
The Prime Minister tells us that he cannot negotiate with the EU if a no deal is taken off the table, but given that he claims the primary change he wants to make is on the Irish backstop, which is a very specific issue, there seems to be no connection between the changes he says he wants to make and the need to keep the threat of no deal on the table.
I am, as many hon. Members are, at a loss to understand how the Prime Minister can reconcile his statement yesterday—that the first thing the EU asks in respect of any proposals made by the Government is whether they have the support of Parliament—with his refusal to share his proposals with Parliament. How can he say we would support his proposals if we do not even know what they are?
It is not only the automotive sector in my constituency that is under threat: aerospace, chemicals and petroleum, to name but three, employ thousands of people whose jobs are at risk from a no-deal Brexit. I have just come from a briefing by the Road Haulage Association, which has clearly said the sector is not ready for a no-deal Brexit on 31 October; it says that with just 42 working days left it still does not know what the customs documentation process will be or who it can go to for advice. It is doing what it can, but at the moment we face haulage businesses going bust and food rotting on lorries because it cannot be delivered on time, leaving aside the effect that will be had on medicine supplies.
So let us, as a country and as a Parliament, pull ourselves back from the edge at the eleventh hour. Let us have a moment of clarity. Let us have a moment of reason and of compromise, so that we do not force Brexit through by 31 October regardless of the consequences, because those consequences will be devastating and enduring, and they will do nothing to heal the deep divisions that have led us here in the first place.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
May I begin by paying tribute to the new hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds), who spoke with great distinction on behalf of her constituency?
As they indicated that they may have been making their final speeches in the House, may I also pay tribute to my colleagues the right hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who have served with great ability and courtesy throughout my time in the House?
The central issue before the House is whether the Government’s negotiation is sincere and deliverable. The Opposition have continued to refuse to vote for a deal, while making it clear that they will rule out no deal. As the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) pointed out, there is an inherent contradiction in that position.
The problem with this Bill is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made clear, that there is no incentive for the EU to move, because it gives the EU complete control of the outcome of these talks. Let me remind the House that President Tusk, and others within the EU, have repeatedly said that they do not want the UK to leave. He has said:
“If a deal is impossible, and no-one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?”
So let us be in no doubt: those on the other side of the negotiation do not want the UK to leave. They do not want to lose the financial contribution of 12% of the EU budget that the UK pays or the £1 billion per month that this extension will mean. So there will be no incentive for the EU to move and this, in practice, will be legislation that will act as purgatory and endless delay.
Stephen Doughty
Of course it was the Government’s own chief adviser who described the negotiations as “a sham”, so we know what is really going on. I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether it is true that members of the Government Legal Service have been requested, in the past two days, to provide advice on all tactics possible to avoid this Bill receiving Royal Assent. Is that true—yes or no?
Stephen Barclay
The Prime Minister addressed the issue about Royal Assent during his statement yesterday and Ministers abide by the code. The hon. Gentleman says that the negotiation is a sham, yet one should look at what the Commission has said. At Strasbourg, it said that alternative arrangements had merit as an alternative to the backstop. Just last month, the Council pledged, in its official guidelines on Brexit negotiations, “flexible and imaginative solutions.” Senior European figures claim the backstop will not be required. For example, a former German MEP and member of the European Parliament Brexit steering group said there was a
“99% chance that the backstop would never be used.”
Indeed, the issue arises because of the sequencing of talks, which was at the choice of the EU itself and left insufficient time for the negotiation. In fact, this issue should be addressed as part of the future economic relationship.
In addressing issues such as the claim made by those on the Opposition Benches, it is worth reflecting on the fact that the EU position has moved, from the language of “no change” to the withdrawal agreement to now saying that changes can be made if “legally operative text” on alternative arrangements can be found. It is worth contrasting Donald Tusk’s comments in June that
“nothing has changed when it comes to our position”,
with President Macron’s comments last month that he was “very confident” that the UK and EU would be able to find a solution
“if there is a good will on both sides”.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the truth not that Government Members just do not trust the Prime Minister any more than Opposition Members? When he went to Berlin on 21 August, the Prime Minister committed to presenting a deal within 30 days. We are now a third of the way through that timetable and the truth is that there is no deal. That is the problem.
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman says this is about trust in this Prime Minister, but he voted against the deal that the previous Prime Minister brought back three times. The trust is lacking in those who trusted the Labour manifesto that promised to respect the referendum result.
It is worth looking at the communiqué issued by the Commission at lunch time. I am sure Members will have read it and seen, first, very little detail on the Irish border, and, secondly, that the Commission’s objective in a no-deal situation would be
“a more stable solution for the period thereafter.”
So the Commission’s own communiqué falls short of the demand for an all-weather, all-insurance, legally operative text, which is the condition it has set the United Kingdom. The legal text by 31 October will of course set out the detail, but the test needs to be one that involves creativity and flexibility on both sides. It also needs to reflect the fact that the operational detail will be shaped by the Joint Committee during the implementation period. An illustration of that point can be seen in the response to the detail presented by the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) spoke about his concerns about the detail, but he will remember that when the previous Government simply presented detail against that all-weather test, the Commission dismissed it as purely magical thinking.
Lady Hermon
My patience has been rewarded; I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene.
The Secretary of State will be well aware that the Prime Minister claimed in August that the backstop contravenes the consent principle in the Good Friday agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to correct the record? The backstop in no way compromises the consent principle in the Good Friday agreement. It is important to have that on the record.
Stephen Barclay
There are two issues in relation to that point. First, the Prime Minister has concerns about the rule-taking element of the backstop, under which those in Northern Ireland will continue to take rules on which they will not have a say. Secondly, there is the concern that the element of consent from both parts of the community in Northern Ireland is undermined.
To address the hon. Lady’s earlier intervention in respect of contact with the Irish Government, the Prime Minister will discuss the issues around the alternative arrangements with the Taoiseach on Monday. That will build on considerable other interaction with the Irish Government—for example, I had a meeting with Simon Coveney in the Irish embassy in Paris last week, and the Foreign Secretary met him in the same week. There has been extensive contact with the Irish Government.
The Prime Minister’s EU sherpa is in Brussels today. The last round of technical talks was last week and he will have further talks on Wednesday to explore much of this detail. But the detail needs to be in place at the end of the implementation period, which is the end of 2020—or even potentially, by mutual agreement, at the end of a further one or two years. The timescale, therefore, is realistic and negotiable—
Stephen Barclay
The Bill? I am very happy to talk about the Bill. The issue for the hon. Gentleman is that he talks about voting against no deal, but he should come clean and admit that actually he is opposed to Brexit entirely. The public want Brexit delivered. The business community wants certainty. The Bill will leave our negotiations in purgatory, with a third extension after more than three years. Much has been made about parliamentary time—about the period between now and 14 October—but the EU itself says that a deal would not be struck until the eleventh hour, and that it would take until 17 October for the EU Council to reach a decision. The issue is not the time that is spent in September, but the time between 17 October and 31 October.
Over the summer, this new Government have narrowed their negotiating asks, as set out in the letter to President Tusk. They have targeted their request on the withdrawal agreement and a best-in-class free trade agreement. This is a Bill that is intended to stop Brexit. I urge colleagues to oppose it.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Wednesday 4th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 September 2019 - (4 Sep 2019)
19:00 - The Committee havind divided: - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 495 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. We are about to debate in Committee, under your chairmanship, amendments that are not available to Members. I have just been to the Vote Office to try to find the amendments. [Interruption.] They have become available now, but they were not available five minutes ago. How can we possibly debate such an important issue without the amendments being released earlier?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The amendments have not yet been selected for voting. They were allowed to be tabled until 5 o’clock, so there had to be time for that. If you were to go now, they should be listed, but the amendments to be voted on have not been chosen yet. During the next two hours, I am sure that a man as competent as yourself will keep up with what changes may come.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
I am confident of that.
Clause 1
Duties in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
‘(1A) After this Act has been passed, but no later than 21 October 2019, the Prime Minister of State must make arrangements for—
(a) motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, to be moved in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the agreement, to be moved in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown.
(1B) If the House of Commons decides to approve the motion in paragraph (a), subsection (4) must be complied with.’
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that debate takes place after the European Council meeting on 17/18 October 2019 on either the existing withdrawal agreement or any new withdrawal agreement that may have been agreed.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 9, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) If the condition in subsection (1) is not satisfied, subsection (4) shall apply.’
Amendment 10, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The Prime Minister shall seek to discuss with the European Council a further short extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in Schedule [Form of letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the European Council (No. 2)].’
Amendment 20, page 2, line 12, leave out from “2019” to end of line 17.
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that if the House of Commons approves a withdrawal agreement, the Prime Minister must seek an extension of the period under Article 50(3) TEU.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 14, at end, insert
‘in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.’
This amendment would set out as the purpose of seeking an extension under Article 50(3) TEU the passage of a Withdrawal Agreement Bill based on the outcome of the inter-party talks which concluded in May 2019 – see NC1 for contents of the Bill and Amendment XX for text of the request letter to the European Council.
Amendment 11, page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (5).
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 2, line 43, leave out subsections (1) to (3).
The intention of this Amendment is to remove the requirement to accept whatever extension is decided on by the European Council while preserving the flexibility in subsection (4) to agree an extension otherwise than under this Act.
Amendment 25, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 23, page 3, line 19, leave out “section” and insert “Act”.
The Amendment is consequential on Amendment 22 leaving out subsections 3(1) to 3(3).
Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
Amendment 15, in clause 5, page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 16, page 3, line 35, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
‘(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(5A) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(5B) No regulations may be made under subsection (5A) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
Amendment 17, page 3, line 35, leave out from “force” to end and insert “on 22 October 2019.”
Clause 5 stand part.
New clause 1—Publication of Withdrawal Agreement Bill—
‘(1) The Prime Minister must within the period of five days, not including any Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed publish a copy of a draft Bill to implement the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
(2) The draft Bill must include provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular—
(a) provision for the Government to seek to conclude alternative arrangements to replace the backstop by December 2020;
(b) a commitment that, should the backstop come into force, the Government will ensure that Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland and to incorporate in United Kingdom law paragraph 50 of the 2017 joint report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the European Union (TF50 (2017) 19);
(c) provision for the negotiating objectives and final treaties for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union to be approved by the House of Commons;
(d) legislation on workers’ rights to guarantee workers’ rights in the future in the United Kingdom will be no less favourable than comparable workers’ rights in the European Union;
(e) provisions ensuring that there will be no change in the level of environmental protection applicable in the United Kingdom after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, and to establish an independent office of environmental protection, able to uphold standards and enforce compliance;
(f) a requirement for the United Kingdom to seek as close to frictionless trade in goods with the European Union as possible, while outside the single market and ending free movement;
(g) a requirement for the United Kingdom to keep up to date with European Union rules for goods and agri-food products that are relevant to checks at the border in order to protect employment that depends on just-in-time supply chains;
(h) a customs compromise for the House of Commons to decide upon;
(i) an opportunity for a decision to be made by the House of Commons whether the implementation of the withdrawal agreement should be subject to a referendum; and
(j) a duty for Ministers of the Crown to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the provisions in this subsection.’
This New Clause would require the publication of a Withdrawal Agreement Bill incorporating the ten headline points from the inter-party talks which concluded in May 2019.
Amendment 7, schedule, page 4, line 10, at end insert
‘I wish to make clear to European Council colleagues that the purpose of this proposed extension is for the UK Parliament to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.’
This amendment would require the Prime Minister to set out in the letter to the President of the European Council seeking an extension under Article 50(3) TEU that the reason for seeking an extension is to pass a Withdrawal Agreement Bill based on the outcome of the inter-party talks which concluded in May 2019 — see NC1 for contents of the Bill.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
New schedule 2—Form of letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the European Council—
‘Dear Mr President
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek to discuss an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom wishes to discuss a further short extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.’
Richard Graham
I rise to seek colleagues’ patience in proposing something that I believe is a compromise that many Members in this House have long sought and many people have expressed support for. The compromise goes like this. There are many of us on both sides of this House who do not want no deal and yet, as has been pointed out by many Members, including the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), many colleagues have not supported a deal. My simple amendment to the Bill would require the Government to have a vote on Monday 21 October—the first sitting day after the EU Council—on a deal, whether it be a new deal or the previous deal. Should that vote be successful and approved by Members of this House, the Government would be required, if they needed more time, to ask for an extension from the European Union, purely in order to get the legislation through Parliament.
Whereas other amendments that will be debated today require the Government to ask for an extension and then set about trying to find the deal, mine does the opposite. It gives us all the chance to vote for either the existing deal previously negotiated by the last Government or whatever new deal is successfully negotiated by the new Government. That means that everyone in this House who wishes to prevent no deal would have the chance to do so by voting for that deal. I hope that many colleagues around this House who have been able to prevent making a decision between a deal and no deal would realise that that was the last chance to do that—merely a week before no deal became the default on 31 October.
I know there are some colleagues for whom the business of asking for an extension is part of the circuit of trying to prevent Brexit from happening at all, and I understand that. However, I believe there may be a majority in this House who have accepted the will of the people in the referendum, and who have said and told their constituents that they respect the referendum result, and a lot of us were elected on a manifesto pledge to do so. This would be the moment when we could put that to the test and vote for a deal.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment mentions our having a motion of the House. The last time we had a withdrawal agreement motion, we had five days of debate. Is there sufficient time to have five days of debate before 31 October, if we pass his amendment?
Richard Graham
The short answer to that is almost certainly no. However, we have had not just five days of debate, but weeks and months and years of debate on these issues. The previous deal, which I regarded as a good deal, was debated ad infinitum in this House. I do not believe that we would need five more days of debate to be able to reach a decision about whether we wanted a deal or no deal.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says that he regarded that deal as a good deal. However, a very large number of Members in this House do not regard it as a good deal. His amendment, proposed in the way it is, seems to suggest that this is a binary choice. It is not a binary choice. We want a deal that actually satisfies the reasons why we think we need to get the best out of a Brexit deal or remain, and this does not enable us to do that.
Richard Graham
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point of view. There are 650 Members of this House, all of whom, if we designed the perfect deal ourselves individually, would have differences from each other. However, we are at the stage where I believe the vast majority of people in this country want this issue resolved. Therefore, if we are to decide whether we want to accept a default position of no deal because we cannot reach agreement on a deal, this would be the moment for all of us to ask ourselves what we really want: do we really want a deal at all, or are we prepared to go straight to a no deal?
My amendment does not call for the Government to have a vote on no deal. It accepts that, if the vote for a deal were lost, this Parliament would have had myriad opportunities to support a deal and would, in that situation, have failed. I believe this amendment is fair to almost every point of view in this House. It gives us all one last chance to vote for a deal if we do not want no deal.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is of course predicated on the Prime Minister actually negotiating a new deal. What evidence does he have, because I cannot see any, of there even being a negotiating team in place, as the 30 days evaporate like snow off a dyke? Can he show us that there is any evidence of a new deal coming back from this Prime Minister?
Richard Graham
In fact, the hon. Gentleman misreads part of the point of my amendment, which is not to prejudge whether or not the Prime Minister and this Government come back with a deal. I believe the Government are genuinely trying to get a deal, but it is perfectly possible either that they do not succeed, or—this would be the hon. Gentleman’s view—that they are not really trying that hard. In either of those events, my amendment would allow this House to vote on the deal that was put before this House previously. It would give everybody one more chance—the hon. Gentleman’s party says it is against no deal—a chance to vote for a deal. If, in that situation, the House were to say, “We don’t like this deal: it’s not good enough for us”, there could be no hiding from anyone in this country about why we had gone for no deal. It would be because this House failed the final opportunity to prevent that. I believe, in that situation, this is fair to everyone.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Surely, the withdrawal agreement was rejected on the three times that it came to the House, and the backstop was a clear issue on each of those three times. If that continues to be the case, would the hon. Gentleman still insist on pushing for a withdrawal agreement that insists on the backstop? Clearly, for us, the backstop has to be removed, and that is the opinion of the Prime Minister, and, I understand, this Government.
Richard Graham
My amendment suggests that there are three options for this House to vote for on Monday 21 October. The first is the withdrawal agreement as it was presented to the House previously. The second is the withdrawal agreement plus the cross-party agreement that was reached, but was never voted on in this House. The third is any new deal arrived at by the Government. In that situation, Members would have the chance to vote for a deal and prevent no deal, which many of us feel could have dire consequences.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is coming up with such sensible provisions. Does he agree that this would smoke out those who claim to want to avoid no deal but, truth be told, vote against every route to avoid it? This would smoke them out. If they vote for this, they will truly be avoiding no deal.
Richard Graham
My constituency neighbour is absolutely right, but my aim is not so much to smoke out—to use his phrase—the motives and underlying thoughts of colleagues across this House, but to give all of us the opportunity to say, ultimately, what we really prefer: is it a deal or is it no deal? In that sense, he is absolutely right.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the thoughtful way in which he is setting out his case. He and I both just voted against the principle of this Bill on Second Reading, largely because we want the Prime Minister to have the strongest possible hand in his negotiations with the European Union. I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response, but does my hon. Friend think that by agreeing this amendment tonight the House would in any way weaken the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand?
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One reason I drafted this very short amendment in the way that I did, with the help of the Clerks, was precisely not to take away the pads or gloves of the Government’s batsmen when they go into negotiations with the European Union, because this way would not predetermine the result of their negotiations at all. It would allow them to seek the deal that I believe—contrary to what some colleagues from the Scottish National party are saying—they are sincere about. If they were unsuccessful, it would still give the rest of us a chance to have a vote on a deal before no deal became the default option, so she is absolutely correct. This is not designed to weaken the Government’s stance in any way, but rather to allow their sincerity to give us the chance to express our view.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant contribution in bringing forward this amendment. I voted for the withdrawal agreement. I was proud to do so, because the only way to stop no deal is to vote for a deal. I hope and expect that our new Prime Minister will get an even better deal than the last one, but my hon. Friend’s amendment really would preserve the freedom of action of this House and give us a lifeboat if things went wrong. I will support it in the strongest possible terms.
Richard Graham
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the key point: when constituents ask us, “Will this House have the final say before we go to a no-deal exit from the European Union?”, my answer is that I believe we should have a chance to vote once more, and this amendment would provide that.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Given what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and what he is saying, some of us are concerned that the Prime Minister is talking of a cut-and-run general election before the calamity befalls him on Halloween. The hon. Gentleman, I take it, would never under any circumstances support a cut-and-run general election before the Halloween calamity of the Prime Minister’s Brexit.
Richard Graham
It is a perfectly valid point that this short amendment does not allow for every conceivable possibility that might exist out there. It does not—unlike this Bill, tabled by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—sketch out the precise wording of the letter that the Prime Minister should write to the European Union, for example. The Prime Minister said that Parliament would be prorogued until 14 October, after which the European Council meets. Monday 21 October is the first sitting day after that Council. It is to me—I may be naïve—inconceivable that the Government would not be here that day and would not allow that debate if Parliament had passed this amendment. I am, to some extent, taking on faith what I, and we, have been told about this Government’s plans, but I believe that that is a reasonable position to take.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. Before the next speaker, in these days of Twitter I would just like to correct the amendment paper. Some people might be surprised to find my name leading amendments with the hon. Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), although probably not as surprised as those right hon. and hon. Members. [Laughter.] I would just like everybody to know that this is a drafting error. It can happen from time to time and I am not bothered in any sense, but I just wanted to make that clear.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
That is a great point of correction. I think the hon. Gentleman would be very dizzy if he went that far south.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of amendments 6 and 7 and new clause 1, which have been tabled in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and many other Members across the Committee. Before I do, however, I want to briefly say that I will be voting for the Bill this evening. That is because I have always been clear that the worst possible Brexit outcome would be a catastrophic no-deal crash-out that severely damages the security and economy of our country and our communities. This is why an extension of any kind is far superior to crashing out on 31 October.
I and other colleagues from across the Committee are, however, deeply concerned that it is nearly three years since MPs voted to trigger article 50 to leave the EU and our nation is still stuck in limbo. We believe that if the UK does not specify the purpose of the extension, we will end up in exactly the same position on 4 January as we are in today on 4 September. The public are getting increasingly tired of this and, like Parliament, increasingly polarised. Finding compromise, or indeed any route forward, will only become more difficult as time goes on. A further extension to the timetable to leave the EU without a very good, clearly defined purpose will leave most of the country banging their heads against a brick wall. The public are fed up of talking and hearing about Brexit. Most people, regardless of what some campaigners may like to tell themselves, would like to see the referendum result honoured. Therefore, amendments 6 and 7, together with new clause 1, aim to set a purpose for the extension request until 31 January. The explicit purpose, we state, should be to pass a Brexit Bill, and, more specifically, to pass something similar to the withdrawal agreement Bill that was drafted in May 2019 as a result of cross-party talks.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I have worked with the hon. Gentleman on a couple of issues over the past few years and I think he does want to make good on the referendum. The problem with his extension, of course, is that we have repeatedly heard from Members saying that they want to respect the will of the referendum, but every time we come to a vote on the matter there is always a reason why they cannot quite bring themselves to trot into the Lobby and vote for the withdrawal agreement. We have had three occasions on which we could have voted for the withdrawal agreement, and four other occasions on which to express an opinion in favour of Norway, the European Free Trade Association or the European economic area. Every single time, the same MPs trot up and say they support the referendum result but when it comes to the vote they vote to block Brexit, so what is going to be different this time?
Stephen Kinnock
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the meaningful votes that took place are a very different kettle of fish from what was produced by the cross-party talks. As I will say later in my speech, the cross-party talks contained a number of extremely important compromises and concessions from Labour Members. It is therefore a travesty that this Parliament never had the opportunity to debate or vote on the withdrawal agreement Bill. It is a different kettle of fish from what went before. For those with short memories, the withdrawal agreement Bill was very different from the former Prime Minister’s initial so-called “blind Brexit”—which was rejected three times by this House—because it contained 10 major concessions that gave far more clarity on the UK-EU relationship. We were not prepared to give carte blanche to the Government.
The cross-party talks gave the detail that we need. That was a direct result of the hard work of Opposition and Government Front Benchers and negotiating teams over the course of six weeks of serious talks. The concessions included a customs union compromise, with a binding vote on post-Brexit customs arrangements; a workers’ rights Bill that would guarantee that employment rights in the UK would not lag behind those of the EU; a pledge that the UK would see no change in the level of environmental protection after Brexit; a promise to seek as close to frictionless trade in goods with the EU as possible while being outside the single market and ending free movement; a commitment to having parliamentary time to allow for a vote at Committee stage on whether the deal should be put to a second referendum; an assurance to MPs that they must have the final say on the future UK’s relationship with the EU; and a promise that Northern Ireland would stay aligned with the rest of the UK on regulations and customs, even if the backstop were to come into force.
Harriett Baldwin
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman is approaching this debate and his amendments. Will he clarify whether the 10 changes that he outlines would involve changing anything in the 585-page withdrawal agreement?
Stephen Kinnock
The 585-page withdrawal agreement would remain intact, because those are the separation issues. All these issues relate to the future relationship, which the EU has made clear it is open to amending. The future relationship is, of course, a political declaration. The reasons why Labour Members were opposed to previous deals were that there was so little detail on the future relationship, and frankly, that we had said repeatedly that the Government should, rather than going to the wrong extreme in this debate, reach out to Labour Members. Finally, the former Prime Minister agreed to do that. We had the cross-party talks, and it is a travesty that this House never had the opportunity to debate and vote on those issues.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
As someone who feels very strongly that the polarisation in this debate has been immensely damaging for our country and that there are not enough people finding ways of bringing our country back together again, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he shares my view that this is a route to achieving a compromise—an art that appears to have been lost in this place at present—and perhaps a way for someone such as me, who believes in a relationship that is akin to what Norway has, to find a way forward and achieve a compromise that not only meets the obligation of implementing the referendum outcome, but recognises the views of many people about the need to maintain a very close relationship with the EU?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for adding his name to our amendment. I agree with every word that he said. Let us not forget that a Parliament that is captured by its extremes is one that plays directly into the hands of the no-dealers, because the legal default position is that if there is no alternative, we leave without a deal. The failure to compromise has played directly into the hands of the no-dealers, who are a small minority in this House. The tail has been wagging the dog for too long. It is time for it to stop. The Committee stage of a withdrawal agreement Bill would provide ample opportunity for amendments such as a common market 2.0 type of arrangement, but that has to be debated in this House in Committee. Let us first get it over the line on Second Reading.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is proposing a compromise, which I appreciate—it is time that Members started to vote for things, rather than just against things—and he says he wants greater detail. I served under my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) in the Cabinet Office, and as we know there was no cross-party Front-Bench agreement on these measures. Even if we were to go forward with this compromise, he would not have his Front Benchers behind him, so how can we get behind it?
Stephen Kinnock
I was not party to the decision taken not to support the withdrawal agreement Bill, which included the 10 concessions our negotiating team did such a great job in securing, and I regret it. It is a tragedy that the House has never had the opportunity to debate or vote on the withdrawal agreement Bill. I truly hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will tonight join me and other colleagues in the Division Lobby to make it clear that it is time to vote for something, not just against things.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman knows from the Second Reading debate, I have a good deal of sympathy with the approach he is setting out. I appreciate, too, that he is recommending to the House that we pass amendments 6 and 7 as well as new clause 1. If I were minded to support new clause 1 but not amendments 6 and 7, would I effectively be presenting an option that everyone in the House could choose to adopt, in preference to no deal and no Brexit, and that the Government could bring forward so that there was an option for us all to pursue, but then if the Government were to themselves negotiate a separate deal, nothing in new clause 1 would prevent them from proposing that option?
Stephen Kinnock
I can confirm that we are saying in the amendments that the vote should reflect the outcome of the cross-party talks, but clearly this is not about setting that in stone. The current Prime Minister is welcome—good luck to him—to go to Brussels and try to get a deal. I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I am sceptical about whether serious attempts are being made to do that, but if he is able to secure changes that he feels he can bring back, clearly they would still have to be based on that 585-page document, which is the basic building block for a deal. It will not be torn up by the EU.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
As the hon. Gentleman says, the House has never voted on the proposal that so nearly came forward. I think I would have supported it had it got that far. Does he agree that had the whole House realised then what form subsequent events would take to lead us to today and what would happen to public opinion in the ever increasingly wild debate that followed—if the vote could have been taken with that foresight—it would have been carried by a large majority in this House, that the withdrawal deal, as amended, would now be in place, and that we would now be able to have civilised and sensible debates about the long-term arrangements to be agreed during the transition period?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Father of the House. Like many Members, I wish that crystal balls had been handed out when we first came to this place. Unfortunately, that was not the case. It goes back to what he said earlier—Parliament and the debate have been captured by the extremes, and we have to move on from that. We have to break the deadlock and find a sustainable way of preventing no deal, and the way to do that is to leave with a deal.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and his colleagues have put forward a very interesting amendment indeed. Could he clarify what discussions he has had with the Opposition Front Benchers about the amendments and what response he has had from them?
Stephen Kinnock
I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, but at present I have not had a conversation with our Front Benchers on this topic.
My party’s Brexit spokesperson, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made it clear in an interview on last weekend’s Marr show that Labour only withdrew from the talks due to the inability of the former Prime Minister to deliver her own party. He stated:
“We took a judgement call that some of the proposals that the Prime Minister put forward she would not be able to get through her own party”.
I think this confirms that our side was ready to compromise on a deal if the Prime Minister could have delivered her own party. The good will was clearly there. Now all the focus should be on finding a way to put that deal back on the table, to study it, to debate it, to amend it, to vote on it, and ultimately to use it as the basic vehicle for sorting out the shambolic situation we find ourselves in.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I appreciate the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I agreed with his opening remark that we want this to be over with and to move on, but my worry is this. Does not his idea require guarantees and statements from the European Union? What would they be, and how could we secure them?
Stephen Kinnock
At the heart of our amendment, and of the withdrawal agreement Bill, is a document that has absolutely been signed off by the EU27. It is there; it is ready to go; it is off the shelf. The changes—the 10 concessions—relate to the political declaration on the future relationship. So the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that the European Union would, I think, bite our arms off if we were able to come forward and say, “This is the deal. It needs some tweaks, but, in essence, this is where we need to go.” That is why I think it is so vital for us to use the extension period for a purpose.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I am sorry that there are so many questions, but it is interesting to note that when there is a sensible suggestion the House is genuinely interested in trying to establish some consensus, and in that spirit I ask a slightly cheeky question. Were one to have committed oneself to “do or die” by 31 October, is there any way in which we could get this consensus—this new idea—through the House before that date without relying on the extension?
Stephen Kinnock
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said on Second Reading, we are ready to work every hour of every day, 24/7. The 31 January date is named in the extension document, but if we can get this done before then, and indeed before 31 October, yes—and the huge advantage is that it is on the shelf and ready to go.
We would not have to accept the withdrawal agreement Bill as it stands in its entirety. We could add amendments in Committee; we could improve it, just as with any other legislation. Those who are campaigning for a second referendum can even try again to add a confirmatory vote in Committee, if that is the way they wish to go. As I said earlier, I myself would consider trying to introduce something nearer to a common market 2.0 approach. All those options would be open to us in Committee, but we have to get the Bill over the line on Second Reading. The reality is that whatever angle we are coming from in this deeply divided and fragmented House, the withdrawal agreement Bill is the only game in town if we want to make progress.
Our second substantive proposal calls on the Government to publish a copy of the draft Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union within five working days. The draft Bill must include provisions reflecting the outcome of the inter-party talks. We know that that document exists, and we need to see it published so that we can give it the scrutiny that it requires.
For any Member who supports either a deal-based Brexit or even a second referendum, supporting our amendments is the most sensible and pragmatic approach, and the way forward. Let us get this done. Let us rediscover the lost art of compromise. Let us move our country forward, on to the issues that matter to people up and down the country.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that he has reached his peroration, but may I ask him a simple question? Has he checked with his Front Benchers that they would support his amendment if he were to press it?
Stephen Kinnock
I understand that our position at the present time would be to abstain, but I am not 100% sure of that. I really hope that, having listened to the debate, colleagues throughout the House will consider supporting the amendment, because I think that given the amount of support that we are receiving from Members on both sides of the House, we have a real chance of getting this across the line.
Albert Owen
In new clause 1(2)(b), my hon. Friend talks of alignment with Northern Ireland. Is he saying that the whole United Kingdom—all four nations—would be in a single market until such time as the Europeans reached an agreement during the transition period?
Stephen Kinnock
That is correct. The commitment in the clarifications of the withdrawal agreement Bill makes it clear that that will be the case until such time as alternative arrangements are found. I will be absolutely frank: the backstop is at the heart of the withdrawal agreement Bill, but if Members really boil it down, how many in this House are actually opposed to it? I am a big fan of the backstop because I believe the backstop protects peace in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the withdrawal agreement, which has the backstop at its heart. There are a maximum of 50, or 60 maybe, Members of Parliament who are opposed to the backstop, and as a result we are in the mess we are in now; it is the definition of the cliché “the tail wagging the dog”, and it has to stop.
Let us move forward. Let us get back to the issues that people really care about on the doorstep: education, health, housing and cutting crime. Do we remember when we used to discuss those issues in politics—the vital bread-and-butter issues that really matter to our communities?
This House has been paralysed by its extremes; it is time to break the deadlock, and I hope that colleagues will join us in the Division Lobby later in that spirit.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. To help the situation for Members, nothing has been selected for votes as yet, so let’s hope that people will be happy.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The question I raise in this series of amendments relates in particular, as I said in my brief speech just now, to the extent to which the United Kingdom is put under a duty—an obligation —to be subservient to the European Union. I find this Bill deeply offensive for that reason alone, and, as I said earlier, our whole parliamentary constitutional arrangement is based on the fact that we make decisions in general elections by the free will of the British people in a secret ballot. When those decisions are taken and the results come out in the respective constituencies and a majority or otherwise is arrived at to decide upon the composition of this House of Commons, that is a free Parliament based on a secret ballot and on the free choice of the British people.
I believe that we are heading for a general election, and I think that that will sort out a lot of the problems we are currently experiencing with this Bill and, indeed, in relation to the whole question of satisfying the decision taken by the British people in the referendum, and indeed by this House on frequent occasions with the referendum Act itself by six to one, the notification of withdrawal Act by 499 to 120, and then again the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Every single Conservative MP voted for that Act, which clearly stated that we would leave the European Union and repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day, which is 31 October. That is categorically the law of the land, so the whole concept of our democracy, which is somehow or other being subverted by this Bill, is actually already in place; this has been decided and I see absolutely no justification whatsoever for seeking to reverse it. I also see no justification for reversing the votes that my hon. Friends have themselves already cast over and over again in favour of not only the referendum Act—it was also in the manifesto—but the notification of withdrawal Act, and the withdrawal Act itself?
So I can see no justification for the majority in this House, because although this measure scraped through by 29 votes, we know where the votes came from. There is no doubt about it; they came from former Conservative Members of Parliament, and some who are unfortunately —I think by their own choice—in a position where they have had the Whip taken away from them.
I regret that; I saw it happen on a previous occasion with the Maastricht treaty, although it did not happen to me personally, but I can only say that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. Friend nods his head, because that is true, and that is how it goes.
John Redwood
But is not the fundamental unacceptable point about this piece of draft legislation the way in which it allows the EU to dictate to the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister any terms it likes and leaves us no bargaining position whatsoever?
Sir William Cash
That is absolutely right, and that is why, in my short speech earlier, I said that this should be called not the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill but the European Union (Subservience) Bill. This is a subjugation, and we have experienced this. That is why I called on the previous Prime Minister to resign. We had a capitulation on 11 April; we had a flurry of points of order, then we had a statement that afternoon, at which point I asked her whether she would resign, because she had capitulated. This Bill is a mirror image of that, but in a way it is even worse, because it places a legal duty on the Prime Minister—enforceable by judicial review if it came to it—to carry out this act of political suicide. Members on the Opposition Benches really ought to reflect on the full extent and nature of the subservience, subjugation and vassalage that they are putting the United Kingdom in. It is a total and utter disgrace. It flies in the face not only of the referendum result itself but of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which specifically states:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”
Exit day is prescribed as 31 October.
I want to add another point, which is about money. Does the self-indulgence of the people who voted for this bear in mind the fact that every single month that has gone by since the end of March, when we should have come out, is costing about £1.2 billion? Every time they go in for this self-flagellation and this unbelievable determination to extend the period of time—for no purpose whatsoever, because they will never come to an agreement—it is costing the British taxpayer, the people we represent. This is a denial of the democracy that they expressed in the referendum, which we in this House specifically gave to them to decide. We did not say, “Oh, we’re giving you this right under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 to make a decision on whether we stay or leave, but actually when it comes to it, if we don’t like the outcome, we are going to turn turtle on you and reverse that decision in Parliament.” Parliament, by a sovereign Act that is still on the statute book, gave the right to the British people undeniably and deliberately to make that decision of their own account, and not ourselves.
An astonishing illustration of what I am saying is to be found in clause 3(2) of the Bill, which states:
“If the European Council decides to agree an extension of the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019, but to a date other than 11.00 pm on 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister must, within a period of two days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made, or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension.”
This is the enforceable duty. This is the insane provision that is being imposed on us in defiance of our constitutional arrangement that decisions are taken not by individual Members of Parliament in a private Member’s Bill but by the elected Government, in line with the referendum decision. So the Prime Minister would be under an obligation within a period of two days—beginning with the end of the day on which the Council’s decision is made, or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner—to notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agreed to the proposed extension. So, it is not just that we are going to be saddled with a decision on an extension to 31 January 2020 to the cost of something well over £3 billion, because if the Council agrees, we would then be under an obligation to accept whatever date it puts forward, being a date other than a period ending 11 pm on 31 January 2020. It is strange to say that I have not heard that point being explained by the proponents of this Bill. I heard the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) giving a description on Second Reading of what the Bill is about, but I did not hear him say what I have just said. I would like him to get up and deny it if what I have just read, which is in the text of the Bill, is wrong.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I did directly address that question in my speech on Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman has not read clause 3(3), which explains the circumstances in which subsection (2), to which he has such objection, would not apply.
Sir William Cash
I do not think that that is really an excuse, because the reality is that this is the decision—[Interruption.] I will read out the subsection to which the right hon. Gentleman just referred. It states that
“subsection (2) does not apply if the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
‘That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.’”
However, the likelihood of that not happening is absurd. I really do think that this is just another example of the kind of obfuscation which this Bill provides in almost every clause. In fact, it is not just obfuscation, because it drives a coach and horses through the way in which we should be and have been governed.
Mr Duncan Smith
A valuable point was raised earlier that also explains how this Bill is problematic, which is that clause 3 assumes that the EU would in some way make a conditional offer. However, the EU is in control of whether it makes any kind of offer—conditional or not—so the Bill hinges on the EU’s ability or desire to do that, which of course probably will not happen, and it is not meant to, anyway.
Sir William Cash
That is true. Indeed, we had all this back in April when, if one looks at the text of the decision and the manner in which it has taken, one can see that it was hedged with certain conditions. What is going on here is that this Bill is driving us to do something that is in complete contravention to the decision that has been taken already in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which itself implements the decision that was taken by the British people. This Bill undermines the referendum, it undermines the law of the land as expressed in section 1 of the 2018 Act, and the commencement order has already been made.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for bringing in that commencement order, which makes things a done deal. We are now in a position whereby we have repealed the European Communities Act 1972, subject only to the fact that the law of the land says that that will have effect on 31 October. This Bill is a monstrous piece of legislation designed to turn inside out not only our constitutional arrangements, but the decision of the British people in the referendum and Government policy.
The Prime Minister established another important point in his leadership election result. He got two thirds of the parliamentary Conservative party to vote for him, and he got two thirds of the grassroots—the associations—to vote for him. If ever a Prime Minister had a mandate to make such decisions within the framework of the Conservative party, it is there, which is another reason why I take exception to the fact that this Bill is going through because a number of colleagues—I am sorry to have to say this, because it is a sad business—are flying in the face of the mandate that the Prime Minister got within the framework of the Conservative party.
There is no doubt whatsoever that, within the framework of our constitution—and I will conclude with these words—it is simply monstrous that we should be put in a position where a judicial duty is imposed on the Prime Minister to make a decision under the terms of this Bill. Frankly, I find it inconceivable that anyone could possibly vote for it.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) who, as always, is on the side of the optimists rather than the defeatists.
Listening to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), with whom I have had the pleasure of serving on the Brexit Committee, I fear he is a pessimist in this. He thinks we need a compromise, but he does not talk about the need for the European Union to compromise. He talks only about the need for the United Kingdom to compromise, in the face of a clear commitment by the British people to leave the European Union.
I will speak briefly to the amendments in my name and in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Three years ago, the people of the United Kingdom instructed us, with the largest democratic mandate in our history, to obtain a divorce from the European Union and, in March 2017, Parliament accepted that instruction by giving notice under article 50 of the EU treaty.
Article 50 makes provision for an amicable divorce or for a divorce without agreement. In a traditional divorce to dissolve a marriage, both parties accept the irretrievable breakdown and try to agree sensible future arrangements, but the EU has never accepted Brexit. The EU and its institutions do not want a divorce. If there was any doubt about that, it has been made clear to us on the Brexit Committee whenever we have visited the European institutions and their leaders that the EU is just hoping and praying that Brexit will go away and that we will remain in the European Union.
They do not want a divorce, so their motivation is to contest that divorce by putting forward unreasonable and unacceptable terms that offer us only a punishment deal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) anticipated that in her Lancaster House speech, in which she said she feared that that might be the approach of the European Union, that it would be intent on offering us a punishment deal.
That is exactly what the EU has done, and the only alternative to a punishment deal under article 50 is no deal. Unless amended, this Bill will remove even that option, which enables us to put pressure on the European Union to come to the negotiating table to talk about a better deal.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, this is a dreadful deal that has already been rejected by the House on several occasions. With this Bill, are we really going to be left with the options of either no Brexit or Brexit in name only? That is essentially what we are talking about tonight.
The United Kingdom’s freedom to divorce under article 50 is constrained by this Bill by being made subject to an EU veto that enables the EU to block Brexit, effectively indefinitely, unless or until the UK reneges on the decision of a referendum. The Bill removes any incentive for the EU to negotiate, which is why the Prime Minister is right. If this Bill passes tonight, we will take away from him any opportunity to negotiate. All he could do is be a supplicant at the table of the European Union. In effect, this would be an example of modern international slavery, where we are imprisoned by the EU with no reasonable way out.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will not give way. My right hon. Friend has now dropped that pretence, telling us yesterday that this Bill will show whether or not the House of Commons accepts a policy of a no-deal exit. He is saying that if this Bill carries on into law, we will be telling the EU, “Not to worry, in no circumstances will we be leaving without a deal.” In other words, we will be throwing in the towel to the EU. Nothing in this Bill is related to the no-deal preparations or recognises that since the change of Government expenditure on no deal has increased dramatically and that we are now in a position where we will be prepared for no deal—we should have been better prepared for it in the first place.
If the remoaners had the guts, they would have brought forward a Bill to revoke article 50, which is what they want in their hearts and what the EU wants, but they know that that would be resoundingly defeated if it were presented to this House. What we have instead is the revocation of article 50 in all but name—a device to deceive the public. This is a squalid little Bill. It is an affront to Parliament, to democracy and to the people, because it enslaves the UK to the EU. It relegates us to the status of a colony. It treats the UK as though we had been vanquished in war, by giving the EU the power to dictate the terms of our surrender. I despair at the defeatism of so many of my colleagues, and I hope that we will fight back and win in a general election, for which I cannot wait.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for whom I have great respect, to compare what we are talking about now with slavery, which, around the world, is a most terrible thing and—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making, and indeed his dedication to fighting that particular evil, but that is a debating point, not a point of order, and we do not have time this afternoon.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am going to be brief, as I know many others want to get in, Dame Eleanor. I wish to compare a couple of these amendments and say a few words as to why this Bill is a very bad one. First, let me say to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is, sadly, no longer in his seat, that his is a genuine attempt to find a way forward. I have just been reading it, having just looked at it, and it is intriguing. He is specific in one of his amendments, saying that the purpose of the letter to extend would be to
“include provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019”.
As I say, this is a genuine attempt being made by those who really do think that this House stands in serious danger of being perceived by the public more and more as having taken the position that nothing will satisfy it and that the only thing that it wants at the end of it all is to defy the decision taken at the time of the referendum. That is very much the opinion growing out there, and I was intrigued when the hon. Gentleman made the point that we in this place are now being perceived as a Parliament opposed to the people, not a Parliament to represent them. The people voted to leave, whether we liked it or not, and now this Parliament seems set on a course to obfuscate and delay that, with a view to overturning it eventually.
There is no question in my mind about the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate observations—we get on very well and play football together, so I am slightly in favour of him anyway—but although he said the talks were good, the problem was that at no stage did his Front-Bench colleagues conduct them in a genuine sense. The truth was that they probably never intended to agree anything with my right hon. and hon. Friends who were in government at the time. I had a whispered exchange with the Father of the House, and he made the point that one reason for that was probably that they were under attack by the second-referendum crowd, who were absolutely opposed to any idea that the Opposition could strike any kind of agreement with the Government that would do away with the idea of a second referendum and therefore the opportunity to vote down the original referendum result. That lies at the heart of it. There is a deceit in all this. As I said earlier, I genuinely believe that the hon. Gentleman was genuine in his view, as were many of those aligned alongside him in that regard, but I do not believe that to have been true of the Labour party Front-Bench team—in fact, throughout all this they have played fast and loose.
When I come to the proposition with which the Bill is concerned, I come back to why I think it is a bad Bill. For all the talk about not wanting to have no deal and wanting to have a deal, although some of those who propose this measure voted for the previous Prime Minister’s deal, if every one of them really wanted any deal rather than no deal, they would have voted for that deal. Strangely, they found themselves voting against it at the time.
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is making an absolutely valid point. There is a huge amount of virtue signalling in the House from people who do not want no deal but will not vote for a deal. The amendment I have tabled would enable everyone to state clearly, on the record for their constituents, whether they will allow us all the chance to vote for a deal rather than for no deal, on Monday 21 October. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a sensible way of being absolutely straightforward about the issue?
Mr Duncan Smith
I was not going to come to my hon. Friend’s amendment, because there was a fair amount of debate, but I would link him and the hon. Member for Aberavon, in the sense that both are trying genuinely to find a way through. My hon. Friend and I are old friends, and he has made a genuine effort to propose that idea. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are similar in one regard, except that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal goes back to the final discussions that were taking place.
My problem is that in truth I just do not think enough Opposition Members really want to ensure that we leave. The truth is that the idea has grown, particularly among those on the Labour party Front Bench but also in some of the other parties, that if we delay this long enough, at some point there will be a way and the cry for a second referendum will get stronger and stronger, and then they will go to that. As we hear from the Labour party Front Benchers, their view now is that they support a second referendum, having originally said that they did not, and they now also support voting remain in that referendum, which before they said they did not, because they said at the 2017 election that they would implement the original referendum decision.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Many Opposition Members wish to vote for a deal. In fact, I will vote for a deal when one comes back in front of the House. The issue now is to make sure that we have the opportunity to vote for a deal so that we can ensure that we do not crash out of the European Union, thereby damaging the economy for my constituents.
Mr Duncan Smith
I encompassed the hon. Lady in my remarks about those lined up alongside the hon. Member for Aberavon with genuine intent, who want to do something about it.
All these issues are interesting, but the problem we face is that the position of those on the Labour party Front Bench has now completely shifted. It is clear to me that they do not want an agreement of almost any sort. Any obstacle will be placed in the way and a deal will never be achieved. They think that enough delay will produce a second referendum, and of course, they want to vote remain. This Bill is a vehicle to produce a route to a second referendum. That is what this is all about.
All I can say is that I did not want my colleagues to be taken out and to lose the party Whip—I have been a bit of a rebel in the past myself—but everybody knows what they do when the Government say there is a vote of confidence. The Government set a vote of confidence on this issue because it is at the very heart and soul of where the Government currently are, which is that they want to negotiate a deal. They want to get a deal, but they do not think we will ever get a deal if we are not able to say, “Ultimately, we will leave, whatever the case, so it is over to you to show some flexibility in the arrangements.”
I simply say that I will continue to vote against the agreement notwithstanding the fact that some of my colleagues will not. I have to say that this Bill is a route to delay and that delay in turn is a route to a second referendum and that second referendum, the Opposition hope, is a way to overturn the view and belief of the British people, which would be quite undemocratic.
Andrew Percy
I have some sympathy with amendment 19 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and some sympathy with new clause 1 and also amendment 6, but I cannot vote for them, particularly new clause 1 and amendment 19, because people outside have figured out what is really going on here. As I said in my intervention earlier, we are in this position of not having left the European Union because there are people in here who were elected on a mandate and who stood up and said that they intended to deliver the result, but who have never had any intention of delivering our exit from the European Union. They are scared of their electorates, yes, and they now scared of their “selectorates”, but they never had any intention of delivering on the result. What they have done is play for time, exactly as suggested a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). They now want to play for time again, because they want to get us to 2020. When we get to 2020, it suddenly becomes, “Well, that referendum was in 2016. It is quite hard to implement a mandate from 2016 in 2020, which is roughly the length of an average Parliament.” That is what is going on in here.
The people have figured it out. My constituents went to the polls in 2016 and voted to leave the European Union by a margin of 67% in the belief that the result would be implemented because both sides had told them that. They trotted along to the general election of 2017. Some 93% of them voted for two political parties, which said that they were going to implement the result. They have figured it out. They believe that there are people in here who never had any intention of delivering on the result. If we have another extension and something else comes back, there will be another reason why they cannot quite bring themselves to vote for it. The particular niche thing that they select, perhaps never having mentioned it before, will suddenly be the block on why they cannot quite get themselves across the line. I am sick of it. The people are sick of it. They have figured it out. The reason why we are in this position is that, when people talk about compromise, we have had this perverse alliance—
Andrew Percy
No.
We have had this perverse alliance of people who never wanted us to leave the European Union—remainers—voting with the minority of people on the Conservative Benches who actively want us to have a no-deal Brexit. They have trotted through the Lobby together, while people like me who came into this House in 2010 are absolutely determined to get us out of the European Union. We have done exactly what was asked of us and what is being demanded of us now. We have compromised. We have looked at that withdrawal agreement and said, “You know what, it is not perfect, but I respect the promise that I made to my constituents.” I respect the minority of my constituents who also voted remain and therefore expect me to represent them as well, which is why I have compromised and voted for that deal on three occasions. I have voted for a Norway option and an European Free Trade Association option on four other occasions, and the same people who lecture us repeatedly about how we need to compromise to get us across the line are the very same people—not all of them, but many of them—who trotted through the Lobby to kill that deal on three occasions and to kill the indicative votes on those four occasions.
I have to ask this question: when did it become the case that people who campaigned for remain could tell people who voted leave what it is that they voted for? When did it become acceptable for them to say, “No, no, no! These leave voters, whom I do not fully understand because I was on the wrong side of the debate and on the wrong side of my constituents, did not vote for no deal”?
Last night, I received an email from a constituent called Kirsty. She posted this question to me. She said, “Why do these people who got the referendum result wrong, were on the wrong side, get to say why I voted?” She said, “I know why I voted leave and I am prepared to have a no deal.” She signed off as Kirsty, under 40, not a racist and quite well educated. All we have heard throughout is that if someone wants a no-deal outcome then obviously they are just a stupid, thick, racist northerner. People have seen this, and we are sick of it. I will not support any amendment that allows a further extension, because my constituents and I know what is going on here. Those colleagues are playing it long, playing for time and saying that they respect the result when they have no intention of doing so. They did not respect the result in March or April of this year, and they are not going to on 31 October. You can sure as damn tell it, Dame Eleanor, they ain’t going to on 31 January either.
John Redwood
I would like us to leave on 31 October, as agreed, with a free trade agreement, or with serious talks about a free trade agreement, so that new tariffs or barriers need not be imposed on our trade with the EU or its trade with us. I am quite sure that we have a chance of achieving that only if so-called no deal is left firmly on the table, and if the European Union knows that we will leave with no withdrawal agreement or free trade agreement if it does not agree to those talks or offer such an agreement. That is our only lever.
John Redwood
Yes, take control of our laws. [Laughter.] That is what we are arguing about today. I am explaining the extreme irony that this Parliament, which claims to believe in democracy, is deliberately trying to thwart our democracy by denying the result of the democratic decision that was made by the people, and that we said was theirs to make; and that this Parliament is trying to overturn the promises that many candidates—on the Labour side, in particular—made in the general election of 2017, and that they seem to have forgotten now that they are Members of Parliament.
Sir William Cash
I noticed the laughter from the Scots Nats at what my right hon. Friend said. In view of the very good sense that he was speaking, I invite the House to consider this. Is it not the case that under the withdrawal agreement, during the transition period, decisions will be taken by the Council of Ministers to impose obligations and laws on the United Kingdom without our even being there, without any transcript, without any Hansard and almost invariably by consensus? Is not the whole thing a massive racket, the object of which is to put us in a state of subjugation—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Sir William, thank you, but we are running out of time.
John Redwood
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which goes to the heart of the crucial issue about our democracy that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) raised from a sedentary position. One of the features that many of us found most objectionable about the withdrawal agreement was precisely that for a long and unspecified transition period that could have stretched on for many months—it was not clear what would end it—we would be under any new law that the European Union wished to impose on us, with no vote, voice or ability to influence that law.
At the moment, as a full member, we have some influence. We have a vote, and sometimes we manage to water down or delay something, but in the transition period we would have none of those rights. Any of the existing massive panoply of European law could be amended or changed by decisions of the European Court of Justice, and that would be binding on the United Kingdom. This is completely unacceptable for a democratic country—that, when a majority of people in a democratic referendum voted to take back control of their laws, their Parliament then says, “No; far too difficult a job for us. We don’t want to participate in this process. We don’t want to take control of your laws. We want to delegate most of them, in many fields, to the European Union and have a foreign court developing our law for us in ways that we might find completely objectionable.” None of the amendments that I have just been mentioning, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and others, intending to find a compromise, tackles this fundamental obstacle to the withdrawal agreement and to the idea that we can somehow negotiate our way out of the European Union if it does not think we just intend to leave.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. May I take him back to something that he said, because it is really very important? The right hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues have claimed—in the referendum, subsequently and tonight—that they are going to take back control of the borders. May I just ask him how he intends to take back control of South Armagh, and would he like to come to Crossmaglen and explain why it is all right for us to go out without a deal?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We are running out of time, and it would not be a proper debate if we did not hear from those on the Front Benches. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that and bring his speech to a conclusion very quickly.
John Redwood
Well, of course, if we just leave, we take back control of our borders. We can then decide whether we wish to do anything about it. We may wish to leave in place exactly all the existing arrangements. I am not making any recommendations that would embarrass the hon. Lady or her friends in Northern Ireland. We are very sensitive about that border. Indeed, the British Government have made it very clear that they see no reason to impose new barriers or difficulties on our side of the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border at all. I am sure that will be very welcome to all those in this House who are seriously worried about this issue. It makes one wonder why the backstop was ever invented or necessary. Why is it so difficult for the European Union just to strip it out given that the EU has a sincere promise—agreed, I think, by all parts of this House—that we do not wish to impose new barriers on that border in a way that could be an obstacle to good relations and the peace process?
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has ever had the experience of having builders in and not having given them an end date. What happens? The building work goes on and on and on. Is it not time that we told the builders, “The end date is 31 October. You finish the job—no ifs, no buts, no compromise”?
The First Deputy Chairman
We all know that it is great for emphasis to repeat things, but we are running out of time.
John Redwood
I will accept your guidance, Dame Eleanor.
In conclusion, these amendments do not fix the Bill. This Bill is extremely damaging to our democracy, undermines our negotiating position and would therefore achieve the opposite of what many of its proposers say they are trying to achieve.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
One thing that this Bill has done today is to show the progress that can be made when Members of Parliament work together and overcome our political divides. Something that is also clear is that nobody seems to be arguing that leaving the European Union is a good idea.
I am not sure how to follow the last contributions, or how to talk about issues such as democracy when we have a Government who want to ignore laws that get passed by this place, who already ignore motions on crucial issues such as pensions fairness for the WASPI women and who want to stuff the unelected House of Lords full of pro-Brexit peers. The idea that that is somehow democratic and bringing back control defies belief.
Worst of all is the prospect of a no-deal Brexit for which there is no mandate—no one voted for it. In fact, the Prime Minister told us that it would be the easiest deal in the world and there would be no chance that this would ever happen.
Many Members on the Government Benches understand that, and I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who made a fine contribution earlier today and who was a fine Minister, but for whom there is no space left in the Conservative party. But the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) told us everything we needed to know. When he talked of a mandate, he talked in terms of a Conservative party leadership election in which 0.1% of the population, if that, could vote. That is not a mandate; that is not democracy. Let me say to such Members—I have tried to say it gentle terms but I will do so in the strongest terms possible—that given the harm caused to everybody by the Government’s no deal, Brexit is bigger than the Conservative party, and bigger than every single party in this place. When Members think about this tonight, they would do well to remember that.
Members such as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), among others, have had good intentions in what they try to do, but this is a Government who have no idea what they are doing, and we must—must—take no deal off the table. I thank the Members who have backed our Bill tonight for their contributions. We will not be backing any amendments because we need to get this Bill through and take no deal off the table.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, because it has been largely thoughtful and reasoned, both in Committee and on Second Reading. It has been the sort of debate that we could usefully have had more often over the past couple of years. I recognise that the amendments, particularly those tabled by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), are put forward with good intentions and to seek to assist the process. However, our view on all the amendments is determined by the objective of the Bill itself, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on Second Reading.
The Bill has one clear purpose, which is to prevent a disastrous no-deal Brexit on 31 October. An extraordinary coalition has been brought together over the past few weeks to put the Bill forward in the spirit of consensus. We know that no deal would be a disaster for jobs, for the NHS, for policing and for security. The Government’s own papers from Operation Yellowhammer made that clear.
In addition, there is real anxiety about the lives of EU citizens in the UK and those who are too often forgotten, UK citizens in the EU, being thrown into uncertainty and potential legal jeopardy. Of course, as many have pointed out, no deal would not be the end of Brexit, quite the opposite: it would be the beginning of years of long negotiation over our future relationship in which we would start from a significantly disadvantaged position.
When we make the arguments against no deal, we are speaking not only on behalf of the coalition in this House but for many beyond. The CBI has called no deal
“a tripwire into economic chaos”.
The TUC has said it would be “a disaster” for working people. This is our last chance to avoid no deal. The House has voted against it three times, but we need this legislation because the Prime Minister and his Government cannot be trusted to enact the will of the House without it. Parliament is sitting today only because of the amendments to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The Prime Minister made it clear that he saw this September sitting period as a nuisance, saying that the
“whole September session…is a rigmarole”.
The Prime Minister has told the House that he is pursuing a deal with the EU, but he has equally told the House that nothing has been proposed to it, and the EU has, in effect, confirmed that. We heard the devastating critique from the former Chancellor earlier today. European officials have told the press:
“There was literally nothing on the table, not even a sketch of what the solution could look like.”
The Prime Minister’s closest adviser has apparently called the talks “a sham”—he got that right, at least. The Government’s current working alternative to the backstop is simply taking the backstop out. Nothing new is being proposed. But if, by some miracle, there is some deal negotiated with the EU, then the Prime Minister can bring it back to the House for us to vote on; that is incorporated in the Bill. Let me turn to the amendments to the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no mandate in this place for no deal, just as there is no mandate for remain? In that spirit, will he and those on the shadow Front Bench support our compromise amendment, which looks to bring Members across the House forward to get a compromise deal and get the House and the country out of this crisis?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend pre-empts the point that I was about to make, as I was coming on to talk about the amendments. She is right to say that there is no mandate for no deal. All those who campaigned so vigorously for leaving the European Union in 2016 made it absolutely clear that they were doing so with the intention of securing a deal—a better deal, and a deal that would be available in months. The voters who cast their ballots back in 2016 were given the clear impression that that would involve a relationship described by the current deputy Prime Minister—if that is still the description that goes with his Cabinet Office post—as broadly similar to what we have at the moment. There is no mandate for no deal. Clearly, people voted to leave, but by a painfully—
Ian Austin
Like me, my hon. Friend stood on a manifesto that promised to respect the referendum and to implement the outcome of that referendum, yet it is absolutely clear that what those on the Labour Front Bench have done during this process is frustrate the entire exercise, create as much chaos as possible and prevent any prospect of a deal being implemented. If he wants people to believe that he is in favour of a deal, can he update the Committee on what work those on the Labour Front Bench are doing to put forward constructive proposals to uphold the mandate he was given at the last election, which was to find a way of leaving the EU?
Paul Blomfield
I am happy to do that. We stood at the last election on a commitment to respect the result of the referendum but to rip up the negotiating mandate that the Tory Government had, which we felt failed the British people. I said from this Dispatch Box on 4 December 2018, when winding up the debate that the Prime Minister opened on the withdrawal deal, that if only she had seized the opportunity to be straight with the British people that they had voted to leave but by a painfully close margin and that the mandate was that we would no longer be members of the European Union but that we could retain a close relationship—in a customs union, aligned with the single market and part of the agencies and partnerships that we had built together—then we could have secured a deal. We entered into the cross-party talks in that spirit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Blomfield
I am conscious of the need to give the Secretary of State time to speak and the Chair’s beady eye, so I will not. I have taken a number of interventions. I will finish the point, which relates to the last intervention.
The point about the cross-party talks was that we entered into them in good spirit and with clear proposals. The Prime Minister refused to budge on her red lines, and those talks broke down. I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, and I listened carefully to him on the radio this morning. The difficulty with the amendment he has tabled is not his intention, but some of the practicalities of it, because he is proposing an amendment for something that does not really exist—a withdrawal agreement plus points to which the Government did not agree.
Stephen Kinnock
I accept that we do not have an officially published withdrawal agreement Bill, but we do have a clear commitment from the Government based on the cross-party talks, which would be easily encapsulated in a Bill that was ready to be put forward to Parliament—I know, because the former Chief Whip showed it to me.
Paul Blomfield
I think my hon. Friend is talking about the Theresa May Government, which is a very different proposition from the one we face at the moment. We were not at that stage of agreement. If there had been the basis for an agreement, we would have seized that opportunity in the talks. Although I have sympathy with what he says, and those proposals could be part of the discussions that we need to have in the extended period that we will secure when this Bill is passed, as will the proposals that other Members across the Committee have made, we need the space to have those discussions, and we can only achieve that space by voting for the Bill.
This Bill has successfully brought Members across the House together around a single, clearly focused objective. We are united behind the need to avoid a no-deal Brexit. We need to keep our focus very narrowly on that when we vote and ensure that we achieve that objective because we know—a clear majority know; a growing majority within this House know—that if we allow ourselves to stumble into a no-deal Brexit, it will be a disaster for the country.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The principle of this Bill in seeking an extension is wrong. The Government opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. Indeed, it is so flawed that we have not bothered to table amendments to it; we oppose it in all forms.
This Bill cannot be improved because it goes against the democratic wish of the British people, the vote of 17.4 million of our citizens and the strong desire of many up and down this land who want certainty and clarity and who want Brexit done so that we can get on to the wider domestic agenda, as set out by the Chancellor in the spending review earlier today: 20,000 more police officers, with recruitment starting in Yorkshire tomorrow; a record increase of £6,000 on starting salaries for teachers; levelling up opportunity for those who warrant it; and supporting the economy through the tough decisions we took in 2010, which allows the record investment in our NHS, with 20 new hospital upgrades.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke with sincerity and I do not question the spirit in which he brings new clause 1 to the Committee this evening, but he also spoke of compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) correctly identified, the reality is that the hon. Member for Aberavon voted against the deal all three times—all three times.
Stephen Barclay
Now the hon. Gentleman says that he would vote for the deal as in the amendments. However, as he also said, the withdrawal agreement is unchanged. The vote on the third meaningful vote was not on the political declaration, which his new clause 1 speaks to. His vote in the third meaningful vote was against the withdrawal agreement alone; the extension was granted to 12 April and then 31 October. That would not have necessitated participation in the European parliamentary elections. I respect the spirit in which he brings new clause 1 to the Committee, but he seeks compromise on a withdrawal agreement text that he himself has voted against.
Luke Graham
My right hon. Friend will have greater knowledge of this than many in the House, so will he confirm that the cross-party talks were not actually able to agree a compromise? Furthermore, the Government did go out of their way to make assurances on workers’ rights, environmental standards and domestic legislation that the Labour party demanded and subsequently rowed back on when it came to passing a vote, agreeing a deal and moving this country and this House forward.
Stephen Barclay
I will come to the right hon. Lady in a moment, but I will just address my hon. Friend’s intervention. It is the case that the talks with the official Opposition were done in good faith on both sides. There were areas of genuine misunderstanding, such as about the appetite of the Government through the political declaration to participate, for example, in EU agencies. Perhaps at the start of the talks there was some genuine misunderstanding about that. However, as I set out at the start of those talks, if the purpose of those talks was to seek a second referendum, one only needed to look at the Kyle-Wilson amendment to see that the talks were not necessary. If we look at the way the talks collapsed, it was on the basis that the position of my shadow and opposite number—he is someone of great integrity, and I respect his position—is one of seeking a second referendum. If that was genuinely the crux of his concern, surely that was self-evident at the start of those talks, and it was not necessary for those talks to progress in order to tease out that point.
Caroline Flint
Of course, I have voted for a deal a number of times. I say, with the greatest respect, we have to move on from talking about who did what and when, and we have to look forward. Many of my colleagues regret not voting for a deal and they are dealing with that right now. From the Back Benches, we are trying—maybe those on both Front Benches could listen to this—to identify and agree that there is much in the withdrawal agreement Bill where there is consensus across the House. It is not the only deal, and our amendment asks Members to reflect and build on it, but, for goodness’ sake, we have to move on. There is an increasingly loud voice across the House wanting a consensus to move forward.
Stephen Barclay
I agree with the right hon. Lady in substance and form. She is right about the requirement for us to move forward and not to look back. In fact, I made a similar point to the Irish Government about how we can move forward constructively, rather than look back at some of the talks to date. She is also right that there is much in the withdrawal agreement on which we can move forward.
That is reflected, if one looks at—[Interruption.]. I am trying to address the right hon. Lady’s point. There is much in the letter to President Tusk where the Prime Minister has narrowed down the issues in the withdrawal agreement. Many of my colleagues are concerned about lots of different aspects of the withdrawal agreement, whether on money, the European Court of Justice or geographical indicators, and the Prime Minister has narrowed those issues down. However, it is the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole reflected, that some of us have sought compromise and will continue to do so.
Mr Duncan Smith
This is not really about the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and the others, who genuinely, I think, do want to do something. The truth is, it is about the Labour party’s Front-Bench team, which is on a wrecking process. This is all about how to wreck the process of Brexit, have a second referendum—hopefully when everyone is so tired out that they will vote against it—and then overturn the referendum. If they have a genuine view, they should vote with us tonight to wreck this Bill.
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Prime Minister has been crystal clear in setting an objective of 31 October. In being clear and in turbocharging—through the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—our preparation for a no-deal outcome we do not seek, we have seen movement, as I touched on in my remarks on Second Reading, from a starting point where not a word of the withdrawal agreement could be changed, to one in which creative and flexible solutions can be explored. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser is in Brussels today making progress on that, yet his work is dismissed by some, because of media reports, as not being of the substance that I know it to be.
John Redwood
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the possibility of us leaving without signing a withdrawal agreement is our main pressure point on the European Union and that without that there is no reason it should give ground?
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend is correct that the European Union, like the United Kingdom, wants a deal, and it is worth reminding the House why that is the case. While its position on money, citizen’s rights and the Northern Ireland border has been unified, the impact of a no-deal outcome is asymmetric across the EU, particularly on issues such as fishing and geographical indicators that are not protected. It is worth reminding the House that there are over 3,000 European geographical indicators, but just 88 UK GIs, so when we hear that the EU is fully prepared for no deal—that my counterpart, Michel Barnier, says it is fully ready for no deal—there is a difference between legislation or regulations it may want to put in place and the reality of operational readiness, which is much more varied between member states.
This Bill is about delay. It is about legislative purgatory. It is about disguising the true intent—not of all colleagues, because there are some who have voted for a deal three times —of many who voted against a deal not once, not twice, but three times, yet then say that they are against no deal, as well. This is a Bill that is designed to stop Brexit and comes at a cost of £1 billion a month—£1 billion that we want to see invested in our frontline in the way the Chancellor set out. This is a Bill that is flawed. I urge colleagues across the House to oppose it on Third Reading.
Hilary Benn
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has spoken this evening. I say to the Prime Minister that, if the other place passes the Bill, this House expects him to uphold the law and to fulfil the obligations that will be placed upon him by this Bill and prevent this country from leaving the European Union on 31 October without a deal.
May I thank the Clerks for their assistance, and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others for their great help? I also join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in most warmly applauding the bravery and the courage of many on the Government Benches who have stood by their convictions in the national interest.
Stephen Kinnock
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the House has now approved the Bill as amended, may I press the Government as rapidly as possible to publish the withdrawal agreement Bill, which really does require proper and robust discussion in this place?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way, and it is on the record, and we are indebted to him.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Thursday 5th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 202-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (5 Sep 2019)
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of the elected House. I am not here to debate leave, remain or Brexit. The Bill is about how Brexit is carried through so that the UK does not leave without a deal and that, once a deal is there to be voted on, we will leave, if the House of Commons agrees, via its meaningful vote.
Of course, this House does not have a meaningful vote. The Bill has come from the elected Commons but this is not a normal situation. The timetable has been forced on Parliament by the Prime Minister. Our role is not necessarily to rubber-stamp the elected Commons but, given the Prime Minister’s Prorogation timetable, the House has no real time to amend the Bill without jettisoning it as a whole—it is too risky. This is not the preferred way to scrutinise. It has been forced on the House. In this respect, I much regret that the Leader of the Lords saw fit to be part of the Privy Council’s forcing an early close-down of Parliament. Knowing the sensitivity of being the Leader of the House, she should, I believe, have declined that invitation. There are plenty of privy counsellors around to choose for the task.
It is not the case that it must be certain privy counsellors. In 2005, for the Prorogation Privy Council, there were three privy counsellors present at Windsor. None of them was from the House of Commons; two were Ministers from the Lords, of which I was one, and another was a member of neither the Government nor the House of Commons. There are plenty of privy counsellors. The Leader of the House did not have to accept that invitation; it has dragged this House into the issue of closing down Parliament early when it was not necessary. We need to consider what is sent to the Lords and the context in which it is sent. There is a clear breakdown of trust in the Commons, which is under extreme pressure. It has now decided, as it did earlier in the year, to try to take some responsibility for and control of the decision on a no-deal Brexit. To coin a phrase, the Commons has acted to stop a no-deal Brexit by any means necessary. We have gone past the stage where many of the public thought that no deal meant not leaving—the Operation Yellowhammer papers have made that clear to everyone concerned.
I always preface my presentations for the Peers in Schools programme by saying that we have two Houses of Parliament, but they are not equal. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and sometimes to ask the Commons to think again, but knowing that the Commons always has the last word. But we are not in normal times. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister’s timetable means that we are in no real position, whatever the business arrangements for Monday, to ask the Commons to think again on this Bill. It almost amounts to a national emergency in legislative terms. We need to treat the Commons with respect as it tries to achieve the objective. It alone has the legal and political responsibility for the meaningful vote. It is as divided as the nation, but it has sent us a Bill.
We should now, as far as the Prorogation timetable allows, operate the conventions to give the Commons the last word. The conventions are in play as never before —we saw that yesterday. Indeed, the conventions are being changed. A convention breached requires what we might see as an unconventional approach, hence the business Motion and hence effectively timetabling consideration of this Bill.
When I was young and out of order, my mother used to call me Jeffrey, rather than Jeff, and often told me, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Today I have to ask: if the wrongs are not two but more, many more—eight, nine, or a dozen at least—what do we do? We have the early closing down of Parliament, misleading on the negotiation, ignoring purdah rules, spending without the OBR, attempting to leave come what may, refusing to publish the consequences of leaving for the poor, failing to table amendments to the withdrawal agreement, attacking Dublin, running the clock down, leaving UK citizens high and dry in the EU and EU citizens in the UK in limbo, and putting the union in peril. That, to me, is a massive breach of the conventions that we should be operating under, which has caused this reality with this Bill. It is an unconventional response to the breaching of the conventions. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this is actually a simple and quite straightforward Bill, but that does not make it unimportant. What it seeks to prevent—a no-deal crash-out on the simple say-so of the Prime Minister—has major implications.
Like other noble Lords, I spent August in France where, at a birthday party, I met Monsieur Serge Ratel, born in Normandy soon after the war. Learning that I was British, he fixed me with a steady but rather sad eye and—I hope I have translated this properly, because my French is not perfect—said, “You Brits have done so much for us. You rescued us during the war and then, in the way that you engineered the post-war reconstruction, you enabled us to recover in a way that made possible the European Union. Since you have been in, you have helped steer our whole continent and helped us remain at peace with ourselves and with each other”. He went on to say that while, as strong allies, the EU could survive without us, as it had done in its early years, our leaving without a deal would harm not just the UK but the EU itself.
That is what the Bill is about. It is not about whether we leave but about the method of our going—whether we depart as friends, neighbours and allies, with agreement between us and in a way that best supports our economy, security and the people across the continent. It matters for them, but how we leave also matters for our democracy. It must not happen without the consent of the Commons.
We rehearsed the economic and security risks of no deal in your Lordships’ House on Tuesday. This Bill is about something else. It does not say that we could never leave without a deal. It says that that could happen only provided the Commons agrees. We have already in your Lordships’ House helped write into the withdrawal Act that any deal on which we leave must have the consent of the Commons, so this Bill simply extends that to include leaving without a deal. To ensure that that is the case, it requires the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period, either to provide time for that deal or to allow the Commons to concur with a no-deal exit, if that is what the Prime Minister is to recommend.
So the Bill is actually quite simple, it is democratic and we will support it from these Benches.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing the Bill. As has been said, a broad coalition came together to support this short Bill, which is simple and has a narrow focus: to prevent a crash-out Brexit for which there is no mandate. As Hilary Benn MP said, preventing a no-deal Brexit is the central most important question facing the country. The new MP Jane Dodds, who made her maiden speech yesterday, gave an illustration of what would happen to sheep farmers in her constituency.
I pay tribute to the responsible senior politicians from all parties who came together in the national interest. As we know, that included two distinguished Conservative former Chancellors of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond and Ken Clarke. What is notable is that many people have commented that it is an odd world in which an individual’s Conservatism is measured by how recklessly they wish to leave the EU. We are in a topsy-turvy world.
Supporters of the Bill are open about the fact that, beyond preventing the devastating harm and disruption of no deal, they have very different views on how to resolve the Brexit question. None of those options is precluded by the Bill, which, as I said, has a narrow scope. As Alistair Burt, one of the co-sponsors of the Bill, said,
“is the Bill a stumbling block to negotiations? No, it is not. The Bill does not prevent the Prime Minister or the Government from negotiating”.—[Official Report, Commons,4/9/19; col.224.]
It simply prevents no deal unless the Commons agrees to it and gives the Commons powers over the extension process—so it is taking back control to Parliament in action rather than in empty rhetoric.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The noble Baroness talked about the coalition of people who have grouped together to propose the Bill, which essentially delays Brexit for a minimum of three months. Can she tell us what that coalition of people intend to do with those three months?
Baroness Ludford
I covered that point. The Bill does not prevent a deal, because a deal could be agreed within the extension period—that is specifically covered. I said that the coalition is perfectly open about the fact that it has coalesced on a specific, narrow purpose: to prevent massive harm to the people of this country. Beyond that, there will be further discussion about how to proceed.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Will the noble Baroness now answer the noble Lord’s question?
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly raise some concerns about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on children in low-income families. I welcome this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in opening the debate, there is particular concern about families on low incomes, and the adverse economic impact on them that would follow a no-deal Brexit. In the course of austerity, we have seen families on low incomes suffering significantly. Cuts to local authorities have reduced support for vulnerable families. Consequently, what we have seen and what has been recorded in numerous reports is that the number of children coming into local authority care is rising year on year. Generally, it is children from the poorest families who are taken into the care of the state.
I warmly welcome this Bill as it prevents a no-deal exit. I am concerned that, if we proceed with a no-deal exit, we will see more harm done to these families. I am also concerned about the number of children who are not fully documented and who have uncertain immigration status, and in particular those in care. Local authorities are finding it difficult to get proper documentation for about 3,000 or 4,000 children in their care. In his response, I would be grateful if the Minister could address concerns about their welfare. In fact, he will not be responding. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, or the Opposition might say a few words about their concerns about the impact on low-income families and about the documentation of children with uncertain immigration status, particularly those in local authority care.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, this Bill will of course go through, but any idea that it will solve all our problems can dismissed here and now. We have already heard of some of the dilemmas ahead and they will be not only for my party and the Government but for the Labour Party, as the morning newspapers and broadcasts make clear. There are some difficult questions for Labour to resolve, which it has not yet done.
In the light of this difficulty for all the parties, there is, possibly, a way out that begins to have some light in it for remainers and remoaners, leavers and believers—in fact, for all of us. That could occur on or around 17 October, with the possibility, at present dismissed by almost everybody, of an amended withdrawal agreement with—using the words of Monsieur Macron, Angela Merkel and, although perhaps not the Taoiseach himself, many people in the Republic of Ireland—the “unnecessary” backstop modified or removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, eloquently and again and again, says there is no hint of alternatives. There are massive alternatives that have been worked out with huge authority by a vast range of people—by consulting border operations throughout the world, by taking examples everywhere, by drawing back into the history of the Northern Ireland border in immense detail, by analysing precisely the kind of traffic going across every day and by taking into account that we remain, with the Republic, in the common travel area and outside Schengen. These details exist. It suits everybody involved at the moment to say that there are no details. It suits Monsieur Barnier to say that there is no hint of an alternative. He is quite wrong. He is bound to say it for the moment, but there are massive volumes containing immense detail, which could provide the alternative to the backstop. The date is 17 October.
Lord Krebs (CB)
One is very interested to hear about this massive detail. I may be mistaken but I read in the paper that, when the Prime Minister met Chancellor Merkel a few weeks ago, it was agreed that he would produce his alternative plan within 30 days. One wondered why he needed 30 days if the plan already existed. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us—if he knows—whether Mr Johnson has revealed this cunning plan to Chancellor Merkel and whether she has accepted that it is an appropriate alternative to the backstop.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, the word “reveal” is a misnomer. The full reports of the alternative arrangements group exist. The summaries exist. All the background material is available for anyone to read. To what extent it has been pressed by government negotiators in Brussels—Mr Frost and others—I do not know. You do not need to reveal something that has already been published. These things have been worked out and are available. I am not saying that anyone will agree to them, and it pays people at the moment to pretend they do not exist or have not been revealed. They have and they are there.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
Perhaps I can encourage my noble friend to help the House on one point. Can he name anywhere in the world where different customs unions share a border, without the sort of hard border which is of concern to everyone? Just name any one. The United States and Canada: no. Switzerland and France: no. Where are there two countries with different customs unions side by side that do not have a hard border?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think Members of this House and others have visited the Norway-Sweden border.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is enormously experienced in these matters, particularly in Northern Ireland. He, above all, knows that the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland situation is unique. There is nothing like it in the rest of the world. I was involved with Mr Whitelaw in trying to reinforce the military side of the border to stop the Provos coming up from Dundalk. We tried, but it did not work because there are a thousand other outlets. Even if people wanted to recreate a visible border, it would not work. My noble friend knows perfectly well that the Irish situation is unique and that there are, therefore, opportunities for unique solutions. I am not saying that it will be admitted. I do not expect even my noble friend to admit that anything I am saying at the moment is correct. The facts, the documents and the expertise on many other frontiers are there. I do not have all the details in front of me at this moment to quote in the debate. They are there for reading and I am sure he has read them.
That was my first point. There is a way out if we are careful and sensible and deal with the matter in a mature way. I am not that hopeful it will happen, given all the interruptions, but there we are.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am sorry to correct the noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest respect. When I was a member of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee, we took evidence from the border people in Norway and Sweden. To the best of my recollection, the conclusion was that they were very proud of the smoothness of their arrangements, but that every lorry was delayed by at least 10 minutes at that border.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not want to continue with this, but if the noble Lord—for whom I have great respect as well—cares to read the alternative arrangements report, he will see that the detailed analyses of what goes on at various borders are examined by experts. The evidence is there. There are pages of it. He will see exactly which bits could apply to the border in Northern Ireland and which do not.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I have read that report and none of the proposals is credible, which is the reason Her Majesty’s Government have not published those proposals as their own.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I simply repeat: the alternative arrangements documents are there and go into considerable detail. They can be dismissed or agreed to, depending on your state of mind, but they are a way out. I now want to say something on a different area. Are there any other interruptions before we leave this? There is one more.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I have enormous respect for my noble friend and what he has been trying to achieve in this House. If we are honest, the hard border and any mitigations are trying only to make a hard border slightly less hard. The only way, if we leave the customs union and single market, to solve the problem in Ireland is to have a border down the Irish Sea and cut off Northern Ireland. Is that what the Conservative and Unionist Party wishes to do?
Lord Howell of Guildford
That statement—“the only way”—again reveals the Manichean approach. There are already controls on livestock and weapons down the Irish Sea. They already exist. There are controls all around the invisible border to Northern Ireland, so this constant either/or is misleading us and guiding us away from sensible compromise solutions, which a calmer atmosphere would soon reveal and resolve.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
I am afraid the arguments today are already becoming as circular as ever. Is the truth not that remainers will not accept the position, just as leavers have their views too? What my noble friend is saying is absolutely true: those who really understand it know there are ways of doing this, but the baying leavers will not accept it. I urge my noble friend to save his breath and move on to something else.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank my noble friend for that encouragement. I turn now to a matter addressed to my own party, which will possibly produce more agreement opposite. The so-called Cummings purge is a major political blunder. These blunders happen at the end of a sequence of earlier blunders. You can watch how earlier mistakes and errors, blunder after blunder, lead to a point where, suddenly, there seems no choice and the new folly is committed. The new folly of my party is to reduce its membership by 21 and exclude two ex-Chancellors, an ex-Deputy Prime Minister and my dear friend Sir Nicholas Soames. I just hope it will pass. I hope Rory Stewart’s view that this will pass is right, and that they are restored to the party. This is again part of the Manichean tone in which matters are presented, when everything is either right or wrong, in black and white.
Delay of the Bill will solve nothing, although it seems a way out. In another three months, we will be back to exactly where we were before. The referendum so beloved of the Lib Dems, even if we get it through, will not solve anything either. An election is bound to come sometime, but I say to my noble friends that, whether it comes or not, normal times will never return. We are living in a completely different digital age, in which populism is in power. Both parties—mine and the great Labour Party—will have to reunite and change on entirely different terms. Neither can build on the basis of the old dogmas. If that is the one lesson that emerges from this unhappy situation, let us at least take account of it.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is already evident in some of the terms of this conversation—of this debate—that we have to get away from this binary thinking about leave or remain. They were terms that pertained to the referendum in 2016 where the question was “what”. Where we have got stuck is on the question of “how”. You do not need a degree in logic or philosophy to recognise that they are different questions. The Members of the other place and of this House trying to take their obligations seriously under the constitution to serve the people of this country means that we have got to this sort of impasse. It is not because of negligence, or because of waging ongoing campaigns from three years ago. I deeply resent the constant insinuation that if you voted remain then you remain a remainer and anything you do has to be suspected as being a plot to ensure that we remain. Many people in this House who voted remain have gone on to say that the referendum result was to leave and we have to move on to the question of how to do that but with the responsibility to look to the interests of our country.
If, as the Prime Minister said fairly recently, we will easily cope with no deal, why not publish what the actual costs of no deal will be, as for example King’s College London, the UK and the EU project have done, and others are doing? Why not listen to those from Ireland and Northern Ireland, who look somewhat askance at some of the discussions going on here about them—rather than with them, if I can use that term? We are still wrestling with the question of “how”. In my own imagination, I have flirted with what the virtues of no deal would be. One of them would be that it would force us to behave like adults: you face reality, you count the cost and you suffer the consequences. If we are to cope easily and there are to be no terrible consequences, fair enough, but that is not what we are hearing from those doing the detailed work. I know we have to discount experts and intellectuals, but who else will do the work?
If we are to have an extension, there will be two factors at play. The first is that an extension is not a vacation; it is for work to go on and a deal to be sought. The Prime Minister assures us that negotiations are going on, but everything we hear from the EU is that they are not—who do we believe? The second factor is that the timetable—the programme—will be conditioned to some extent by factors that we have no control over, such as the EU budget programme and its timings for establishing its future without us. We cannot simply extend for ever, but what is the content of the conversation that will go on during any extension?
The last thing I want to say to shine some light into this debate is that, while we focus on Brexit and the costs and benefits of however we leave the EU, we will still need, when all that is done—that will be the beginning of the process, not the end, as this was supposed to be the easy bit—a vision for what Brexit is supposed to deliver for the people of our country. What are the big values? What is the big picture? What is the country that we want to live in? We are told that this is to be the greatest place on earth to live, but let us flesh that out. What will it look like? What will it look like for Britain to be “great”, rather than just have that as a title or a slogan? That is the imaginative work that we need to begin in this House, in the other place and in the discourse in the wider country. What sort of country do we want to be? What values will shape it? What price truth, reality and behaving like adults, where we face the cost and are willing to suffer or enjoy the consequences? That is the conversation we need to move on to and I fear that we will have to do so fairly soon.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I fear that I will disappoint the right reverend Prelate because I unashamedly believe that it is against the interests of the people of the UK that we should leave the EU. Throughout my political life, I have believed in two things: the union of the UK and the membership of the UK in the EU. In the next two or three years, I could see both struck down. I imagine that I will not be the only person in that position. Since I unashamedly and profoundly believe that our interest is best preserved by remaining—to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, taken up quite legitimately by the noble Lord, Lord Howard—I shall use the time available to argue that case as fervently as I possibly can.
I turn to the question of Scotland. Would it not be a quite extraordinary outcome if a party describing itself as the “Conservative and Unionist Party” were to preside over the break-up of the United Kingdom? I do not know how often noble Lords go north of the border but it is worth doing that, if only for a couple of days, to understand the sense of injustice that so many people in Scotland feel about the attitude and policies of the present Prime Minister. That can only put wind in the sails of the Scottish National Party—and, God knows, it is adept at ensuring that any puff of wind in its direction is put to the best possible use. In my view, that would be damaging not just to Scotland but to the UK. For my part, I will not allow that to pass unless I am satisfied that I have done everything in my power to prevent it.
My second point is political. People often say, “All we joined was a customs union”, but it always was a political union, just as NATO, a defence union, was always was a political union. Why was it political? Because it was to try to avoid the fact that within 21 years two wars had taken place on the continent of Europe. If you are old enough to remember the Pathé newsreels of the devastation that had been caused to Europe, you will hardly find it surprising that the people whose countries had been invaded and occupied were determined to find an alternative way of living, and that has been remarkably successful. When the EU, in the shape of Mr Barnier and others, is reluctant to do anything that would detract from the EU’s economic integrity, that is as much about security as anything else because in economic integrity lies security integrity as well.
I hope that from time to time we look outside our own borders. We have a meddling Russia. As Russia’s economy goes further down Mr Putin has to keep meddling, trying to put the so-called West off its stride. The EU is a challenge to him, just as NATO is. His policies are the undermining of one and, if he can, the destabilisation of the other. We have an expansionist China, whose expansion is not just military but economic. Look at the extent of Chinese investment in this country and ask yourself whether that has had any impact upon the attitude expressed publicly by our Government in relation to the events in Hong Kong, to which, even if we have a declining legal obligation, we most certainly have a continuing moral obligation. Also, look at the White House. Can anyone ever remember a White House so uncertain and unpredictable? In this extraordinarily changed world, does it make sense to leave a political and economic union that has been so successful since its first creation?
Those are the reasons why I am a remainer. If the Bill is passed, I shall use every minute available to ensure that that case continues to be put to the people of the United Kingdom.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, with whom I have had the pleasure of jousting over many decades. Occasionally I have even agreed with him. I will not follow his speech in its entirety, but before I address the remarks that I prepared I will deal with one of the observations he made and challenge one of the myths that has grown about the role and achievements of the European Union.
It is often said and rarely challenged that one of the great achievements of the European Union was peace in western Europe after the Second World War. I do not believe that to be true. The peace that has existed in western Europe after the Second World War actually owes more to the Soviet Union than it does to the European Union. It was inconceivable for almost 50 years after the end of the Second World War, when western Europe faced an existential threat from the ambitions of the Soviet Union, that any further fighting should take place in the western part of the continent. They were obliged to unite to face that threat. That was why we had peace in western Europe for 50 years after the Second World War. Of course, happily, after that period had lasted and the Soviet Union had disintegrated, the countries of western Europe had got out of the habit of fighting each other and we have been able to enjoy peace ever since.
Lord Patten of Barnes
Does my noble friend seriously think that the only reason for Franco-German reconciliation after the war, which is at the heart of European peace and building a new Europe out of the moral, economic and political rubble, was the Soviet threat? It might have contributed, but there were far bigger political issues that produced that, thank heavens for all of us.
Lord Howard of Lympne
We can argue about whether it was the only reason. Of course other factors encouraged Franco-German reconciliation, but the peace of the western half of the continent was an inevitable consequence of the threat those countries faced from the Soviet Union to the east.
Lord Liddle
This is a very interesting historical debate, but I add to it to the point that one reason why Franco-German reconciliation occurred was because of the construction of the Federal Republic of Germany —in which Britain, in the post-war Labour Government, in particular its Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, played an absolutely central role—and its being one of the most successful states in Europe since the Second World War. That has been an essential underpinning of European union and peace.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I can go a long way towards agreeing with the noble Lord, but that is a somewhat different matter from the role of the European Union.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, just said, would my noble friend agree that we would not have had a peaceful Europe without a strong, stable Europe? Fundamental to creating that stability was the Coal and Steel Community, out of which came the European Common Market, as it was originally called. I believe it was a profound mistake, which a very great British Prime Minister tried to put right, that we were not in much earlier. My noble friend cannot say that it was just the Soviet threat that created a strong, stable Europe because that is manifestly untrue.
Lord Howard of Lympne
With respect to my noble friend, I did not say that. I repeat what I said: peace in western Europe after the Second World War owed more to the Soviet Union than it did to the European Union. I did not say that the Soviet Union’s threat was the only factor. Of course there were other factors. Many of the things said in questions to me in the past few minutes have considerable truth to them, but it is ridiculous to ignore the extent to which peace in western Europe was a consequence of the existential threat that the western part of the continent faced from the Soviet Union to the east. I would like to proceed to consider the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I do not intend to prolong this historical debate, other than to say to the noble Lord that he is falling into the trap that an earlier speaker warned us about—he is being too Manichean. He is juxtaposing the Soviet Union threat, the NATO response and the European Union. It is all of them together. It is because they are all working together to common aims that we have managed to come through better. When war broke out in Europe again in the 1990s, in the Balkans, the longer-term response to that has come mainly from the European Union. Surely we can move away from this distorted view of history and accept that the European Union has played an integral part in our security and prosperity but not the only part.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I do not disagree with the noble Lord. His intervention establishes that we have made some progress because, in common parlance, the European Union is frequently given the entire credit for creating peace in western Europe after the Second World War but I do not believe that to be true.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I shall not give way on this any more. I want to move on to consider the Bill before your Lordships’ House today, on which we ought to focus our attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whom we all admire and for whom we have so much affection, has recently propounded a novel theory of government and has given it a name—he calls it the government of good chaps. He is in a better position to explain his theory than I am but, as I understand it, one of the elements is that the constituent parts of government and our unwritten constitution should behave within their respective roles as understood by convention and tradition under those unwritten rules. I contend that the legislation before the House is a fundamental breach of the good chap theory of government.
I shall endeavour to explain why I have reached that conclusion. Our unwritten constitution is based on the separation of powers—in particular, between the Executive and the legislature. It is the role of the Executive to govern; it is the role of the legislature to hold the Executive to account—to hold to account but not itself to govern. This Bill represents an attempt by the legislature to assume the mantle of government. That is why it is wrong and illegitimate, constitutes a fundamental breach of the good chap theory of government and is in breach of the conventions of our unwritten constitution. These observations would apply regardless of the underlying reason which gives rise to the Bill; and the fact that the underlying reason underpinning the Bill relates to Brexit makes it even worse.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
If the only role of Parliament is to hold the Government to account, how does the noble Lord explain the fact that we pass laws which bind the Government? We often amend Bills that the Government introduce in a way that they do not want. We do more than hold the Government to account; we set the way in which the law of this country and the Government act.
Lord Howard of Lympne
Parliament passes laws initiated by government, and when Parliament passes, and indeed amends, those laws, it does not enter into the detailed prescription of government contained in this Bill. That is why this Bill and its predecessor, introduced earlier this year, represent so fundamental a breach of precedent. They were facilitated only by the fact that the Speaker in the other place decided to dispense with precedent and, as far as we are aware, to dispense with the advice he was given and to allow the Opposition to take charge of the business of the House.
I want to take the House back to the Second Reading of the referendum Bill in the other place—the Bill that provided for the referendum. That debate was introduced by the then Foreign Secretary, one Philip Hammond. He said that,
“whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
I repeat,
“or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
He said that the decision should be,
“for the common sense of the British people”,
and that this Bill,
“delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 1056.]
The Bill which provided for that referendum was of course passed by a very large majority, but the difficulty that we have faced ever since is that the British people delivered a result that Parliament neither expected nor wanted. I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I do not want to take up much time but it is very clear that, if we had to take the decision again, we would not have a referendum.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Lord is entitled to his view but I would not agree with him.
That is the root cause of the difficulties that we have faced over the last three years. Parliament took a different view. Parliament got the result from the British people, and certainly the then Foreign Secretary, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, got a result very different from the one that he wanted or expected. I regret to say that Parliament has, at every turn, sought to thwart the implementation of that decision of the British people, and this Bill is but the latest instalment of that sad endeavour. Of course, it gets us nowhere. We have had one extension as a result of the Bill’s predecessor. It has given six months of extra time, which has resulted in no conclusion. The failure of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was eloquent in its admission that those who came together to support the Bill before your Lordships, both in the other place and in this House, are not in any sense in agreement about the next steps and what ought to be done.
This situation is made even more serious by the refusal of those who proclaim their belief in democracy to put that belief into practice. It is bad enough that Parliament thinks that it knows better than the British people on this issue; it is even worse that, as things stand at the moment, Parliament is denying the British people a general election in which they would have the right to decide and to express their view on the performance of the malfunctioning of the other place and to insist on the implementation of the decision that they took in 2016. This Bill is, I hope, one of the final acts of a House of Commons that has proved itself manifestly incapable of meeting the challenges in front of it. I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, we have had only one speech from the Cross Benches so far. I suggest that one more might be appropriate at this juncture.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
The noble Lord would be regarded as a good chap if he were to give way to me, which he declined to do before. I have never said, nor did I say in my remarks, that the European Union was the sole cause of stability in Europe. Of course, NATO played its part. Indeed, I implied that when I referred to the attitudes and policies of Mr Putin. If he is endeavouring to infer that I believe that Europe alone has kept the peace, that is not the case.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Lord did not say so; I entirely agree. However, it is very commonly said—and it is not true.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, as foreshadowed by its strange nickname—the surrender Bill—this Bill seems fated to be pigeonholed in the public debate as a remainer instrument that would need to be instantly repealed in the event of a Conservative victory at what we must assume to be the forthcoming general election. Of course, it gives some short-term comfort to those, like me, who still believe that our national interest is best served by staying in—but I suggest that this Bill, if passed, may prove to be of assistance even to dedicated leavers, should they soon find themselves with a parliamentary majority. It will save them from the consequences of the impetuous decision to set the date of 31 October in stone. It will do so in particular by allowing desperately needed time for two things the Government say they want: a withdrawal agreement and preparatory legislation.
Let us assume—generously, perhaps—that the Government are sincere in their stated preference for a negotiated Brexit. Their current position appears to be that an election in mid-October could be followed by a few days’ frenzied negotiation on the basis of proposals not yet submitted, a deal at the European summit in mid-October, the subsequent ratification of that deal—not only by this House but by the European Parliament—and the passage of a new and no doubt lengthy withdrawal agreement Bill, all by 31 October.
The Bill introduces an element of realism into that equation. It will have no effect if the Government achieve their stated aim of a deal by the European summit. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, even a subsequent deal will deactivate its requirements, according to Clause 1(5). If the Government do not achieve their aim, the extension that must be requested under the Bill is long enough for negotiations but not for a further referendum. Indeed, Clause 2 proceeds on the assumption that negotiations will progress during that period.
If our fate is to crash out with no deal, legislation will be required, and here too the Bill gives much-needed time. The Government were saying earlier this year that six new Bills were needed before a no-deal Brexit. Five of those Bills are still before Parliament. They will obviously not progress over the next few weeks, and I understand that it may not be possible even to carry over some of them into a new Session. Without those Bills, the Government will not be able—to give a few examples—to establish a trade remedies authority, set fishing quotas or even end free movement, if that is what they wish to do. To the dangers of a no-deal Brexit must be added the hazards of a legal vacuum.
Then there are the 100 Brexit-related statutory instruments that the Brexit Secretary said on 27 June were required before Brexit day. According to today’s UK Constitutional Law Association blog, only 27 of those have been laid, and Parliament is about to lose its ability to sift and scrutinise any that may be laid in the weeks to come.
We are all being urged to be ready for Brexit. This Bill is, among other things, an essential part of that process, and it has my support.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, whom I am very glad to count among my friends.
We should not be here, but we are. A few months ago, a resolution was passed in your Lordships’ House to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses, built upon a suggestion I made three years ago, to talk about the problems that this country would face and evaluate the cost of no-deal exit. I greatly regret that that opportunity was missed. Indeed, it was flagrantly ignored by those who had the power to accept it in another place: those who sat on the Government Benches.
My noble friend Lord Howard talked about the “good chaps” theory of government. We owe a great deal to a number of good chaps and chapesseswho are responsible for this Bill. They are giving us the opportunity of drawing back from the brink. While I agree very much with the general sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I came to the conclusion that the referendum, having happened and having produced what I consider to be an extremely disappointing and potentially very damaging result, had nevertheless been sanctioned by us and a clear but narrow result was achieved. I wanted to bend my efforts to ensuring that we left in a seemly and proper manner. What we are really talking about today is our continuing relationship with our friends and allies—and they are both—in continental Europe. It would be desperately damaging to our country, as well as to the peace of Europe, if we left in a fractious manner. It is crucial that we maintain our strong friendships. We are part of the continent of Europe; an insular part but a part none the less.
As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, even though I have a Scottish family background, my identity is English and my nationality is British. But my civilisation is European and that is something that we all share, whether we acknowledge it or not. Whether I go across the road to the great abbey, or across the road at home to the great cathedral of Lincoln, I see an embodiment of European civilisation. It is crucial that, in a continent that has been devastated by war far too often, we maintain the closest, friendliest and most co-operative relations with the nations of Europe. If we crash out without a deal, in a spirit of inevitable acrimony—we saw yesterday how that could arise in this very House, among friends and colleagues—then we are reneging on our joint parliamentary duties, in the other place and in this House.
We owe a great deal to the bravery of the 21. I believe that the vindictive and appalling treatment of them is a blot on our party, which must be expunged as quickly as possible. The very future of our country and our political system is at stake. My noble friend Lord Howell, in his interesting speech, talked about changes. I think of my favourite poet, Tennyson, who said:
“The old order changeth, yielding place to new”.
Maybe we will have to look at new political alignments in our country, because if the Conservative Party becomes a rebranded Brexit Party, as Ken Clarke indicated the other day, where is the place for one-nation conservatism? Where is the place for a party that has contributed so much, as other parties have, to our country’s history and present position? If the Conservative Party is led in this direction, and those who have given such notable and distinguished service as Ken Clarke are extinguished from it, maybe we will have to look for a new centre party, embodying what is best in the political system in our country.
The tragedy of British politics today is that we have a Conservative Party being led in a particular manner and a Labour Party that brings shame upon itself and deserves, in the tradition of Attlee, Gaitskell, Wilson and Callaghan, to have a statesman at its head. Whatever one’s views of Mr Corbyn, one can never define him as a statesman. All of us, on both sides of this House, face real problems. We will compound those problems in a terrible manner if we crash out of the European Union and heap upon ourselves problems that we do not need to heap upon ourselves.
We have missed opportunities. I referred to the failure to take up the suggestion of the Joint Committee. I believe we missed an opportunity in not being more embracing of the deal that my noble friend Lord Callanan, who is just leaving the Chamber, did so much to defend here. I hope that his exit does not indicate a change of mind on it, because the May deal was not even the beginning of the end; it was really the beginning of the beginning, because there is a great deal more work and negotiation to be done, whatever happens. I hope that, because of the deep, visceral divisions in our country, we will give some thought, when the election comes, to having a referendum on the same day. Some may utter notes of dissent, but a good many of my friends who have not been supporters of a second referendum believe that this may well be a way of separating the issues of who people want to govern the country and our place in Europe.
There is a lot to play for but it is crucial in the context of today’s debate that we have a proper and organised exit that maintains relations with countries with which we have had such close relations, in a continent in which we have played such a seminal part through the centuries. From the Spanish Armada to the Napoleonic wars, and beyond to the wars of the last century, this country’s role has been one of which we can be proud. Do not let us descend into an insular status of which our grandchildren would be ashamed.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who I also consider a friend. I agreed with most of what he said on the European context, as much as I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, a few moments ago.
I welcome the comments with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, opened this debate, referring to the context of our times in which this debate takes place. It was 80 years ago this week that the Second World War started. At that time we did not turn our backs on Europe. The existence of the European Union has grown from the desire of people to avoid ever again fighting civil wars on our continent in the way that happened so disastrously twice in the last century. That is the context of what we are debating now.
I am delighted to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the way he introduced it. My party, Plaid Cymru, played a constructive role in the discussions that took place and led to this Bill, particularly through Liz Saville Roberts MP, our leader in the House of Commons. As a party, we campaigned to remain—and so did I. However, we were willing to seek a compromise because we recognised that Wales and Britain had voted no to Europe. In fact, a White Paper was brought forward jointly by the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru with a compromise that would have involved a customs union and single market involvement. It could have found a majority across party boundaries in the House of Commons, but it was ruled out by the red lines that Mrs May introduced. I regret very much indeed that that opportunity was missed.
Of course, things have now moved on. We are faced with a very real danger of crashing out of the European Union on a no-deal basis. This would be utterly disastrous in the Irish context, which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will talk about in a few moments’ time. It would also be disastrous at home in Wales. Take agriculture: in the first week of November, where will our sheep farmers take their sheep when there is no market for them? That it true not just in Wales but in the north of England and Scotland. When we have an unknown trading relationship with the continent into which we are so integrated, how will the manufacturing companies in my part of north Wales, such as Airbus and Toyota, be able to continue trading, given the just-in-time basis on which deliveries take place? The same is true for our universities, the tourism sector and NHS staff. It will be a disaster if we crash out. I support the Second Reading of this Bill in order to systematically and definitively avoid no deal.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I do not think the Labour Benches have spoken recently. It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as it was to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is indeed a friend as well.
I fear that the new Prime Minister, his advisers and his Ministers are clearly hell-bent on crashing this United Kingdom out of the European Union without a deal. There is a dogmatic, hard-right elite in No. 10. In passing this Bill, Parliament is standing up for the decent majority in this country and against that malevolent elite. This sinister, self-serving, ideologically obsessed, wilfully destructive approach has to be stopped in its tracks. We in your Lordships’ House have a chance to do that today in supporting the elected House of Commons.
A salutary measure of the reckless dogmatism of the Brexiteers is that surveys show that two-thirds of Conservative Party members and the same proportion of Leave supporters simply do not care if Brexit means a hard Irish border or Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. For them Brexit is everything, come what may. You might say that, for them, Brexit trumps everything.
With the clock ticking rapidly towards 31 October, the new Government have done precisely nothing in their couple of months in office—deliberately so. Whatever the Prime Minister’s disingenuous protestations, he is running down the clock to crash out of the European Union on 31 October unless we stop him.
We simply cannot believe what he says. As Aidan O’Neill QC said of the Prime Minister in submissions to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on behalf of the 77 parliamentarians in the challenge to the Government’s arbitrary Prorogation of Parliament:
“You look at the record, you try as best you can to determine the credibility and reliability of what is said against a background of an individual whose personal, professional and political life has been characterised by incontinent mendacity or, to make it plainer, an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge and speak the truth”.
I see that the Prime Minister’s EU negotiator was back in Brussels again yesterday, again with nothing to say, nothing to offer and nothing to propose—a briefcase full of blank sheets of paper, I suspect, and a waste of taxpayers’ money on his Eurostar fare, I would venture. Apparently, this negotiator is an able and experienced diplomat. Having worked with his predecessors, I have no doubt that he is, but his political masters will not let him use those talents and do his job. Instead, the Prime Minister travels to Paris and Berlin— Dublin next Monday, too—then exaggerates or fabricates what exactly happened.
“We’re making real progress”, claims the Prime Minister. I have checked directly with government contacts in the main capitals and with people in Brussels and that is simply not true. Look at the comments on the record from Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Dublin, and it is crystal clear that not one single proposal has been made. It is also clear that they are not budging. Why would you in any negotiation if the other side has not made any counterproposal at all?
The tragedy is that this is not incompetence. This is not a Government taking their time in the background to prepare a serious, considered new idea. It is deliberate inaction, running down that clock and being gratuitously insulting to our friends in the Irish Republic, hoping to make it to a no-deal exit designed to turn this country upside down and convert it into a free-for-all, deregulated and fundamentally unequal society blissfully disengaged from its neighbours and isolated from the outside world.
Today, we get a chance to make the Prime Minister stop that clock. I do not want Brexit at all and I think the people should have another say in a public vote to stop this madness, but if the choice ends up being between a deal and no deal, we have to stop no deal.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Following on from the noble Lord’s comments about checking with other European capitals, I did likewise this morning and asked whether any full proposal has been put forward in relation to any aspect of the negotiations. I received the categoric response that no proposals have been put forward.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention because he is absolutely right and confirms what I was asserting.
Nowhere is the serial dishonesty of the Prime Minister starker than on the Irish border. Do not take it from me; take it from our very own Civil Service, whose work on no-deal planning emerged in mid-August in what was known as Operation Yellowhammer. Its analysis made it crystal clear that, although Ministers keep saying that they will not do so, not putting up border controls will be unsustainable because of,
“economic, legal and biosecurity risks”,
and that this could lead to “direct action” and road blockades. I fear that that is an understatement.
Next, there is the Northern Ireland Civil Service, an organisation under considerable pressure because of not just Brexit but the shameful lack of a Government in Belfast. Its top official said bluntly that the impact would be much more severe than in Great Britain and would have profound and lasting social and economic consequences, and that the overall consequences for Northern Ireland would be grave.
Worse again—if that is possible—the new chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland warned that Brexit could become a “trigger” and a “fuelling point” to attract more people to extremist groups. His assistant chief constable was reported to have said in an interview that,
“we would be concerned for a six to 12-month time frame there would be some sort of upsurge in support for dissident republican groupings and activities”.
Those are not my words; they are the words of police chiefs. I could go on but, on the basis of just those three assessments by professional public servants, I ask this: why in God’s name would we ever wilfully facilitate these no-deal outcomes? The Prime Minister seems happy to do so, but I am not—and I trust that this House is not happy either.
At the root of the problem is that the Prime Minister and his fellow Brexiteers never have had a proper plan of their own for Brexit. They never put one forward in the referendum, and on the Irish border he still does not have a plan. That is why many of them openly favour no deal: because it is the only alternative if you have no plan.
The truth is that no deal equals a hard border because that is what falling out under World Trade Organization rules means. I am no fan of former Prime Minister May’s withdrawal agreement, but I accept the backstop knowing the complexities of Northern Ireland from my time as Secretary of State. In his reckless, bull-headed fashion, the Prime Minister has made the backstop the villain of the piece, but it is an insurance policy and, if alternative arrangements are found to achieve the same objectives, of the same open border as we have now, then it is set aside. What is wrong with that?
The Prime Minister and many commentators here—and, sadly, some elements in Belfast as well—try to pretend that Northern Ireland is no different from anywhere else: that it is just another border, like, as he famously said, that between two London boroughs and just another straightforward place where trade in goods is the only issue. In fact, the Prime Minister seems to have dumbed this down even further and decided that the only goods traded are animals and food. I thought the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was extremely telling. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but he did not answer his noble friend’s question: there is no other border in the whole world like the Irish border. That is why it needs a particular solution and not a no-deal outcome.
The Prime Minister surely knows deep down that it is not true either that this border is simply about animals and food. It is a 300-mile border with some 300 crossings—those are the formal crossings; leave aside the farms that cross the border and other communities that straddle it—unlike almost every other border in the world. It has unique arrangements under the Good Friday/Belfast agreement for north-south co-operation and that agreement is an international treaty. A little-noticed document published on 7 December by the Department for Exiting the EU lists no fewer than 157 different areas of cross-border work and co-operation on the island of Ireland, north and south, and many have been facilitated by Ireland’s and the UK’s common membership of the EU. These areas are the things of everyday life; they go well beyond animals and food and must never have a new border erected to block, discourage or thwart them. They include food, tourism, schools, colleges, farming, fighting crime, tackling environmental pollution, water quality and supply, waste management, bus services, train services, cancer care, GPs and prescriptions, blood transfusions and gas and electricity supply.
Almost every one of these areas is about people’s everyday cross-border lives and almost all are linked to the European Union, and Ireland’s and the UK’s common membership of it since 1973—we joined at the same time. To interfere with those arrangements—either through no deal, the terms of any divorce deal or any new trade agreements that we may someday, somehow strike with EU partners—would be a terrible step backwards for which the people of the island of Ireland would pay a terrible price, as would we in Great Britain.
With other Peers, I learned one other thing the other day. With Stormont suspended and unlikely to be resurrected unless Brexit is stopped, if no deal occurred there would be no legal powers left for the Northern Ireland Civil Service to maintain the necessary civil contingency and security arrangements in border communities and beyond. In other words, no deal means direct rule. That is the serious consequence for the island of Ireland of no deal.
I am desperately worried for the future of Britain under no deal, but I am absolutely livid about the impact on the island of Ireland. It will destroy the work of successive UK and Irish Governments in helping courageous and visionary leaders in Northern Ireland to remove borders and instead put them back up. If for no other reason than to maintain peace and progress in Northern Ireland and good relations with the Republic, I urge that this Bill pass without amendment.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I want to make two brief points, one of which is directly concerned with the Bill, from which we have been drifting somewhat. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, made a compelling case for the unification of Ireland—but that may be for another day—and that the effect of terrorism seems to have achieved what the terrorists wanted.
Turning to the Bill, it does not answer the question of what the situation will be if there is still no deal by the end of January. Will the extension be continued? Nothing in the Bill prevents the continuation of extensions, months after months, years after years—nothing at all. It is an eternal Bill, an ongoing loop of requests for extensions. It also does not answer the question of what our response will be if Europe grants an extension but subject to conditions. I am sure they will be tempted to add conditions to do with extra payments, losing votes, residence, immigration, tax and so on. There is no answer in the Bill at all.
The only bright thing I see in this Bill, which I regard otherwise as a moment of great national humiliation, is called the Kinnock amendment. I have not seen it in the Bill, but I have read that, somehow, an amendment put in by the MP Stephen Kinnock would allow Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement to return. I would put money on that agreement coming back, sooner or later, maybe with a tweak or two. In a fit, either of exhaustion or realism, that Bill will go through. It may be that history will say that there was a woman, St Theresa of Maidenhead, who laid down her political life to achieve an agreement. If that happens, much of the last three years will have been wasted. I am not the only one putting money on it coming back, as it may be the only solution.
The right reverend Prelate raised the notion of vision. People often talk about the vision of Britain after Brexit. I ask what the European vision is. If this had been put before the public three years ago, the outcome might have been different. I have been looking for a European vision for more than 25 years, since I decided that I did not want any part of it. The only answer has ever been more union, more Europe, marching on. Foreign policy has been raised. It has made us weaker. What is the European attitude towards Iran, Russia, China or the Middle East? We get division, hesitation and some countries that are beholden to Russia, one way or another, because of gas or their former existence under the Soviet shadow.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Baroness asked some questions about the European attitude. The European attitude towards Iran is clear: it wishes to sustain the joint agreement, which stops Iran developing nuclear weapons, and to ease sanctions on Iran. Its position on Russia is clear: it intends to maintain sanctions against Russia, because of its interference in Ukraine and seizure of Crimea. The attitude towards China is clear: the European Union believes that many Chinese trade practices are wrong and need to change. On the Middle East, it is clear that we have supported a two-state solution ever since the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, persuaded the European Union to take it up in 1980. Is that enough?
Baroness Deech
The account of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, expresses exactly the failure to which I refer. Not one of these so-called attitudes has paid off, in the least. Our foreign policy, on our own, has been and will in the future be much more successful.
Baroness Deech
There was genocide in Kosovo and nothing was done by Europe. Crimea was taken over and nothing was done by Europe. Europe is not paying its subventions to NATO.
Then we look further into Europe, which is much vaunted for its human rights. In Catalonia, strivers for independence are in prison. Poland lacks judicial independence and freedom of speech and refuses to take any except Christian migrants. Italy is chaotic. Greece has been driven into poverty, and there is youth unemployment in Spain and Portugal. In Germany and many other countries, the right wing is on the rise. In France, the gilets jaunes are an expression of a much deeper malaise. French security is an oxymoron, as is Belgian intelligence. I will be happy for Hansard to record my deep fears about the future of the European Union because empires—it was a Franco-German empire and is now just a German empire—end like this, with too much power in the middle and too much unhappiness on the periphery, and the push-back gives rise to the extremism which we see rising around Europe and which is lapping at our ankles now.
On that count, I think that our membership cannot but be something of a record of failure to stem what has happened in Europe. I wish the other 27 well in future, but if I were a citizen of one of the countries I have just mentioned, I would feel very fearful for my future welfare. I hope that we can get some answers from the Benches opposite about what the Bill will do to prevent the eternal burden of membership of the European Union.
Lord Mandelson (Lab)
My Lords, I must say I am slightly lost for words and do not know quite what to say in—.
Lord Mandelson
I think it is the turn of this side, but there is plenty of time.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, as a woman I find it very difficult to get in in these sorts of debate, but I rise to speak on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and to contribute to the scrutiny. I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. We should thank her for the excellent speech she made yesterday which helped us to move forward and to be here today to scrutinise the No. 6 Bill. I am also grateful for the midnight peace talks admirably led by the new Chief Whip. Thanks to him, we all had some beauty sleep.
My amendments were not reached yesterday, but I was horrified by the way the procedures of our House were being perverted. I knew a plot was afoot because on Tuesday I walked into the Moses Room by mistake. I was too well-behaved to eavesdrop or to tweet what was going on—I have a good convent education to thank for that. Scrutiny is at the heart of the work of this House, as I think we agreed yesterday. Today’s debate and tomorrow’s Committee and Report stages give us an opportunity to go through this Bill line by line, which is what I hope we will be able to do.
I believe there is growing evidence of the negative impact of Brexit on the economy and society. I am in business, and uncertainty has been rising. It is extremely difficult for all involved. Noble Lords will know that I am a remainer and have worked for most of my career on EU matters. However, I share the view of growing numbers of people in this country that we must get on with Brexit. Months, or even years, of delay to Brexit day, which I think this Bill accommodates, will make matters worse, not better. We cannot have another three years of going round in circles. I think that is a risk. We need an agreement.
However, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, from my long experience in Brussels, we have to keep open the option of no deal; otherwise our negotiating position in the Brexit negotiations is undermined. Indeed, on the matter of no deal, I was glad to hear from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, who asked us to look critically at the actual impact of no deal. I took some comfort from the Statement earlier this week by my noble friend Lord Callanan, and I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is heading up no-deal contingency planning with enormous drive and professionalism. I think the pace of transformation is at a completely different scale and rate from what we saw under the May premiership. That is just in case we cannot come up with the agreement that we want.
Lord Krebs
On the matter of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he said on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday morning that there would be no shortages of fresh food, but the British Retail Consortium, with which the noble Baroness will be very familiar from her work with one of our major food retailers, immediately said that that was categorically untrue. Does she accept what the Chancellor of the Duchy is saying, or does she accept that the trade association for the business in which she used to work knows what it is talking about?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I know what I know and I know what I do not know, and I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is pushing things forward with an enormous amount of energy. No doubt after that exchange he will have been straight on to Defra, or whoever is responsible for these things, to talk further about the arrangements. Clearly, there are going to be problems from Brexit, whether with a deal or with no deal, and of course I know that food is a particularly difficult area. However, I am saying that we need to have proper management across the board, and I think we are seeing signs of that.
You have to look at both sides of the argument, but this debate has been very one-sided so far. I am interested in talking about the Bill rather than wider polemics or history, which I can help the House with less. My current inclination is to oppose the Bill and vote against it if I have the opportunity.
That brings me on to my questions, and I hope the noble Lords opposite—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is in his place—will be able to help me with a more detailed justification of the Bill’s provisions so that there will be more explanation and fewer polemics in the debate. The Bill as it stands—and I have read it—appears to force the Prime Minister’s hand. It seems that he would have to accept almost any deal that the EU offered up. I am also concerned that the Bill gives the EU too much power over timing. Clauses 3(1) to (3) seem to tie the Prime Minister’s hands quite tightly. I am not sure what Clause 3(4) does and whether it moderates any risk.
I am keen to assist with the scrutiny of the Bill, but I fear that we may come to regret some of its provisions, especially if we do not look very carefully at something that was pushed through at great speed under the guillotine culture of the other place, which we discussed yesterday. We need to find the right result for our economy and our people and to end this cloud of uncertainty that is a real problem for the country. I hope I am wrong and that this will help us, but I remain extremely unsure.
Lord Mandelson
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, with whom I have seen eye to eye on almost all business questions—certainly the majority of them—in the past.
Before I comment briefly on the Bill itself, I shall make two preliminary remarks. The first is that, as a former Northern Ireland Secretary, I strongly endorse the remarks and arguments made by my noble friend Lord Hain. He was not indulging in hyperbole. This is reality; it is real-life politics in Northern Ireland. There is an enormous amount at stake and any of us would be very ill-advised if, for the sake of boredom with the subject, including the backstop, we were simply to pass over what he has said. There are genuine risks involved in relation to peace in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I will comment on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. From the discussions I have had in national capitals and in Brussels, I can confirm that he is absolutely right that no proposals have been made by the British Government that are negotiable and would lead to a deal being concluded in October, November, December or any other month. However, certain ideas are being canvassed which concern the sectoral coverage of the backstop, its possible duration and the conditions surrounding both those aspects of it. The reason in my view that they have not been tabled is that a judgment has already been made that they will be unacceptable to those with whom we are going to negotiate. They involve a compromising and an undermining of the backstop which would negate its purpose and effect.
Therefore, the chances of what is being considered in Whitehall and was taken to Brussels by David Frost —who is a credible interlocutor and diplomat representing the British Government—being accepted in Brussels are hovering on zero. That is why we cannot take at face value the Prime Minister’s statement that he is negotiating in good faith. I do not believe that he wants to negotiate a deal. I think he would like to present, as it were, a fait accompli—something that he would ideally like to see—but not to negotiate. That is simply not going to happen.
I support the Bill for one reason, which is that crashing out of the European Union on 31 October without a deal would be, to put it mildly, highly sub-optimal for our country. It would prevent us from securing the continuity of our enforceable trade rights in what is our biggest export market in the world; it would prevent us from securing the continuity for many businesses operating in the European market of their enforceable business contracts. There are a host—a waterfront—of pacts, agreements and laws that underpin our commercial and related relationships with the European Union that have been built up over half a century, all of which we would be unable to guarantee the continuity of from the stroke of midnight on leaving the European Union without a deal.
I am not saying that aircraft would fall out of the sky or that many of these agreements would simply disappear and dematerialise before our eyes. However, over time they would come to be contested. There would be people, for a variety of reasons, wanting to pull threads and then pull a rug from underneath a variety of these pacts and agreements. If we were to leave without securing their continuity, we would create the risk of huge damage and jeopardy to our commercial relations, and therefore to our economy and to the jobs, livelihoods and investments of hundreds of thousands of people in Britain.
It would also do something else: it would destroy what lingering goodwill exists in Europe towards us. If we were to crash out and leave in such a disorderly way, it would inflict great damage not only on our own country but on all member states of the European Union. Such an act would make their willingness and our ability to negotiate a future free trade agreement between ourselves and the European Union infinitely harder to achieve. For that reason also, we should avoid crashing out without a deal.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am listening to the enormous expertise of the noble Lord and indeed I am in considerable agreement, particularly about the crash-out, which in a way I am rather happy this Bill possibly postpones and possibly avoids. I am listening also to the great expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. But are they both quite sure that the enormous amount of work that has been done on volumes such as the one that I have here on alternative arrangements in the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, which is quite unlike any other border in the world, are non-starters before they are even discussed in Brussels? Is he quite sure that all the proposals for special regions, trusted traders and new arrangements for all-Ireland animal livestock and so on can be thrown out of the window before we even start? I am not so sure myself.
Lord Mandelson
Nor am I. I am not so sure that we should just push them all to one side as though they have absolutely no potential whatever. That is not my view. My view is that they are not realisable in the foreseeable future and that, in the meantime, we would put the Good Friday agreement and the peace process in Northern Ireland in great jeopardy in a way that would be unjustified and unforgivable. There is a very interesting discussion to be had about the future. It depends on certain modalities, technology and related approaches that have potential—I fully accept that—but they are not for now; in my view, they are for the future.
There is not only the obvious economic, business and commercial argument to be had concerning people’s jobs and livelihoods that are at stake; in my view, there is also a very strong democratic argument to which we should attach great importance in our consideration of this Bill. Quite simply, it is that there was no mandate from the 2016 referendum for a no-deal Brexit. I know that people will say that it was not explicitly ruled out, but to all intents and purposes it was ruled out by the fact that nobody referred to it, nobody explained it, nobody justified it and nobody set out the arguments for it. Not one of the advocates of the leave campaign ever entertained the idea that this would be the outcome of our leaving the European Union.
Such a possibility was almost literally airbrushed out of the picture by the promises that were made by the advocates of the leave campaign—that getting a deal would be “the easiest in history”. Plus, there was a later guarantee—I remember that “guarantee” was the word used by No. 10 in repeating what the then Brexit Secretary, David Davis, had said. The precise words used were that we would have the “exact same trade benefits” after we left the European Union. Not only has that promise of the easiest trade deal in history turned out to be wrong and unfulfillable but the exact same trade benefits will, as we know, be nothing of the kind. They cannot be anything of the kind. We will sustain frictionless trade that is exactly the same as the trade benefits that we have at the moment only if, at the very least, we stay in a customs union with the European Union and fully in the single market. That is the only way in which those promises that were made—that guarantee put forward by No. 10 —could possibly be redeemed, yet it is firmly, consistently and explicitly excluded by the Government.
Baroness Deech
I have a point of order about the non-envisioning of a no deal. Of course it was not raised at the time. First, Article 50 mandates that the EU shall negotiate a treaty, which it has failed to do. Secondly, it was never envisaged that the remainers would fight this all the way along for several years. Thirdly, the agreement that we talked about in a broad sense and was mentioned at the time was to do with trade. The actual withdrawal agreement, when we get to it, is about much more than trade. In that sense, it is perfectly understandable that there was no explicit discussion of no deal.
Lord Mandelson
I do not remember any of those intricacies, highways and byways being set out by anyone at the time or since—but, of course, the House will be interested in what the noble Baroness has to say.
The fact that any possibility of maintaining frictionless trade has been explicitly excluded by the Government is extremely serious for the manufacturing sector in this country and the long-term health of our economy. I do not see and cannot understand how, given the nature of just-in-time, sophisticated manufacturing supply chains and the way in which they operate between the UK and the continent, it will be possible for Japanese car companies or Airbus or any significant manufacturing enterprise to sustain production in Britain in the medium term.
That does not mean to say that they are all going to pull stumps, shut the doors and pull the shutters down and leave the day after tomorrow. Of course they are not, and any sense that they might is an absurd piece of hyperbole. However, over time—by which I mean between five and 10 years and probably on the shorter end of that spectrum—these great manufacturing companies are going to have to make new arrangements. They are going to have to move production in a way that enables them to secure continuity of their supply chains and the frictionless trade that they will no longer have when sustaining production in this country.
Let us not go back over all the customs union and single market arguments. I do not know what has happened to the Kinnock amendment and his and his colleagues’ advocacy of Norway. All I would say is that it would appear that there is no political possibility of those options being reintroduced or attracting and sustaining a majority, certainly in the other House. Let us acknowledge that they would in any case raise issues of regulatory dependence by this country on the European Union, while having no say in the making of those regulations.
I do not dismiss that. Having been on both sides of this as a UK Business Secretary and a member of the European Commission, I take rather seriously the idea that we in this country would simply be on the receiving end of laws and regulations made in Brussels over which we would have been able to express no view. There are real issues involved here and I acknowledge them.
In conclusion, the central point—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds made it earlier—is that the referendum in 2016 was an in/out one. It was an in-principle referendum. It was not about the how and the terms on which we would leave the European Union. No hint of those terms was spelled out between a soft and a hard Brexit, and of course there was absolutely no indication of leaving without n deal at all.
So now, as we find ourselves, at the behest of the new Prime Minister, hurtling towards a no-deal exit, I believe that the Government should accept that this really cannot and should not happen without the express approval either of Parliament or the public. I will wind up, if I may—it is nice to see the Government Front Bench intervening in a debate at long last. Here is my further point in conclusion. I do not believe that the express approval of the British public for how we leave the European Union can possibly be expressed by means of a general election.
Lord Framlingham
The noble Lord is maintaining that there is no debate about what would happen after the referendum. Does he not recall that the leave people made lots of forecasts—some of which have not happened—and that the Government spent a fortune sending leaflets to every household in the country, warning about all the problems in great detail? There was a huge amount of debate at the time of the referendum. It was not simply in or out and nothing else.
Lord Mandelson
Perhaps my recollection is at fault, but I do not remember a huge amount of debate about the respective merits of a soft and hard Brexit, let alone a no-deal Brexit.
In conclusion, I do not think that you can arrive at a clear choice about how we leave the European Union by means of a general election in which so many issues, subjects and personalities are at play. We should look to a clear-choice referendum where the options are properly explained and a full debate is had. The public can give their final say one way or the other about how—and, if the how on offer is unsatisfactory, if—we eventually leave the European Union.
It may be that the Government want one of these options to be a no deal. If so, it is up to the Government to put forward a no-deal option in a clear, final-say referendum. If they want to do that, so be it. If they have exhausted all the alternative negotiating possibilities, let that be put fairly and squarely to the public in a referendum. It must be a clear alternative—a clear choice—that the public are asked to make. Without it, I am afraid we are never going to find a way of resolving what is a most acute conundrum.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, somebody died this week who was a prominent northern circuit silk—a Queen’s Counsel—in my years in the law. He was known throughout the profession as the Alka-Seltzer because he settled everything. It was of great credit to him and brought him great repute. It is a pity that there are not more Alka-Seltzers in both Houses of Parliament today.
I speak as a remainer who has long been reconciled to having to leave. I strongly and consistently supported the May deal over recent months. One of its merits was that it satisfied no one. There would be no winners, and only when there are no winners are there no outright losers who will continue to bedevil relations in this country.
I am no supporter of the Prime Minister, nor of his team. I am against Prorogation. I am against crashing out without a deal. I am against the narrowing down of the basis of the Tory party and almost everything else. However, I cannot support this Bill. It is truly remarkable—an Opposition Bill; a curiosity which raises one’s suspicions from the outset. It is designed and calculated to have these twin consequences. First, it immediately tells the EU 27 that, if they do not now offer a more acceptable deal than the May deal, instead of the no-deal Brexit—the Prime Minister’s intended consequence which the EU 27 must, heaven knows, in logic be desperate to avoid—they can rest immediately secure in the knowledge that, without an acceptable deal, we will instead remain for at least three months, and who knows on what recurring basis into the future, on whatever terms they choose to impose.
The second twin consequence is that, in the event that there is no deal by 19 October, which is logically more likely because of the weakening of the negotiating position—the first consequence I mentioned—the Bill compels the Prime Minister of this country to go to Brussels, cap in hand, no doubt with Dominic Cummings to heel, in order not merely to seek but to obtain and secure a further extension of what has already been twice extended, on whatever terms the 27 choose to impose this time.
Ordinarily, of course, one normally simply accepts a majority decision of the House of Commons. This House has its very limited scrutiny and revision role. It plays ping-pong, a misnomer if ever there was one. In the game of ping-pong, you are allowed to return service, but that is it. If the server then comes back at you, you are, just occasionally, allowed one more shot. At that stage, your opponent—and he is an opponent—is entitled to win.
In my respectful submission, I seriously question why the usual convention should apply in the particular circumstances of this case, when those promoting this Bill are at one and the same time intent on compelling the deep abasement of our sitting Prime Minister and yet refusing the Government the opportunity by general election to reinforce its right to govern, which we generally take for granted. It seems pretty difficult to me to suggest that the promoters of this Bill are obviously faithfully fulfilling the clear will and mandate of the electorate. The country really wants an end to this. Bring on the Alka-Seltzers to achieve it—by adopting, with some sensible modification, if necessary, the May solution.
Lord Patten of Barnes
My Lords, I had not meant to intervene in this debate—and that is true. Having sat through much of the night, benefiting from the wisdom of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Dobbs while envying my noble friend Lord Forsyth—by then in his sleeper on the way to Scotland as the rest of us dealt with the filibustering that he had launched with his usual panache—I thought that I had probably had enough of all of this. However, one of the dangers of coming in and listening to a debate is that one is provoked into wanting to make one or two contributions. This is particularly the case whenever I listen to my noble friend Lord Howard. I can honestly say that, while I have disagreed with him on many subjects over the years, I have never doubted that he was anything other than a good chap.
I will come back to good chaps in a moment. There were two points I wanted to make as prequels to three points—which I will cover very briefly because they have been dealt with admirably by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Mandelson.
I want to endorse what was said earlier about the departure from the Government of the Higher Education and Science Minister, Jo Johnson. I will not make the obvious points about Johnsons and one’s preference. However, Jo Johnson was at my university, where I am now a chancellor. I did not always agree with the legislation he brought forward on higher education in the last Session, but he was an outstandingly good and conscientious Higher Education Minister, as well as very intelligent. He is a real loss to the Administration, and I hope he is not a loss to public service for family reasons. He is a very good man.
Secondly, I want to identify myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Cormack earlier about the treatment of some of our former, present colleagues. I am sure it was inadvertence which meant that my noble friend Lord Howard did not refer to them either. We were both colleagues of theirs in government. I am sure he shares my high view of their public integrity and public service. My noble friend has known one or two of them even longer than I have—he was at Cambridge with them. I am surprised that we did not hear about the appalling and hypocritical way in which they have been treated. I hope that will be undone as rapidly as possible; it was not Mr Cummings’s or Mr Johnson’s finest hour.
I shall briefly make three points, which have been touched on in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. The first is on the trade negotiations. We have been told again and again that the reason this Bill is so suspect is that it cuts the Prime Minister off at the knees in the negotiations over our future relationship with the European Union but, as my noble friend Lord Hayward pointed out, the question is: what negotiations? There is no rustling in the shrubbery. You ask the President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the French Republic, the Chancellor of Germany and the Taoiseach about the proposals that justify our Prime Minister in his observation that things are going well and the Government are putting forward all sorts of bright ideas, but there is no reply. It would be nice to hear from the Front Bench later this evening what the state of play is in these negotiations and what we are proposing—presumably somebody knows. Maybe we should just take it from Mr Cummings, the éminence grise in the regime—maybe one should call him the éminence—who has brought a new approach to personnel management at No. 10, that all this is a sham. But if it is a sham, that is all the more reason for having this legislation in place. If it is not a sham and we are making terrific progress, it seems very likely that we need rather more time to complete the progress, hence one of the advantages in a reply to a question posed earlier, and hence the advantage of a few more months being built in, if absolutely necessary.
The second point, related to that, is touched on by the “good chaps” theory, which, to be operable, needs a sense that the people you are dealing with are good chaps. One thing we know, and which underpins some of the discussions about when there should next be an election, is that there is a strong sense and suspicion—I put the point no more firmly than this, but I use a word used by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke—of the disingenuousness of the Prime Minister. Maybe there are those who are not absolutely sure that he and the people who surround him are good chaps. We know that eight of them voted again and again as bad chaps against the proposals that the last Prime Minister brought forward. One reason we have had this long period of delay is the activities—the high productivity rates—of the ERG during the negotiations so far.
There is another aspect of the “good chaps” thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, which needs touching on. I thought my noble friend Lord Howard was rather curious in the division he drew between the Executive and the legislature in international affairs and international negotiations. I, like him, was a Secretary of State for the Environment. I used to go to international negotiations on the environment with the reports of Select Committees and with legislation from the House of Commons determining what I should try to do about ozone-depleting substances, or water or air quality. When I was a Development Minister, I had to operate within the terms that the House of Commons had agreed on the proportion of our GDP to be spent on overseas development. I had to comply with what the OECD said about that as well. When I was a colonial despot, I had to implement what Parliament had decided about the joint declaration and the terms within which Britain should exercise its stewardship in our last colonial dependency. So do not tell me that there is an absolute division between what Executives can do abroad and what the legislature has a right to determine.
My final point is about Northern Ireland. I shall not repeat the points made very well by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Mandelson, nor shall I repeat what I have said on other occasions in this House about the Northern Ireland border. It is a sign of the beginning of dementia when you start quoting your own speeches. However, in the second speech I made on the withdrawal Bill, I said that one of only two interventions made by the last Prime Minister during the referendum campaign was about the appalling difficulties of managing the border if we leave the European Union, which was true. Two points have regularly been made about the border. First, there are terrible difficulties as soon as you leave the single market for the customs union. Some of us posed a question to the intellectually sprightly Lord, my noble friend Lord Howell, about where else in the world one could find two countries side by side with different tax regimes and different customs unions that do not have a border, and the answer is that there are none. There are ways of making it easier to deal with a border, but when you have different customs unions and different tax arrangements side by side, there is no way that you cannot have a border. The problem with that in Northern Ireland is very simple.
Lord Howell of Guildford
There are different arrangements either side of the border; there have been for years. The VAT is different, the currencies are different, there are all sorts of differences, and many similarities. You cannot just brush these things aside with generalities.
Lord Patten of Barnes
The point I continually make is that absolutely everywhere, whether it is in Switzerland and France, Norway and Sweden or the United States and Canada, if one is in a different customs union from one’s neighbour, there is a hard border.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I would be very interested to know how he reconciles what he has just said with the fact that when, for a few weeks earlier in the year, it looked as though we might be leaving the European Union without an agreement, the Government said that they had no intention of putting up a hard border on the island of Ireland, and Mr Varadkar, Mr Barnier and Mr Juncker also said that they had no intention of putting up a hard border on the Republic side of the border. If no one intended to put up a hard border in the event of no deal, there must be a way through.
Lord Patten of Barnes
My noble friend knows perfectly well that under WTO rules, and for other reasons as well, if the Republic of Ireland is in a separate customs union from Great Britain, there has to be a border. It is a WTO rule. There is a border and traffic is stopped there.
There is a point that resonates even more than the economic argument, which is the question of security. I am sorry to personalise this, but a lot of our knowledge—and our prejudices, perhaps—in politics come from our personal experiences. The first time I saw dead bodies, apart from those of my parents, was near the Newry customs post in Northern Ireland, where I saw part of a leg on top of a rhododendron bush. We know perfectly well that if we do not get this right, there is a danger of people being killed—not just of businesses being destroyed or communities being devastated, but of people dying. If people do not believe that, they should read what is said again and again by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Síochána.
These are terribly important issues and I just hope that we will bear in mind these facts, as well as the questions of economics and trade, when we are determining the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which many people still seem to treat as though we have viceregal authority over it. These are great friends of ours and we should treat them rather better than we do.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, I had not intended to speak today, in particular because I spent so many hours yesterday voting on a variety of closure Motions and amendments that appeared, I thought, somewhat unnecessary. The whole procedure contributed to the sense that it was not Parliament’s finest hour—a strange position to be in when, surely, the whole purpose of the vote to leave the European Union was for the United Kingdom to take back control. We do not seem to be doing a very good job of that.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I have at various points felt that we are in the heart of a great national humiliation. However, I suspect my reasons for thinking it is a national humiliation and those of the noble Baroness are a little different. I have spent a lot of time talking to colleagues in other European Union countries and every conversation includes: “We’re so sorry about Brexit”, “What on earth is happening in the United Kingdom?” and “How did you get to the point of capitulation?” The word “capitulation” came back in December when the then Prime Minister had negotiated her withdrawal agreement. The EU 27 spent months wanting to know what David Cameron wanted in his renegotiation, they spent months wanting to know what Theresa May wanted in her negotiation, and they are now spending time asking what the United Kingdom wants, if it wants to change something.
We were given a six-month extension and told not to waste it. What have we done? Most ordinary people in the United Kingdom have not had the opportunity to do anything at all on Brexit since 29 March. Unless one was a member of the Conservative Party, there was no opportunity to vote for a new leader of that party and no opportunity to vote for who the new Prime Minister would be. Everything has changed since the extension was announced, yet in some ways nothing has changed. The United Kingdom has been unable to agree on the withdrawal agreement. We have heard already today calls from some who oppose the Bill that the European Union needs to make an agreement. The EU 27 made clear before Article 50 was triggered what their position was. They have remained united ever since the United Kingdom triggered Article 50. The problem is that the United Kingdom is as divided today as it was on 23 June 2016, if not more divided.
We have had the general election that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, called for. He said that we need a general election. We had a referendum in 2016, the date that some people seem to suggest democracy stopped—the date that we should always have frozen in aspic as the date when the people spoke. A year later, we had a general election. The composition of the House of Commons today is the result of that election in 2017—an election called by Theresa May to enhance her mandate for the sort of Brexit that she thought she wanted. That did not go very well.
We heard earlier from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that there was a problem—that we need to deal with Brexit, that this peculiarity of a Bill coming from the Opposition seems quite wrong, and that we should listen to the Government. But the Government have no majority, even with the DUP’s confidence and supply agreement, which seems to be more absent than present. On the day after the Summer Recess, the departure of Phillip Lee ensured that the Prime Minister lost his majority, and taking the Whip away from 21 of his colleagues ensured that it has no hope of a majority.
This country has been ripped apart by the referendum. David Cameron said that he wanted to stop his party obsessing about Europe, but what we have seen is his own party ripped apart. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who I am sorry is not in his place, talked eloquently about those colleagues who have been lost to the Conservative Party. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, spoke similarly. Despite being a Liberal Democrat, I have friends on the Conservative Benches. I feel personally the loss of committed parliamentarians who feel that they can no longer sit in the House of Commons because of what has happened over Brexit.
This is a national humiliation and to allow the Prime Minister to take us out of the European Union on 31 October without a deal would be a travesty of democracy, because democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. We have had a general election since then. We need another general election. Everyone can agree on that. But we cannot agree that a general election should be called before there is some guarantee that we will have an ongoing relationship with the European Union with some sort of withdrawal arrangement. That is what the proposed Bill offers.
The Bill does not say that the Prime Minister has to have a withdrawal agreement: it allows for the House of Commons by a Motion to say that we will leave without a deal. What it does not allow is for the Prime Minister to think that he is some sort of unelected dictator. We still live in a democracy. The Government do not have a majority in the House of Commons and if the House of Commons wishes to vote against the Government and say that we need a deal, so be it.
If and when we get agreement on ensuring that the United Kingdom does not crash out of the EU, that is the time for a general election. Perhaps the Ministers and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when they come to respond, will consider the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. If we need to allow the people to have a say on how we leave the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, a general election is not the way to do it. How about a simultaneous referendum, so that the general election can do what a general election is meant to do and help us form a Government, and a referendum would allow the people to have a final say? I am no fan of referendums, but ultimately, what the people decided only the people can ratify.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I support the Bill, which is extremely necessary, timely and rather skilfully drafted. I shall not dwell long on the rather dispiriting debates we had yesterday. I note that when you are making sweet white wine, it is usual to leave the grapes on the vine until they have been attacked by something called noble rot. Well, there was quite a lot of noble rot around in this House last night.
I will look, rather, to the future, I want to address one of the central planks of the Government’s belief: that they need to be able to leave without a deal as a negotiating tool. It is something the Prime Minister has said again and again. Most recently he spoke about the Bill as cutting him off at the knees. The trouble with this thesis is that it is not supported by any evidence. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Prime Minister or his predecessor made any progress at all by threatening to leave without a deal. After all, the previous Prime Minister coined that dreadful phrase “No deal is better than a bad deal” at Lancaster House more than two and a half years ago, and if the European Union 27 really are quaking in their shoes about such an event, we might have seen a bit of quaking by now. We have not seen such quaking, so I think this whole approach—using no deal as a lever—is completely unfounded and false. It does not work. Frankly, we should stop kidding ourselves, on the government side at least, that this is “open sesame” in Brussels. It is not.
The other point, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and one or two others, is that we still do not have a clear picture of the costs and implications of leaving without a deal. This House made a perfectly imaginative proposal to the other place in July, which was ignored and treated with contumely, but would have meant that by the end of September we would have had a joint parliamentary inquiry which could have taken evidence not from people who are parti pris, as many speakers in this House are—I admit I am one—but from organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the budgetary responsibility people, the CBI, the TUC and others. Out of that we could have had, by the end of September, a really clear picture of what was entailed. Do we have a clear picture? No. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked on the radio this morning how much it would cost, did not know. This is why it is essential that this piece of legislation means that when decisions have to be taken, in late October, we actually have some control over it.
My third point has been alluded to by many other speakers and concerns our British union. I am the son of a Scottish father and was brought up for quite a bit of time in Scotland. I am a unionist through and through and if anyone tells me that crashing out without a deal is not going to damage the stability and continuity of that union, in Scotland, Wales and above all in Northern Ireland, frankly they lack all credibility. The Bill is necessary. It was made the more necessary by the decision to prorogue. I will not go on at great length about that. Of course the Government have the right to recommend Prorogation to Her Majesty, but the underhand way this was done and the perfectly obvious intention to deprive Parliament of quite a few sitting days in which it could have considered these matters has triggered and emphasised the need for this piece of legislation.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I will not talk about European history, nor start psychoanalysing the Conservative Party. I will leave that to others. I will talk briefly about the Bill, because that is what is before us.
As many noble Lords may know, I voted to remain. Our side lost but I have always believed that we need to honour the result of the referendum and leave the European Union. There are clearly only two ways in which we can do that: with a deal or without one. We here and in the other place have spent the best part of a year trying to reach a parliamentary consensus around a deal. Compromise has been tried. I have argued for compromise many times, and some have attacked me for doing so. It has failed conclusively.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and others have said, there is no parliamentary majority, as we all know, for the withdrawal agreement, for the UK to remain in the customs union or the European Economic Area, or to hold a second referendum. The only approach that might command the support of the majority is to renegotiate the Irish backstop, which we have had a considerable ding-dong about today and which I do not want to get into. However—here I entirely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—there seems absolutely no chance that the European Union will start changing its position on that right now, and it will certainly not succumb to the demand to take that out of the withdrawal agreement entirely. If you believe that there is a democratic imperative to leave, and there is no parliamentary majority to leave with a deal, that clearly leaves only one option: leaving without a deal.
That brings us to this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and others have made clear, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said when introducing the Bill, its purpose is clear enough: to extend the negotiations and avoid our crashing out without a deal. However, this leads to a whole series of questions, which, to be honest, although we have had an interesting debate about the future of Europe, we have not got to the bottom of, and some of which my noble friend Lord Howard, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, have touched on.
The core question is this: if this Bill were passed—and it seems clear that it will be—and Brexit were to be delayed yet again and the negotiations go on beyond 31 October, what precisely will the UK be negotiating for? What is the negotiating mandate? We know that there is no majority in the other place for any other approach. I have just said this; the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said it. We have spent years trying to reach this consensus, so what is this negotiating mandate? I have yet to hear the answer. I know that it is not necessarily for the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to say, but perhaps someone can tell me. I do not know what it is, and even with the amendment in the name of Mr Stephen Kinnock it seems completely unclear.
This brings me on to a second point. Again, I may be a bear of very little brain and someone may be able to answer this, but who will be doing the negotiating? We can debate all we like what it says in the Bill, but Mr Johnson has said that he will not go to Brussels. So who will be leading the negotiating team there? Will it be Mr Jeremy Corbyn? The Speaker? Someone else? Who will create this? It is just not clear. The reason it is not clear is that none of us knows.
Noble Lords may say that they have heard me say this before, and I do not like succumbing to the problem mentioned by my noble friend Lord Patten of repeating speeches I have already given, but sadly this is a speech I gave two and a half years ago standing at that Dispatch Box when an amendment passed—I admire your Lordships for your consistency on this—which was going to give the other place the right to block no deal. I made these points and opposed this amendment then, and I oppose this Bill now for that precise reason.
Parliament exists to make decisions, not to dither, which is why, when this Bill becomes law, it will show beyond doubt that it cannot fulfil that primary purpose —to decide on our nation’s future. So, as I have been saying for months, the brutal reality is that the current Parliament is broken and it is time for a new one. We need a general election and we need it now. Now that it has been agreed that this Bill, flawed though it is, will become law, I humbly argue to those in the Opposition, some of whom I consider friends, that they should stop blocking giving people the chance to express their views in the ballot box and agree to a general election on 15 October, so that on that day—three years, three months and 23 days since 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union—people can decide on their nation’s future.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I have never spoken on Brexit before and I hope to provide at least a fresh voice and maybe a few fresh thoughts. This debate sounds rather like almost every Brexit debate of the past three years and is a slightly despondent dance upon the head of a pin to some rather miserable mood music.
I will speak for my contemporaries: parents with young children, young workers just establishing a career, entrepreneurs establishing their businesses, and those just getting by. I increasingly hear that they just do not care and do not identify as remainers or leavers. They just want us to get on with it. Let us do that and give ourselves and our children a certain future. As the right reverend Prelate said, the question now must not be whether we leave, but how we leave. I have a suggestion. While the Bill purports to take no deal off the table, perhaps in the spirit of new compromise we could equally consider taking remain off the table. We could focus all our considerable skill, erudition and efforts on leaving, leaving well and healing all these bickerous divisions. We owe it to our children. It was my kids’ first day back at school yesterday and I spent the day in much more childish play than they did.
I was once a remainer. Indeed, as a Burgundian family that set up shop in Devon over 800 years ago, we have done rather well out of a previous European union. But now I am firmly a post-Brexiteer. We have to look to the future. We have left Europe before many times and we have rejoined Europe before. Remember Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt, the Field of the Cloth of Gold, the Reformation and the Glorious Revolution. I hope, having had family members proudly active in all those engagements, that my presence here can remind your Lordships that a negotiated departure from the current European Union does not preclude us from an active and leading role in our continent, or indeed perhaps rejoining it at some point, whether sooner or later.
I support the Bill if it allows us to move on and finally to get on with our national life. I also support the brave efforts to prevent the current Government herding us like lemmings off the no-deal cliff, with the parade of Yellowhammer horribles that would follow us. For farmers, fishermen, families, Ireland and the whole future of our United Kingdom, I really support the Bill.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Before the noble Earl sits down, I must say that he lives in a very different world from some of us. My children, all the friends of my children and the vast majority of students with whom I come into contact daily at Oxford University—I refer to my entry in the register—all want to stay in the European Union because they all recognise that their place is there and that that is where they will maximise their opportunities and potential. I wish to place on record that I live in a very different world from that inhabited by the noble Earl.
Earl of Devon
My Lords, if I may respond, I wholly agree. My experience is that the younger generation really do want to remain, but if we continue to fight we will be trashing their futures. If we continue to fight about this we will be absolutely rubbishing their options. If we can get out now, well and cleanly, they will have years ahead of them in which they can get back in. They can get back into a new, better and different European Union, but I do not think we are doing them any favours by spending three years churning through politicians and Governments, depressing our economy and trashing our farming just by arguing about this issue. I have sat quietly on this for a number of years and I firmly believe, although I am devout remainer, that we just have to get on and get it done with, rip off the plaster and start afresh. I am sorry.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon, because I completely agree with him. I have not prepared a speech, so what I say will not be in order. I am a European. My mother is of Russian origin, my father was French and I have lived in Germany, America and the United Kingdom. I am sometimes a little surprised by the word “European” because European countries are all very different and have very different mentalities. In my opinion, the European Union we are talking about is of the past. There was a union for various reasons, and I will not go through the history of the coal community—I cannot remember the name—that led to the European Union. One reason was to protect us against the eastern bloc and the political reason was because we were afraid of the resurgence of the Nazi movement. Then there was trade, which was very useful for all our countries.
The point I am trying to make is that Europe today is very different from the Europe we are talking about. I live in France and I go to Germany quite often, and their view of us is very different from what we think it is. We are friends and we can work together. I strongly believe that we can leave the European Union but remain Europeans in the terminology we are talking about. The United Kingdom is very different from Europe. We used to call it “the continent” in the old days because we are different. For better or for worse—I believe for better, because I love this country—we are in a different world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech —who is no longer in her place—pointed out, Europe is not a place I particularly want to remain a member of because I look at it as something that will not work long term. I find that a lot of Europeans are very disillusioned with the European Union and feel very remote from its government. One thing I observe is that people feel left behind. The resurgence of nationalism is a direct result of the European integration forced upon them. People want a sense of nationality.
Baroness Ludford
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Since her remarks seem to include observations about anti-EU feeling in different states, can she give an example of a member state where a majority want to copy the UK in voting to leave? My understanding of the polls is that support for membership of the EU has gone up in every EU country.
Baroness Meyer
That is not the case in every country. It is certainly not like that among the eastern members. In France, there is quite a strong movement to get out of the European Union. Look at Italy; look at the gilets jaunes. I know it is not reported very much here but there is a strong feeling that people feel not part of the club—a club that was built many years ago. I think we have moved on. That is my opinion, but this is a place where I think it is important to share one’s opinion.
I go back to the point that we are where we are: I voted on one side and you voted on the other side, but somewhere along the line everyone in the other House agreed to hold a referendum. What I fear most, which reflects what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was talking about, is that if we do not deliver what the people voted for, we will be in deep trouble. There will be a real reaction, and that is how revolutions are started. My grandparents were evicted from Russia as a result of the same sort of mentality. The centre, in the form of Russia’s royal family and the Government, had no idea of how the people in the streets were feeling; they were so remote that they were not inclusive.
If I had a choice, I would not go for this Bill. My reasons for saying that are, first, that we must give the Prime Minister a new—
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
The noble Baroness talks about revolutions, but does she agree that the EU has been hugely instrumental in keeping the peace in Europe since the Second World War?
Baroness Meyer
We are going back into the past and I think that the results of the Second World War were a little more complicated than that. The European Union was initially created as a body against the eastern bloc. I am not going to go into the causes of war—the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, gave us examples —but the European Union has not always been very cohesive in its defence policy. The world has changed. Cyber attacks are now dangerous, so we need to look outwards a little more.
The point is that people voted to leave in a democratic vote and we should respect their decision. I know that along with my husband, some noble Lords voted to remain, but we should not undercut the negotiating powers—some are saying that Boris Johnson has no negotiating powers—of a Prime Minister. He has to have the support of parliamentarians. His job is to deliver what the people wanted.
Lord Judd (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she accept that perhaps the major tragedy of this whole saga is that our political community has never grasped the reality of the fact that when the Coal and Steel Community and the Common Market were set up, while they were certainly about rational and necessary economic arrangements, right from the beginning they were a means to an end? Right from the beginning the purpose was political: to build a stable and peaceful Europe. When she describes the uncertainty in Europe at the moment, which is true, surely this is the time for us to be there, determined to build, together with others, the fortress that will keep Europe stable and peaceful. Why does she take this defeatist attitude?
Baroness Meyer
On the contrary, I take a positive attitude. This country can do very well on its own and we do not necessarily need the Europeans. People say that we have been chained by Europe. I take your point that, originally, we were worried about the eastern bloc, but I would say that the cancer is now inside Europe because it is disintegrating. If we leave the club, before it is too late, we may be better off. We now have this opportunity, so at least give the Prime Minister a chance to see if he can negotiate a deal that we can all agree to, and then we should move towards reuniting this country.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Is not the reality, as we can see from the gilets jaunes and from what is happening in Italy, Greece and Spain, that, as the polls show, many people are thoroughly discontented with the European Union, but, thanks to Gordon Brown, who saved us from the euro, we are able to leave in a way that would be extremely difficult for them?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I do not know whether the Front Bench will be doing its normal practice of looking after the conventions of the House but I believe that only people who were here for the opening speeches normally intervene.
Baroness Meyer
Do you want me to stop talking? I think that I have made my point that we all have different opinions. I come from a different side. I just want this country to get together and move on. We can blame David Cameron for having called a referendum, but, for better or worse, the point is that it happened and we have to move forward. That is what I am trying to say. There is a future for this country on its own. We need to look at the rest of the world, where there are a lot of opportunities, and stop looking at the past and seeing the European Union as something that used to be fantastic—it is now changing. As my noble friend just said, when you look at what is happening economically in all those countries, it is not great. We will have more flexibility if we are out. That is my point.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it has been a very long time since we have heard from this side. I reassure the noble Lords who have just given way that I did not intend to speak either and will be extremely brief.
As some noble Lords know, I worked for 15 years in the European Parliament with the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Balfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords. I am not making any political points—this is exactly how I feel—but the European Union represented by some in this House is not the European Union that I have experienced and that I know well. It is a European Union of representatives of their countries who come together in order to reach a compromise to serve the greater good and the greater number of people. Governments come together in the Council of Ministers to work and vote together, and, if there is a big issue, it is that when those Governments vote in the Council of Ministers they very rarely reveal to their national parliaments how they voted. It is about voluntarily pooling sovereignty to achieve far more than would be achieved by acting alone. That is the European Union that I know—working with colleagues as the rapporteur on the Schengen movement and ensuring that, within that, there is no discrimination at the border on pivotal grounds such as race, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation or values.
Unless we go back to the past, we will recreate it. I believe that the European Union was quite literally born out of the ashes of the Second World War. Others have heard me say this and I will revisit it again and again. Countries decided that they would no longer fight one another for land, power, coal or steel but would work together. From the ashes of the Second World War, of people’s hopes and dreams, and of crematoria dotted across Europe, there was a determination that we would never look away again while a group, a minority or a country was targeted and scapegoated—and that is deeply personal to me. If I, as a gay man, had been living in certain parts of Europe during the Second World War, I could literally have been taken to one of those camps and been worked to death. I must connect with the 6 million-plus Jews who were obliterated because of their religion and with others.
If there is discrimination and a rise of the right wing in Europe in the countries that have been cited, is that not all the more reason to work together to ensure that that is brought to an end? We should not turn away and say, “It is only the things that matter to Britain that I am concerned with”. What makes us human is our ability to stand in the shoes of the other and ask, “Would I want that to happen to me or my children?”.
I can see certain Members on the Front Bench getting perhaps a little impatient with me. What is his point? Do not mumble from a sedentary position. If the noble Lord has something to say, can he please stand and say it? I will always give way.
The reason I have decided to speak today, after a long silence since my original initiation in the early debates, is that no one has mentioned those individuals within the groups who face appalling uncertainty: the 3 million EU citizens who live in this country. If for no other reason, this insurance policy—this Bill before us today—gives them a degree of certainty and hope, and if for no other reason I would grab this Bill with both hands.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said: what about division? By going for a no deal Brexit, what happens to the 16 million-plus, such as me, who with our values would feel completely disconnected from our country? Do we heal the division there? No— we reinforce it. Therefore, for no other reason than the ability to stand in the shoes of others—yes, including those who voted leave and who want a resolution—we have to work together.
The noble Lord and others referred to having trust in the Prime Minister, but one of our concerns is that we do not believe what he says. Other noble Lords have referred to reports from other capitals. But if this Bill, which we have before us today, gives the Prime Minister in whom most of your Lordships seem to have faith and belief the time to reach a deal that brings parts of this country together that, at the moment, seem forever divided, we should give your Prime Minister this insurance policy of extra time.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. There are moments when one is reminded of what a privilege it is to be in this place. This debate is one of them. I think, in particular, of what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, just said; how the noble Lord, Lord Patten, ended with his warning on Northern Ireland; what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said; and what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said. I do not intend to address any of the great themes that they touched on today, but it is a privilege to take part in a debate of such calibre. I did not feel that about yesterday’s debate for some reason.
I want to address two themes: a constitutional theme and a negotiating theme. One concerns our domestic affairs and the other our relationship with the EU 27. Both arise directly from the terms of the Bill we are debating. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, quoted my hero, Kenneth Clarke, who yesterday, in the House of Commons, referred to an element of disingenuousness in the prime ministerial position. I found it shocking that the documents revealed in the court case in Edinburgh show that the Prorogation plan and timing was decided in the middle of August and, for another two weeks, the No. 10 spokesman denied that there was or could be any such plan. I found it very shocking that the Prime Minister, when the plan became clear and the proclamation was issued, maintained that his motives had nothing to do with Brexit. Nobody in the country believed that, but it was still shocking to me to see in these documents from Edinburgh that it was precisely about Brexit. It was knowingly and deliberately about Brexit. Ken Clarke said that it was “disingenuous”. We have an issue of trust here.
The No. 10 spokesman said this morning that, if the Bill we are debating now becomes an Act, the Government and Prime Minister will not abide by it. I assume he misspoke, but we recall Mr Gove discussing this with Andrew Marr last Sunday and refusing to say whether the Government would implement the law of the land. They will wait and see what it says. On the same day, we saw that, among the clever plans that Mr Cummings is cooking up is simply not sending the Bill for Royal Assent. This is not exactly the “good chaps” theory of government. I find it difficult to deal with this issue of trust. I spent a long time in public service, and one did not see one’s political masters being disingenuous or telling lies. One saw them avoiding answering difficult questions. One found ways to help them avoid answering difficult questions. One gave them answers to other questions, which might be suitable, but one never drafted a lie. In 36 years of public service, I do not think I ever told a lie. Telling a lie is a stupid thing to do, because it creates a subsequent problem of trust. So we are legislating against a peculiar background.
I was interested in the discussion of legitimacy by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and this being an opposition Bill. I found that discussion more interesting than the historical disquisition, where I do not entirely share his views. I do not share his views on the discussion of legitimacy at all. A Bill is a Bill. A Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and comes to us here. It is legitimate and the voice of the House of Commons. If we approve the Bill, it is then the voice of two Houses of Parliament. It does not matter who drafted the original; it is legitimate. It would be wholly illegitimate for the Government to decide to do what Mr Cummings hinted, which was to sit on it and not send it to the Palace, or what the spokesman this morning said they would do, which was to ignore it. That is a major constitutional issue.
When the Government reply to this debate, I hope they confirm that, if the Bill is passed by this House tomorrow, it will be sent for Royal Assent; and that, once it has received Royal Assent, it will be acted on. These are ridiculous questions to ask in our parliamentary democracy, but such is the issue of trust that one has to ask them.
My second theme is our relationship with the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
It may help the noble Lord if I inform him that, as part of the agreement last night, we said that, if the Bill is passed and becomes an Act, it would be available to the House of Commons on Monday and sent for Royal Assent.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
It will be sent for Royal Assent, but would it then be acted on? No one asked that question yesterday because it is an absurd question. I only ask it because a No. 10 spokesman said today that it would not be acted on and that the Prime Minister would not abide by it.
Lord Callanan
The reason I used that form of wording is that one of the original proposals was that we would guarantee that it would receive Royal Assent. Obviously, we cannot speak on behalf of the Palace so we merely said that we would enable it to be sent for Royal Assent. I think the original guarantee that we were asked for was that it would receive Royal Assent by Monday evening. We could not give a guarantee because obviously that depends on the ability of Her Majesty, so we will send it for Royal Assent if it becomes an Act.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
But of course it would be open to Her Majesty’s Ministers to advise her to give Royal Assent, and I assume that is what would happen. Can that be confirmed?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
May I repeat to the Minister the question that Mr Marr put to Mr Gove? Will the Government act on the law of the land if this Bill becomes an Act and receives Royal Assent?
Lord Cormack
I remind the noble Lord that the last monarch to refuse Royal Assent was Queen Anne, over 300 years ago. Subsequently, every Act passed by Parliament has been submitted for, and received, Royal Assent.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I want to move on to the European theme and the question of negotiation. The scripts spoken to yesterday by a number of noble Lords contained the familiar argument, which the Prime Minister has been using extensively, that the legs would be knocked out from under his negotiating strategy if no deal was taken off the table. I have spoken on this before and I do not want to bore the House, but I believe that is completely untrue. Saying, “If you don’t give me what I’m asking for in this negotiation, I will shoot myself”, is not a credible threat.
We know that the pain is asymmetric; although everyone is damaged by a no-deal crash-out Brexit, it is the UK that will be damaged hugely more than anyone else. We know that and they know that. We know that there is a problem of asymmetric preparation. They are better prepared than we are, even though they have proportionally less of a problem than we have.
Everything that I have said up to now I have bored the House with before, but here comes a new point. It is now not possible, or it will very shortly not be possible, to get a new deal agreed at the European Council on 17 October. I think the Prime Minister may listen too much to Mr Cummings, who is an expert on game theory and has studied it very closely; I do not think he has done much international negotiation, but he knows a lot about game theory. I believe that he is playing the game of chicken, which we know from American movies in the 1950s and 1960s, where you put your foot down hard on the accelerator, ideally throw away the steering wheel and drive straight at each other, each believing that the other guy will swerve. There are two problems in applying that theory to negotiation with the EU. One is that it is a union, consisting of 27 member states. It takes them a long time to make a decision to swerve. They need to get instructions in Brussels on whatever you put forward; they need to debate that, send the reactions back and then hear what the Government think.
Today’s papers say that Mr David Frost was saying yesterday in Brussels that the British could not put forward any proposals now because they would be attacked by the ERG, published by the EU and criticised in the Article 50 working group. Each element of that is probably true, but it should not mean that we do not put forward any proposals. When Barnier says “paralysis” and our Prime Minister says “remarkable progress, wonderful progress”, the question of disingenuousness creeps in again. I tend to believe Mr Barnier; I find it harder to believe our Prime Minister, which is a very worrying thing to say. It will take them a lot of time. Any proposals to be discussed on 17 October ought certainly to be in negotiation now with the Article 50 working group.
It is my belief that Mr Cummings, in addition to believing in the game of chicken, does not mind if we have a no-deal crash-out. Given what Mr Farage has been saying, he may actually see benefit in a no-deal crash-out. Mr Farage has said that if the Prime Minister negotiates some new variant of Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement, his party will run against the Conservative Party in every Conservative-held seat, whereas if Mr Johnson sticks to his promise to go, do or die, on 31 October with no deal, various forms of pact, informal or formal, are possible. That is what Mr Farage is saying. I have a theory that Mr Cummings may be listening.
In addition to the problem of trust in respect of the text of the Bill before us, we seem to have a problem of whether it will be interpreted not just in the letter but in the spirit. The Prime Minister, obliged to write the letter that the Act would require him to write if the circumstances set out in Clause 1 arose—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, confirms that the Prime Minister would feel so obliged—could send it and make sure that the European Union did not agree. The European Union needs unanimity. He could talk to a friend in, let us say, Budapest; as a classicist, he could also put his oral presentations in a “num” rather than a “nonne” way; by adding threats and undertakings of what we intend to do, he could make sure that we do not get from the European Union the extension that we have required him to seek if the circumstances arose.
The problem of trust is quite a big one. It would be good if the Government in responding to this debate said that they will not only act on the law but do so in the spirit in which the House of Commons passed it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, suggested that we would be going cap in hand to the European Council and who knows what terms we could obtain. That is a bugbear. Honestly, either you are in the European Union or you are out of it; there is no middle position that we could be put into. The noble and learned Lord implied—perhaps I got him wrong—that for the period of any extension the terms of our membership would be for the 27 to decide. No, sir, we are either a member with the full rights of a member or we are not in. I am very sad that we are not exercising the full rights of a member any more; I am very sad that, from 1 September, there are important working groups, important meetings of COREPER and important councils in which the British are following the policy of the empty seat. It did the French no good when General de Gaulle tried it; it will do us no good. Wherever we are going to be—in or out, close or far from the European Union—it must be in our interest, until the last possible moment, to exert as much influence as we can on the direction and legislation of the European Union.
That is my answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. We can put ourselves in a half-in, half-out position, but the European Union cannot. However, I am nervous that we have not necessarily solved the problem with this Bill—for which I shall vote—because it seems to me that, in addition to the risk that the Government will not act on the Bill, there may be a bigger risk that they will act on it in a disingenuous way and that the purposes set out in it may therefore not be achieved.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entries in the register, from which you will see that I am now in my 41st year of appointment in Brussels, with 25 as an MEP and the last 15 in other capacities. It will not tell you that I worked in international organisations for the 19 years before that, from when I left school at 16. I was first in the Crown Agents of the colonies, briefly in a junior position in the Foreign Office, and then working for the Co-operative movement.
My whole life has been devoted to multilateralism, and it has always been a difficult proposition. From the East African Common Services Organisation in 1961—which was the first multilateral body I came across—to today, there have always been opportunities for misunderstandings or clashes of different cultures. However, the important thing is that multilateralism has worked. Multilateralism has been of great benefit in many different areas of this world.
I do not believe that, if we left the European Union, the world would end. We would of course survive—we are a big and strong country—but it would be fundamentally the wrong decision to take. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said exactly what I feel very early on in this debate: to quote someone who may be better known on those Benches than these, I see this Bill as a “transitional demand”, because I want to stay in the European Union. I have never hidden that. This prolongs the time that we are in.
Next to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I see my colleague—my friend, rather—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who served with me on the Cambridge Says Yes committee, where we got well over 70% voting to remain. In Cambridge, when we argued for the referendum, I did not argue about money or the fact that we could do this or get that. It was a straightforward moral proposition that it is right to be in a multilateral organisation and co-operate with your friends, and that the pooling of sovereignty is the gaining of sovereignty. You have to realise that. We speak as though it were a one-way street, but it is not. It is a two-way street, and more comes towards us from co-operation than flows away.
Last night, the Labour Party decided that it did not wish to support an election until this Bill is passed. I hope that the Labour Party will support an election when it is passed, because the House of Commons is now ungovernable. The Government are in a minority—by 20, thanks to their own foolish actions—and they cannot get anything through anymore. We have to have an election.
A lot of my friends are among the 20 suspended. Do not just concentrate on them. I am, for my sins, the president of my local party in Cambridgeshire. I would say that roughly 20% of our members are actively on strike or, as we put it, withdrawing enthusiasm. We will be lucky if we get a window bill up. Last night, I spoke to one of them who said, “Well, I’m going to keep it quiet, Richard, but I’m going to vote Lib Dem at the election”. You can see the situation into which this politics of confrontation has pushed our party. It is a tragedy because these are people who, at heart, are Conservatives—often with a small c, rather than a larger C—but they basically believe in the principles of the Conservative Party. They feel they are being forced out of it. Only an election can settle this.
I ask the parties opposite—and the SNP—to come to some sort of agreement as to how this is to be resolved. My personal conclusion is that it probably has to be through another referendum, because the people have spoken once and it would be bitterly resented if the politicians took the decision without consulting them again. On the other hand, if the people were to return a coalition Government, it would have to be part of the coalition programme—and then you could get a referendum Bill through, though it might take a month or two.
I mentioned that I have these jobs in Brussels which give me an office in the European Parliament. I have a staff there, only one of whom is British, so I have a fair amount of international exposure. If the British Government were to ask for an extension to hold another referendum, it would be given. It would not need a Bill in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The EU would be pleased to grant an extension for the purpose of having a referendum. But it would not be very happy to give an extension so that we could carry on arguing. As they say—and this point has been made on several occasions—nothing is being put on the table. When I go to Brussels, which is generally twice a month, I hear the gossip around: “What on earth are they up to?” “Who is this new Prime Minister of yours who is hell-bent on destruction?” This is the image that is coming across. Colleagues opposite, you have to get your act together, and you have to bring to the election something which resembles a party deal and a way forward for the future.
To conclude, I have said that we could leave the EU. It would be difficult but not disastrous. We are also members of the Council of Europe, where the British Government have played a uniquely destructive role in opposing its budget. The Court of Human Rights has had to be cut back because the British, and Mr Salvini from Italy—now, mercifully, consigned to history—were obstructing even an increase in line with inflation. We must deal better with the multilateral bodies. We should be saying more about the WTO, where the United States is threatening to bring the whole appeals procedure to a halt by refusing to appoint judges. There are so many other multinational organisations to which we belong.
I remember when my noble friend Lord Judd was a Navy Minister. He has probably forgotten, but many years ago we were discussing NATO. I am not sure whether he said to me or I said to him that we could never have a referendum on NATO because it is too central to Britain’s interests to have it tossed around in the political field. I feel that the EU referendum was a fundamental mistake. We have made the mistake, but it is our duty to undo it. You would not go to a hospital and say to the doctor, “I am sorry, let me tell you how to take the appendix out or how to do the heart transplant”. We have to accept that there are some things that the political class may know how to do. On occasions, democracy has to be qualified. This is an unpopular thing to say, but it happens to be absolutely right. You sometimes have to say to people, “I am terribly sorry; I hear what you say, but you’re wrong”.
Baroness Bull
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. We have before us a Bill concerned with avoiding a no-deal Brexit and, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, who is not in his place, I have been taking note of a timely and helpful report from the academics at the UK in a Changing Europe research unit about the issues, implications and impacts of leaving the EU without a deal. At this point I declare my interest in King’s College London, as set out in the register.
I support this Bill and will confine my remarks to explaining why I believe that it is so important to avoid no deal. The report I mentioned usefully reminds us that while the Prime Minister’s “no ifs, not buts, no maybes” approach is presented as offering a clean break and allowing us all to just get on with it, it is, in reality, nothing of the sort. As the report says, no deal:
“Is not a neat way of resolving a complex problem”,
but,
“a way of rendering a complex problem infinitely more so”.
No one should delude themselves that no deal will in itself be the end of the story. There is no realistic possibility—and indeed no suggestion from anyone on any side of the debate—that we will not have a future relationship with the block of countries that represents our largest trading partner and our nearest neighbours. No deal will not be the end of the negotiations but the beginning of a new, more complex and likely even more prolonged set of negotiations. And without them taking place under the framework of a deal, do we really think that those negotiations are going to be any easier? In this scenario, any future deal will almost certainly require unanimous agreement from all member states and ratification by their parliaments. These negotiations will all be set against a backdrop of bruised and damaged relationships, both within the UK itself—as we are already seeing—and between the UK and the EU.
Leaving with a deal would mean a transition period, during which trade would continue as now while the two sides negotiated a future relationship. No deal means a cliff edge, with the UK treated by the Union as a third country. The impact on trading goods would be immediate, with new regulatory and customs arrangements coming immediately into force. This would mean disruption to supply chains, impacting crucial sectors such as food, medicines and just-in-time manufacturing. Larger businesses might be able to withstand the storm; smaller companies are unlikely to have the reserves to do so. Trade in services, always the Cinderella of the Brexit story, would be hit particularly badly. If the UK exits without a formal deal, it will no longer be covered by the services agreement of the European Economic Area but will have its trade with the EU governed by the General Agreement on Trade in Services, a treaty under the WTO. GATS provides far less access than the current EEA arrangements and therefore fewer opportunities for the UK services sector.
This disadvantage will be compounded by another challenge: professional qualifications will no longer be automatically recognised in other European countries. Under the EEA, UK qualifications are subject to mutual recognition agreements, so if you are a UK-qualified accountant or architect you can provide services in other EU countries. Under no deal this would immediately cease to be the case. Professional services suppliers would have to apply not just to have their qualifications recognised but for working visas. This sector is the second largest services exporter in the world, with 2018 services exports valued at £283 billion, or 45% of total UK exports; of this, £117 billion-worth were exported to the EU. This is a sector, let us not forget, that provides four in five jobs, up and down the UK.
There is also no clarity on what no deal will mean for freedom of movement from 1 November. I am afraid that recent government pronouncements have not made things any clearer. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, already referred to the concerns of the 3 million EU 27 citizens currently resident here. Without a deal, what new rules will apply and how are employers, landlords or providers of public services supposed to apply them? The profound sense of insecurity that EU citizens currently feel in this country is no doubt shared by those Britons resident in other European countries, for whom the position is perhaps even more complex and unclear.
A further, little discussed consequence of no deal is the immediate loss of access to EU databases and other forms of co-operation, including the European arrest warrant, the Schengen information system and Europol. In a world where data is key, this will present very real challenges to policing and security operations. I fear that it will provide a welcome window of opportunity to criminals intent on illegal access to and use of data.
Then, of course, there is the island of Ireland. This is almost certainly the greatest and most serious unknown at this point, already discussed in real and compelling detail by other noble Lords today. Many of the worst consequences of no deal—such as severe disruption to road and air transport links—will be averted in the short term because of temporary workarounds that the EU has put in place, but some of these expire as soon as the end of December, just two months into no deal. It is interesting to speculate what will happen to those temporary workarounds at that point, when we could well be engaged in an unedifying dispute over moneys due under a so-called divorce bill.
Whatever happens, we will eventually come through, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds suggested, but we cannot pretend that there will not be significant costs to no deal, socially, culturally, and economically. Research from the academic research unit I mentioned has found that trading with the EU on WTO terms would, after 10 years, reduce the UK’s per capita income by between 3.5% and 8.7%, and it is not the only credible source coming to a similar conclusion.
As we consider the Bill today, I ask that we be under no illusions that no deal will provide closure on this sorry period in our nation’s history. It will be just the beginning of a process that will not be easy but will be time-consuming, politically fraught and damaging to our economy. Let us not forget that the inevitable reductions in public spending that will be the consequence of economic downturn will hit hardest those people who are least able to stand it: the poorest, the most vulnerable and the marginalised in our society. For all these reasons, I support the Bill.
Lord Hayward
My Lords, it is somewhat difficult speaking after some four hours of debates, because I want to pick up on comments made and I do not want to duplicate comments made earlier. This is actually the first time I have ever participated in a debate on the referendum, on withdrawal or the like: I do not face the problem my noble friend Lord Patten referred to of repeating myself from other speeches, because it is the first time I have made these comments.
I voted remain, but I am absolutely committed to finding a way to leave. That is where I disagree very strongly with some of the earlier speeches from, for example, my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who referred to the disadvantages associated with leaving. I recognise those but, as far as I am concerned, the referendum delivered a decision and I very strongly disagree with those who argue for a second referendum: just by dragging something out, one does not necessarily negate the original decision. I disagree with the position of the Liberal Democrats and of some other noble Lords who have spoken today.
I have found myself in strong disagreement on a number of occasions with the EU negotiators. I found them to be at times arrogant and dismissive, and I still hope that we will find a solution to the backstop, because that is the nub of the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has identified some solutions. They may not work but I believe that we should try to find one, even at this late hour.
I have made comments about the EU and the Liberal Democrats. My observation about the Labour Party’s negotiations is that I have been unclear throughout as to where it actually stood. I am referring not to those in this House but to the general Labour Party position. It has lacked clarity and assistance, and therefore has not helped in moving towards a leave solution.
I speak today as a Conservative Peer, so it behoves me to look at the position in relation to the Conservative Party. We are essentially discussing a Bill that says, “We do not trust the Government in their current position”. That is the essence of what this Bill is saying. Unfortunately—it hurts me to say it as a member of the Conservative Party— I am moving to that same position in relation to the current Government. Why have I come to that conclusion? I understand all the disagreements with this Bill from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and others, but we are in a position in which the Prime Minister tells us he wants a deal but at the same time announces that we are going to prorogue Parliament.
On Monday the Prime Minister is due to be in Dublin meeting the Taoiseach. What is the point of saying to the Taoiseach, “By the way, I don’t have a plan or anything on the table”—as I indicated earlier in my intervention on the noble Lord, Lord Hain—“but I am coming over to negotiate and, at the same time, I am going to call a general election that will take up six weeks of the negotiating period through to 31 October”? If I were the Taoiseach, I would pick up the phone to No. 10 and say, “Don’t bother to turn up”, but of course the phone call is likely to go through to the gentleman referred to on a number of occasions during this debate. If it does, we can imagine the courtesy with which that call will be received—the same courtesy that Mr Clark received when he made a phone call only a few days ago.
I find it utterly unacceptable that the chief of staff at No. 10 Downing Street, who advises on these matters, whether negotiations or the timing of the general election, was found in contempt of the Commons. It is one of the reasons we lack trust, not only in this Chamber but in the other Chamber and, growingly, in the nation at large. Is it really acceptable? I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Bridges; I would say to the Labour Party, “Don’t have the general election until after 31 October”, because I do not actually believe what is going on in the negotiations. I have here the report of the Committee for Privileges, which received the documentation from a Select Committee chaired by a Conservative Member of Parliament. The Committee for Privileges is chaired by a member of the Labour Party, and its conclusions are absolutely clear and damning. That report was then put to the Commons some five days after it was received, and on 2 April Dominic Cummings was found in contempt of the House and the committee without a vote—in other words, it was accepted by the whole House of Commons. I find it unacceptable that somebody who so recently was found to be in contempt of our practices and of Members of Parliament should be advising the Prime Minister on how to handle parliamentary procedure.
I have difficulty with this Bill and the problems associated with it, but I understand what it is saying. I say to No. 10: understand what is being said by the formation of this Bill and change your behaviour immediately, because that trust must be restored in both Houses.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I would like to build on what many of the previous speakers have said, particularly my former boss, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who covered many of the areas that I want to speak on, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I completely support what she said on the economic costs of no deal; other institutions have also looked at that, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Trade Knowledge Exchange—but I must refer to the register of interests, because I am all over both of those.
I should also warn the House to be careful of listening to me. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the No. 10 spokesman role, and the fact that the No. 10 spokesman occasionally has to prevaricate and possibly not answer questions as fully as one might like to, as I had to for four or five years. However, the number one rule is “never lie”. I really worry about the implications of the 15 August thing concerning Prorogation. Was that civil servant knowingly not telling the truth, for which the implications are fairly clear—the person should be sacked—or were they being told untruths? That is important. It builds on the question of trust and on the “good chaps” theory of government, which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned.
Alas, we do not have with us to talk about his own theory my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, but it is worth remembering that, when talking about the decline of the “good chaps” theory, he said that it fell into fragments on 28 August at Balmoral. To my mind, there are wider implications. I was here throughout the events of last night, listening—I would not say “happily”. I was listening to my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, who, when we were in No. 10 together, would speak passionately on policy and the importance of the rules under which this House operates. In the past, he was a bit more concise. I am not a fan of filibusters or guillotines. These are symptoms of the decline in trust.
It is crucial that we trust our Prime Ministers, and I worry that we are in a really dangerous world now. Let me give some evidence. When people are asked about trust, as has happened most recently, there is one profession whose trust rating has had the biggest rise of any over the last 35 years. I am very proud to say that it is the Civil Service. However, the latest survey reveals the biggest ever gap in the public’s mind between the extent to which they trust civil servants and trust Ministers. That is not a good place for our democracy to be. This whole process is causing great problems of that kind.
The other constitutional point that is really important to remember about this Bill is that we have the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition to thank for our being able even to consider this question. If it were not for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the Prime Minister could have just stopped it all, allowed us to leave with no deal and had an election after that date. I am the first person to admit that that Act could be a lot better, and I look forward to being part of amending it at some point to correct the things that are not quite right. It was too rushed—let me put it that way—but it is interesting to look back on it.
On the implications of this Bill, the Prime Minister has said that if we take out no deal, it makes it harder for him to get a deal. I believe the opposite is true and would be interested in noble Lords’ reactions to this, because I have said this publicly already. David Davis was absolutely clear that getting rid of the backstop was not enough for him to support any deal that came to the Commons. He implied that we also have to do something on the money and the jurisdiction of the European courts, and that there were lots of other MPs who took this view.
If this is true, I do not think it possible for such a deal to be negotiated with the EU. We have already heard that it is impossible to get all of the backstop done, so to get this and everything else, they are saying, “Prime Minister, go and negotiate a deal. By the way, when you come back, we are going to vote against it”. What does that do for the EU incentive to offer any concessions? Absolutely nothing. What does that do for our process of trying to come up with a deal? It makes it incredibly hard for that to go through. I do not really understand what we are doing here, because if you are an MP in the House of Commons whose preference is no deal, the obvious thing to do, whatever deal the Prime Minister comes back with, is to vote against it. If this Bill did not exist, the default in law is quite clear—that we would then leave without a deal. The incentive is to vote against it, irrespective of what it is.
I am completely puzzled by this but let us try to be constructive. What is the way forward? A number of people have said that Parliament has had plenty of time to come up with not just what it does not want but what it wants, and it has failed miserably. That is true. My solution to this is a new Parliament. We need a general election of some kind. My one plea is that all the manifestos be absolutely clear about what the parties are going to do. That is crucial, because if we are trying to get the people to make an informed choice and we give them fudge, we could end up in exactly the same place as we are now.
I have two final points. First, some people are saying that the EU is a terrible club, but it seems to have a lot of members keen to join it. Secondly, I have spent a lot of time dealing with special advisers, and my general principle is that good special advisers are extremely good for the smooth working of the Civil Service and its relationship with Ministers. Bad special advisers are toxic and, in the end, bring their Ministers down. That is a lesson the Prime Minister might want to consider.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on so eloquently introducing the Bill, which, as we know, achieved a sizeable majority in the other place. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and a number of other noble Lords, I was a Member of the European Parliament. I also had the honour of advising Conservative Members of the European Parliament for five years. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I were stagiaires together in the same year in the European Commission—not something I would care to mention in polite Conservative company in the present climate. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Hayward, I have no intention of calling No. 10 any time soon.
I will make a few personal remarks on why my policy on Europe has remained so strong. I have always considered myself to be a Scot by birth, British by nationality, and European, and the only comfort I take from this and other debates is that we have been assured that we will not be leaving Europe. Yet many of my friends, particularly parliamentary friends in the other place, are quite keen to prevent us remaining and reapplying to bodies such as the EEA—the European Economic Area—and the European Free Trade Area because of connotations to do with the customs union and the single market.
I also regret that many of the opportunities I had to be a stagiaire and practise European law in Brussels, albeit briefly, and to be a member of the European Parliament, will not be open to present and future generations in this country. I am proud to speak a number of other European languages—some more fluently than others—and it has always been a source of concern to me that we do not applaud or encourage that; speaking a foreign language is considered almost a bit of a crime, and one’s loyalty is questioned for that reason.
I will argue strongly that the Bill is needed and, if I remember, I will end with a question to the Minister who is summing up the debate today. We have a short and very focused Bill, followed up by a letter to the President of the European Council from our current Prime Minister. It puts a deadline of 31 January 2020 that is obviously a focus of some contention in the debate today, or earlier if agreement is reached on a deal.
I would argue that prorogation is premature. It was my distinct understanding that we faced a two-year parliamentary Session that was longer than usual, but with the distinct purpose of fulfilling our legislative duty in both Houses of Parliament of passing the Bills that were required not just to prepare us but businesses, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—whom I consider a noble friend—referred to, such as hill farmers, who are particularly concerned. I know that the Uplands Alliance has had a series of meetings with at least 100 hill farmers up and down the country in England. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I feel that it is a privilege to have a seat in this place and to participate in debates such as this, because, as it is said when we are introduced here, we have a voice, and, even though we do not have a constituency, we can raise the concerns of others.
We learned this week that the Agriculture Bill will fall; we have not even seen the environment protection Bill and the immigration Bill; the trade rollover Bill is blocked in the other place; and we have yet to see the second trade Bill. All these have implications for the farming community—and we have not yet seen the Fisheries Bill. Why on earth, then, are we concluding this parliamentary Session prematurely before we have had the chance to thrash out what the detail will be?
In the spending review yesterday, some £400 million was allocated to Defra to prepare. Obviously, we have passed all the statutory instruments, and some we had to correct because we had done so rather quickly, but timeously. There was a reference to £30 million of support, both this year and, more particularly, next year. That raises the question of what the legal basis is for that sum of money. However, my greater concern about why we need the Agriculture Bill in particular is: how can farmers, who have concluded one harvest and are about to sow a winter crop with a view to sowing summer wheat early next year, possibly make a commercial decision until they know what the level of support will be? Arable farmers are probably the least likely to need or benefit from future support. The contrary is the case with the hill farmers: they need to know, if they produce lambs and put the ewes to tup this autumn, whether there will be a market for them. I believe that both Houses of Parliament owe it to them to give certainty about whether there will be a market. Many will be preparing for the sales of spring lamb in France next year.
I want to respond to something that I thought was quite provocative that my noble friend Lord Howard said. I greatly admire him and was a shadow Minister under his leadership in the other place for a number of years. I am not dissimilar to my noble friend Lady Meyer, although my heritage is not quite as exotic. I have a Scottish father and a Danish mother, who met on a blind date—so I am obviously very keen on blind dates. They met in Hamburg, where they found themselves allocated after the war. I formed a distinct understanding when I studied history, especially as a student of JDB Mitchell at the University of Edinburgh. I was the first intake to do a six-month obligatory course on European Community law, and I am absolutely bewildered that the Edinburgh Law School and the Law Society are deciding whether we need to continue to have such an obligatory course—of course we do, particularly in this period of transition as we come out of the European Union.
The reason that the original six member states pooled the resources of coal and steel was precisely that those were the two commodities that led to an act of aggression leading to two major world wars in the space of some 40 years. That is not coincidental. Further, I would argue that, when the Soviet bloc and COMECON, the economic bloc, collapsed, we in the European Economic Community, as we were at the time—now the single market going forward—were the natural economic partners of the now comparatively new member states of the European Union.
Feeling as I do for personal reasons, I deeply regret the way that my 21 heroic colleagues in the other place have been treated. I hope that they will have the Whip restored and that those who wish to will be allowed to fight the next election. I do not believe in a second referendum. I believe that the first referendum on this issue was a complete disaster. It led to the death of Jo Cox, and I believe that any future referendum would be equally divisive. We just need to go outside the entrance to this building to see why that would be the case.
I support this Bill. I would vehemently argue that we need the six Bills that were meant to be set out in this parliamentary session before we prorogue. I would sign up to a general election, but after 5 November, when I hope that we can agree a deal. The Bill before us today is instrumental in that regard.
I am sorry that the Minister is not in its place, but I hope that the Government will abide by the terms of this Bill if it is carried by both Houses, and the letter in the schedule as well. Can we have confirmation today not just that the Government will apply for an extension in the terms of this Bill but will vote for such an extension in the European Council?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Bill is all about preventing no deal. I remind the House that Parliament made it very clear earlier on this year that it does not want that, yet the Government are still adamant about keeping it on the table. We must not forget that it is Brexit Party policy to have no deal.
In June, I was appointed vice-president of the Confederation of British Industry. While Parliament has been turning itself inside out, something has been lost. Businesses are still struggling with crippling uncertainty, hampering investment and productivity—the uncertainty that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about. Let us be clear: no deal would be far worse.
Over the past couple of weeks, the CBI has travelled up and down the country gauging firms’ preparations. Three things have come out of that. First, no deal would not see an end to the Brexit impasse; instead, we would be starting negotiations from a worse position. Secondly, larger firms have already spent billions preparing for no deal but they cannot be protected: they can prepare, but they cannot be protected. Thirdly, we know that smaller firms have neither the time nor the resources to plan properly. I can give the House example after example: a small IT consultancy firm in the north-east is worried that its largest customers in manufacturing, distribution and transport are putting off decisions because of uncertainty. An East Midlands SME with 110 employees is worried about whether or not the current rules will work after 31 October. A manufacturer making specialist materials in the north-west, which currently exports 91% of its products and imports all its raw materials, has made it clear that its profits will suffer greatly and it will be challenged to make investment and grow in the future.
That is why it is important that on both sides, if possible, a compromise and a deal should be brought about. Businesses want certainty. They want the Government to get on and deal with the domestic priorities—some of which were mentioned by the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, in his recent statement, which is all good—but Brexit is still overshadowing everything.
Time and again over the three years I have said it is not only what we think about what is happening with Brexit but what other people around the world think about us. I do not know how many noble Lords saw it but an open letter was published this week. I am going to read part of the letter because it is so important. It says:
“We, the undersigned national business federations from eight countries and representing over four million businesses, are gravely concerned about the possibility of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement in place.
Companies from our countries have invested”—
trillions of pounds—
“in the UK … supporting jobs, growth, and prosperity across the country. We deeply value our economic relationship with the UK given its favorable business climate, characterized by transparency, regulatory stability, respect for the rule of law, and a long-standing commitment to international collaboration.
A decision to leave the EU without a deal would create substantial uncertainty and disruption for businesses, workers, farmers and regulators alike. The prospect of lengthy waits at the border, restrictions on intra-company transfers of workers, the fragmentation of regulations and standards, and doubts about free flow of data and e-commerce represent significant risks … Significant potential changes to the UK’s immigration policy”,
also raise concerns. It continues:
“Firms would be forced to make decisions about supply chains and investments in the UK without knowing what the future terms of trade will be. They will also need to evaluate the legal, contractual and geographic changes needed to ensure their continued ability to serve customers in the UK and across Europe.
Such disruptions are bound to affect jobs, consumer choices, and the cost of goods and services. The UK walking away from its largest trading partner in an abrupt manner also sends concerning signals to trade partners considering bilateral agreements in the future.
We therefore urge the UK and the EU to reach an agreement that includes a meaningful transition period and to swiftly conclude an ambitious agreement regarding their future commercial relationship that supports jobs, growth and prosperity in the UK and across Europe”.
Who are the signatories? They come from across the globe: the Australian Industry Group, the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Egyptian Industries, the Japan Business Federation, the Federation of Korean Industries, Business New Zealand and the United States Chamber of Commerce. This is what the whole world thinks we should do. It is beyond what experts think, let alone what the CBI has been saying.
I remember clearly that two days before the election in June 2017 I was sitting next to my old sparring partner Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy—he led the Oxford Union debating team for two years running and I led the Cambridge Union debating team for two years running; we were opponents in the annual varsity debate. I said to him, “Michael, we are in this mess thanks to you”. He said, “Karan, you cannot say that”. I said, “I am saying it, Michael”. He said, “Well, Karan, you will be thanking me in 10 years’ time”.
This was brought to light in an excellent article by Jeremy Warner in the Daily Telegraph. His argument was that no deal would prolong the economic uncertainty, not end it. He started by saying that he has been told repeatedly by his Brexiteer friends, “Don’t worry. If there is any damage, it will all be fine in the long run”. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said in her very good speech that it is not just a question of getting Brexit over with. I call a hard, no-deal Brexit the Nike Brexit. Like the sportswear firm, it is saying, “Just Do It”. It is the just-do-it Brexit. Well, we will just do it and then what? Jeremy Warner has said that the idea that getting Brexit over and done with would provide,
“the finality and certainty that everyone so much craves, automatically ushering in a period of economic rebirth, is sadly misguided”.
Jeremy Warner also cited the example of the currency markets. On Tuesday sterling hit its lowest level against the dollar since the 1980s. The main problem is that people around the world are concerned about Britain’s political situation, which they see as toxic. A country that has always been respected for its stability is now seen as being exactly the opposite. Confidence is draining out of our economy. According to Jeremy Warner, economic indicators for the UK are flashing red. The manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index reveals economic data which shows that factory output is at its lowest level in seven years. People who are very pro Brexit say, “Europe is going nowhere. Germany is going down the tubes and it is going to have a recession”. That is bad because a declining pound in Germany makes it less competitive for the Germans to export to us, one of their biggest markets. For the UK, while the low pound is great for exports, within the whole concept of the economics of import substitution, you cannot make economic substitutions overnight. You have to build up your capacity, which takes many years. The weakness of the pound as a help to exports is not an instant fillip to the economy or to businesses.
The main point is that as a country we are net importers. If the currency weakens, products on the supermarket shelves become more expensive and consumers suffer. Just as real wages have been showing signs of breaking free after the financial crisis, there is a threat that incomes will sink again. This is not Project Fear. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned the Yellowhammer report. We still do not have the full version of that report. I do not know whether a Minister will respond to this debate, but perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us—
Lord Balfe
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an interesting point because I notice that the ministerial Bench has been thinly populated. I wonder whether the person currently occupying it can tell us whether there will indeed be a ministerial response to this debate, and where the Minister is.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, there will indeed be a ministerial response and I think that my noble friend the Minister will appear very shortly.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for that intervention and for the reassurance given by the noble Baroness. Could we know whether the Yellowhammer report will be released to us in full?
I conclude by saying that there is no running away from this. In our upcoming trading relationship with the EU, we cannot run away from the fact that over 40% of our exports go to Europe, while over 50% of our imports come from there. There is no point in saying that the United States economy is bigger than that of the whole of the European Union. It is, but it makes up only 18% of our trade. We need a reality check. Moving to WTO terms will not be a panacea at all. The uncertainty will continue and the irony is that during any negotiation period, if we leave with no deal, where would the negotiations start? They would start with money, citizens’ rights and the Irish backstop. The EU would refuse to engage in any other matters until those three issues had been settled. That is the reality. This deal is not a deal. We have not even started on the real deals for negotiating our trade, our security and the movement of people. All the things that are important to our future are yet to be negotiated. It is essential to prevent no deal. It is wrong to call this a surrender Bill. You surrender to the enemy. The European Union is not our enemy but our best friend. You stand a much better chance of negotiating in a friendly and open manner, trusting and being trusted by each other. I have gone through many negotiations in my business life. The more amicable they are, the better the results for both parties concerned.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned “great” Britain, which has always been global Britain. Let us resolve this deadlock and continue to be the Great Britain that countries around the world have always respected.
Lord Green of Deddington (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the debate has been very interesting and wide-ranging. I was especially interested in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Kerr. However, there has not been much mention so far of what I will call “real people”—people outside this Chamber. I should like to focus briefly on one of the major factors that underlay the outcome of the referendum. I refer, of course, to immigration.
The immigration issue has not gone away and it will not. There is a lot of talk about the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU and the 16 million who voted the other way. I am speaking for the 30 million people who want to see a reduction in immigration to this country.
It is true that the salience of that issue has declined considerably in the recent months—and indeed years—since the referendum. There are three reasons for that: many assume that Brexit will sort it; the migration crisis in Europe, which was exaggerated at the time, has somewhat faded; and Brexit demolishes the salience of every other issue you can imagine.
The public are right to be concerned. I will mention just two examples, and I will be brief. If immigration continues at current levels, we will add 1 million people to our population every three years—that is the population of Birmingham, along with all the infrastructure and so on that we will need. The second issue is housing. Again, at current rates, we will have to build a new home every six minutes, night and day, for the new families joining us.
If we look ahead, there is a serious risk that, as far as immigration is concerned, our last case will be worse than our first. The present Government are now proposing an Australian-style points-based system, without apparently realising that we have had such a system for 10 years, and apparently without being aware that the situation in Australia could hardly be more different. It seems that the expression is popular with focus groups, and that is the reason that it is now the basis of policy on a matter of real importance to, as I said, 30 million people. I find that disgraceful. We need a serious attempt to tackle the issues underlying this.
It gets worse. The Government are also contemplating a significant lowering of the skill and salary levels that will qualify people from around the world to come to this country. We have calculated that approximately 9 million jobs in the UK will become more open to international competition than they are now.
Finally, if the outcome of this whole saga is that we merely substitute non-EU for EU workers, with no significant reduction in the numbers, I believe that confidence in our political system will suffer a very severe blow.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Bill should be unnecessary. If we had a Government we could trust and a Cabinet that took an interest in the real and devasting impact that no deal will have on people, it would be. The Government have no mandate for no deal, which is expressly opposed by the elected House, yet they appear determined to impose it on this country by hook or by crook—mainly by crook.
I will not detain the House for long. Some excellent speeches covering many areas have been made and have brought to light the full impact of no deal, whether on Northern Ireland and the peace process or on our farmers and businesses. I want to raise one issue: the British citizens currently living in the European Union. Leaving without a deal means that they are left with no framework under which to operate. It is causing huge fear and anxiety among British citizens across the European Union. The one thing that I find most astounding about the proponents of no deal is that they talk in such broad terms. They say, “We’ve got to get this done. We’ve got to get it finished”. It will not be finished. The misery will have only just started for millions of people.
I was particularly impressed by the speeches that addressed the detail of our leaving without a deal. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, outlined for us the impact on farmers. The noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Mandelson and Lord Patten, and others outlined its real impact on people in Northern Ireland. I want us not to forget the impact on British citizens in the European Union, many of whom are in absolute fear.
Recently, I received an email from a British citizen in France. He said:
“On 31 October, I will become a third country national with a lack of clarity about my rights. Worse, my ongoing healthcare provision looks decidedly dodgy. Basically, my life quite literally depends on the medication that I have to take every day, night and morning. If anything disrupts my ability to obtain the level of healthcare I currently enjoy, my life could be threatened”.
He went on:
“The Boris Johnson Government fills me with dread, as I witness a boost to the pull-up-the-drawbridge brigade in the Conservative Party”.
He finishes:
“I don’t know if you remember, but I worked for the Conservative Party for 30 years. I have considered myself a Conservative for 63 years—but no longer, as I now feel that my party has left me”.
If we leave on 31 October with no deal, we will plunge EU citizens like him, and many hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—more, into a situation of fear and concern where they do not know whether they will be able to access health services, where the health services in EU countries will not know how they will be properly remunerated and where there will be a lot of confusion. I ask noble Lords, when considering no deal, always to consider the people. This is not an abstract concept; this is about the real impact on people’s lives. We should not allow no deal to go ahead in this underhand way. I therefore support the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bull outlined some of the problems very clearly. I want to build on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. On reciprocal healthcare, we must remember that 27 million people hold a UK-issued European health insurance card. If the 190,000 UK pensioners who live elsewhere in the EU were to return to the UK, the cost of their healthcare alone would be between £500 million and £1 billion per year. Yet nowhere have we seen provision for this kind of movement happening.
The BMA has just published a document—I declare my interest as a past president—entitled A Health Service on the Brink: The Dangers of a “No Deal” Brexit. It is littered with questions that should have been answered during the years since the referendum. We have nearly 22,000 European graduate doctors in the UK, a third of whom have said they are considering leaving. We need reciprocal arrangements for their qualifications. We have 10,000 medical vacancies already. If a third of those doctors go, we will have even more. When people turn up with their sick child or another family member, and have an even longer trolley wait than they have now, or when their relative dies because they cannot get the healthcare they need, the headlines will change dramatically. Sadly, I worry that some implications for individuals in our society have not hit home, in part because we have not told them, openly and honestly, what the implications are.
I have been privileged enough to be a member of the European Advisory Group to the Welsh Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—I would say “my noble friend”—knows only too well, the concern over farmers is enormous. The concern over fair distribution of food in the event of shortages, because of our rural areas, is huge. We have many SMEs that create component parts, which will almost certainly become non-viable in the event of no deal. Our ports have been trying hard to make provision for the future, but the sudden catastrophe of no deal will jeopardise our economy in Wales. As is known, Wales already has socio- economic problems that go back a long way through our history.
Finally, when considering the implications of no deal, remember all those groups that we will suddenly drop out of. The European Reference Networks look at rare diseases. They are the eyes and ears looking at where disastrous epidemics, pandemics and new diseases are emerging. Without that intelligence, strange conditions will just turn up in emergency departments around the country, with no information ahead of time. For those and many other reasons—the debate has been long and interesting—I strongly endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lady Bull and support this legislation.
The Earl of Listowel
May I ask my noble friend about implications for the structural funds from the European Union? I understand they have been helpful to Wales in the past. Is she confident that they will be replaced?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am grateful to my noble friend for that question because, no, I am not confident that they will be replaced. I know that the Welsh Government have asked the Westminster Government for evidence that the funding will come through. A Statement was made by the Minister about CAP funding for farmers, but many other areas are of concern. People in Wales may not have been as aware of some of the implications as they might have been, nor of how important that infrastructure funding has been in previous years.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, just over a week ago, Ministers started to backtrack on an important announcement made by the Prime Minister two weeks previously that he would respond to Angela Merkel on his alternative way of dealing with matters raised by the necessity of the backstop. That necessity is that there needs to be some way of continuing the internal market and customs union in the context of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. A week today, when we will not be here, will be the red-letter day for the reply that the Prime Minister has promised to give Angela Merkel. Does the Minister still expect such a reply to be given, or is this another of those commitments that disappears into thin air after a few days of media?
What could the Prime Minister have said, or could still say? It is logical, and in line with the provisions of the Bill, which I think will undoubtedly be enacted, that another way of looking at the backstop question should be seriously considered. It is as follows: that in order that we have no border on the island of Ireland, therefore, on both sides of that border, there is common membership of the single market and the customs union. Some people in Northern Ireland then say, “But there could be a dotted-line boundary in the Irish Sea”, to which the answer is that the whole of the British Isles needs to stay in the internal market and the customs union. By the way, that was very near to being adopted by the House of Commons, but at the time there was competition between two or three similar alternatives. People say with a degree of vehemence, “Of course, there is no consensus in the House of Commons for anything remotely like that”, but that has not actually been tested in the House of Commons recently.
That would also deal with the key question posed on many doorsteps in this country along the lines of, “What have the Romans ever done for us?”. We in the trade union movement—I was heavily involved in this in the TUC—know that with an internal market, it is essential that you have a way to deal with undercutting by anyone competing with us who is a member of the internal market. The answer to that, given by Jacques Delors in 1988, was collective bargaining at a higher level, so there is an understanding, an undertaking, by qualified majority voting if necessary, on the baker’s dozen of important rights for part-time workers, and so on—I will not enumerate them now. None of that will be possible without the guarantees which can alone be given by staying in the internal market.
That is one of the things that the Romans have done for us, and I ask the Minister to confirm what he has said previously in a slightly different context: “Yes, we will give those guarantees”, but how can we believe government guarantees? Therefore, we need the whole of the British Isles to stay in the customs union and the internal market.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to, I think, nine hours of debate, yesterday and today. I was not going to speak but I somehow think I have to. There are so many things I could say, but I want to make just three points. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and those in the other place who have put together this Bill. It may be a very important example of cross-party working. It is 50 years since I sat in the official Box in this House, and I have been observing its proceedings regularly for that period. I have a sense at the moment that we are in a watershed. Things will never be the same after these Brexit years, not least because Brexit will be with us for 10, 15 or 20 years. It will divide the country, whether we leave or stay, and we have a huge problem dealing with it. Part of that problem is that our political institutions are not keeping up with the world, which is changing around us. At some point we will have to look at ourselves quite radically to ensure that we can keep up with what is expected of us. We are not helping ourselves in the way we are carrying on business at the moment.
Within that, the position of political parties is becoming a problem. I should never talk about political parties; I lack the gene that gives people passion for them. I have for a long time been very privileged to observe politicians closely and I have never, ever understood them. I just accept that I am not “one of you”. Equally, I know the importance of parties. At the moment, both in government and in political and party affairs, there are too many moving parts and too many fixed structures in my life are no longer stable or reliable. That is an unnerving feeling. If I am honest, the dismissal of 21 members of the Conservative Party appals me—I am not a politician but it appals me. It is over 50 years since I observed a number of leading Conservative politicians—the now noble Lords, Lord Howard, Lord Gummer and Lord Lamont, and Mr Kenneth Clarke—in the Cambridge Union. I remember Kenneth Clarke as a blonde, tall, slim chap with a northern accent, and I am utterly dismayed to find his contribution treated so cavalierly.
Listening to the debate and watching what is going on, I feel that I am living in a world that is going mad. Too many things are happening. I cannot be alone in feeling that—it is not just my age; it is true. We need sanity. There is sanity in this House and within the parties, and we will be rescued only if sane people can overcome their differences, act in the national interest and work together. This Bill is an example of that. Maybe it will lead to a referendum because I cannot see how a general election will get us out of our difficulty; what will happen if we again have a hung Parliament? So perhaps there will be a referendum. That is my first point: be true to your parties but also look at the national interest before your party interest when needed.
My second concern is that there is a need for a view about the future of this country in the world. The world around us is changing fast. We are in the middle of a technological revolution that I think is greater than the Industrial Revolution. Just 15 years ago we did not have smart phones and apps but now they are an indispensable part of everybody’s lives. Social media is changing the whole political context not just in this country but in other countries. I have recently chaired conferences and have learned that I can chair meetings without understanding a word of what is said. I chaired a meeting in Cambridge on quantum computing and another on blockchain, which is even worse. I also chaired one on DNA—on CRISPR-Cas 9 for those who are interested.
The things that are being brought to fruition in the world of research at the moment will alter the world more in the next 10, 15 or 20 years than has been the case in the last 10 or 15 years, and that has been fast enough. We in the political world and in political institutions have to keep up with and understand those things. Brexit is important but it is not the only change that is happening, and we need to have a view of the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said earlier. We need to have a view of our place in the world and of how we will cope with it and be equipped to deal with it. It is not my field but the tectonic plates of world politics are changing. America and China will dominate the scene. Europe will not be the centre of the world, as we have thought of ourselves. The need to have a position in which we can choose between America and China, when each of them puts pressure on us, will be important. We will lack company if we isolate ourselves from the rest of Europe by behaving badly towards it and having no deal. The context of all this will be fundamental for the future of this country in a way that goes deeper than just politics and economics; it will be cultural too.
I am hugely bothered by the way in which the word “trust” has been used. I am used to people trusting government institutions. Part of my career has involved trying to uphold trust and ensure that people know where the boundaries are in a pragmatic way. One of those boundaries, as my noble friend and successor said just now, concerns special advisers. A lot of my time was taken up with special advisers and I have a detailed question for the Minister when he replies. There were, and I think there still are, rules governing special advisers, one of which was that they are temporary civil servants and do not have Executive powers. Can the Minister assure us that present special advisers are not exercising Executive powers? For instance, sacking another special adviser is the exercise of an Executive power. Special advisers do not have such powers. If someone purports to sack someone and they do not have the power to do it, is that sacking valid? I assume that this has been looked into and that the Government know what is going on, but I raise it because it is a small example of a more general principle. We need to ensure that the codes of conduct—not just gentlemen or good chaps behaving well but the basic rules of government—are being observed. I feel that, at the moment, when people feel able to be careless and cavalier with conventions, we ought to ask whether basic principles are being observed and challenging when they are not.
I think that is enough for now. I could go on at length about the principles at stake today, but so much has been said that I agree with and I will not repeat it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate, but I think the House may agree that it is perhaps now time to wind up. Today’s has been a much more constructive debate than last night’s—oh, I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I did not realise that we were coming near to winding up. I was asking what the proper time to end was: I wanted to speak near the end so that I would hear the wisdom of others rather than my own.
I want to talk a bit about the history of this matter in the House of Commons and then say a word or two about the Bill. Obviously, the question arose immediately after the referendum of whether the result should be implemented. The referendum itself did not contain, as the Supreme Court pointed out, any mechanism for implementing the result; therefore, it was for Parliament to find a way of implementing the result. The Prime Minister of the day, who took over from David Cameron, undertook to implement the result of the referendum and set about doing so, indicating principles by which she would be guided, sometimes called red lines. I want to mention one aspect of that. The customs union and the single market were particularly important, but as I understand the present rules of the single market and the customs union, they forbid a member state making contracts for trade with others. Therefore, part of the desire in the referendum was to open up trade for the United Kingdom to other jurisdictions. Therefore some modification, but only some, to the customs union and the single market was necessary.
I want to particularly mention Northern Ireland, because I believe that to be fundamental: as far as I am concerned it is the most important problem. As far as I can see, and I have tried to think about it as much as I could, it can be solved properly only by having the same basic rules on both sides of the border. If not, there is bound to be a hard border and I think I am right in saying that the European Union rules require that the boundaries of the European Union are set by hard borders. It therefore seems that if we are to leave without a deal there is bound to be a hard border in Northern Ireland. That would be a disaster, because the arrangements there are extremely tender, very important and vital to securing the peace of Northern Ireland. So far as I am concerned, that is a vital point; it has been from the beginning and remains so.
Eventually Mrs May managed to get an agreement with the European Union, and she put that before Parliament on more than one occasion. I venture to suggest that one way of dealing with that problem was that if somebody wanted to change any detail, any part or indeed the whole of that, they should put forward an amendment to the Motion to approve it. That would seem to be the reasonable way in which such a thing could be done, but so far as I know that has never happened and the only amendment to the arrangement suggested that an alternative should be found to the Irish backstop. Of itself, that does not change the arrangement. You have to answer that and find the alternative; my noble friend indicated the possibilities, and these are quite difficult to completely understand. I do not think that so far they have been completely accepted by the Government for negotiation. I sincerely hope that these matters will be brought forward if the Government are to proceed with the negotiations.
The result has been a lot of discussion in the House of Commons about various matters. The important thing to remember is that the withdrawal agreement is a legal document and has legal effect. Added to that is the political declaration. That is a document of intention, not legally binding in the same way as the withdrawal agreement, and I understood that the European Union had said it wanted the withdrawal agreement to be fixed before it had substantive discussions on future arrangements. One of the aspects of the present arrangement that Mrs May negotiated was a period of two years’ transition. That is an important safeguard against the sort of cliff edges we have been hearing described in the course of this interesting and in some ways extremely saddening debate.
The result is that nothing has really happened to change that proposal. It has been turned down, but without any explanation of how it could be improved. I honestly think that the House of Commons has lost an opportunity in that respect. Noble Lords will remember that it had some debates and indicative votes about what it wanted. Most of these indicative votes, so far as I remember, were concerned with the political declaration. Indeed, the discussions that took place after the then Prime Minister opened them up with Mr Corbyn were of that kind—that is to say, they dealt mainly with the political declaration. Agreement on that is not essential to the withdrawal. I believe it is important to try to distinguish between the two.
That brings me to this Bill. It asks that the Prime Minister should write to the President of the European Council asking for an extension. I remember pointing out—I hope humbly—when this appeared in the earlier Bill that no reason was given for the extension. Well, this Bill has a reason given for the extension, and a very interesting reason it is. It says the extension is made,
“in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks”,
in relation to the political projection.
That suggests to me that the proponents of this Bill believe that the agreement that presently exists, and is the only one as far as I know, is to be implemented after it has been further discussed with a supplementary point about the political declaration. If that is correct, this Bill goes a very great distance towards securing what is required in the way of a withdrawal agreement, which is not no deal without an agreement, but an agreement that has already been passed by the European Union and which the House of Commons has dissented from so far. It looks as though this promises that it will be passed. In that sense, if I am right about that, it is quite a considerable Bill. It suggests the possibility of very substantial progress towards a deal for taking us out of the European Union. On that interpretation, I believe that a good deal of the talk that we have had about no deal is set aside by this in a direct and constructive manner.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, is not in his place right now but, before I begin my remarks, I wanted to mention the problem of spads, because it is not only here that they have caused problems. I personally believe that a lot of the problems in Northern Ireland are the result of spads out of control and their Ministers creating a culture where they can function, interrupting the normal flow of business in the department. That is something that, as a country, we need to examine, because it has a serious impact on our structure of government.
During the debate, a number of Members, some of whom have considerable experience, have been kind enough to refer to the problems in Northern Ireland. We know that that has been at the core of the blockage to progress for quite some time—though it is not confined to that, because there are quite a number of Members in the other place who see a range of other problems with the withdrawal agreement and would wish to replace that and have an entirely new negotiation.
I think it is true to say that the negotiation has been wrong from the very beginning. Someone said that we should have tried to get more of a cross-party consensus before we started the negotiations and, I have to say to noble Lords opposite, their leader was first out of the trap to call for triggering Article 50 immediately after the referendum, which seems to have been forgotten in discussions. He was out there wanting that done before we had even agreed a negotiating position.
The danger with the Bill—it is most unfortunate—is that it puts us into a further period of purgatory where we do not get an agreement. My sense is that what we should concentrate on in Parliament is finding alternatives. We need solutions. We do not need to rehearse the arguments of the referendum debate again and again. I just point out that, in 2015, when the referendum Bill became law, 554 Members of the House of Commons voted for it, and we were no better. Having let Pandora out of the box, we are now confronted because, for political and party reasons, we let a particular process emerge that was different to our normal parliamentary process—and then we complain about the problems created by it. It has been done by our own hand. We all, on all sides of this House, live in glass houses and that is something we need to reflect on as we move forward.
I believe there are alternatives, and I have been trying with colleagues for some months now to influence government and to speak to other people to look at what they might be. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to the alternative arrangements working group. I understand that its work—I have seen some of it, but I have not read every detail—is terribly technically focused. Many of the problems we have in all parts of Ireland are not technical. They go to the heart of what people feel is their identity. Some feel that they have been short-changed. They supported the 1998 agreement and feel that this process upsets that. Others are exploiting the situation for cynical reasons. Sinn Féin is the most anti-European party in Ireland. It has opposed every treaty. It has opposed everything from the 1970s, and its support for it now is purely from the teeth out.
Leaving that aside, let us focus on what possible alternatives there could be. Instead of being a problem for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, why do we not use the agreement and some of its institutions and precedents as part of the solution? I have mentioned this to noble Lords before. With some modest devolution from here to Stormont, perhaps based on trade issues and others, I believe that we could address the democratic deficit created by the backstop where Northern Ireland would be receiving regulations from Brussels but would have no representation there. It would be a rule taker and effectively a European colony, and over time a gradual difference would emerge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of rules and regulations.
It seems to me that it would be appropriate for a number of measures to be taken. We need to send a signal to our European colleagues that we take their single market seriously. We need to make it clear that, if anybody uses United Kingdom territory to export goods to the European single market that are not compliant, that is an offence. We should create a new north/south body under the 1999-2000 treaty specifically to deal with cross-border trade issues.
I was Trade Minister for some years in Northern Ireland and set up two of the six cross-border bodies—InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland. They have worked for 20 years. The six bodies have staff working on both sides of the border. There is no problem. There are no complaints. They get on with their business and it is totally acceptable. I see no reason why that body should not have at least two functions. We both start with the same rulebook and the same regulations on education. Any new regulations coming from either side could be notified to that body. It could then ensure that the totality of the people who export into the Republic are advised of the regulations and the same would apply the other way round.
You could further ask them to ensure that, if they see any sign of inappropriate movement of goods or processes when visiting depots and companies, it is reported to the relevant authorities. Do you realise that if the backstop were implemented as it stands to date, goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would have to be treated as coming from a third country? There was mention of that in other speeches but not in that context. It creates a huge problem for us because it is the beginning of a separation process. I think that that is unnecessary and extremely difficult.
The cry from Dublin and Brussels is that we need an insurance policy. I get that. I think this insurance policy should be that the United Kingdom should indemnify the European Union by treaty. If our territory were used to export goods not covered by European rules to the Republic, we would have to indemnify them. If we found that goods slipped through, it would be our responsibility to them. People can always smuggle, whatever agreement you have, but it would mean that the insurance policy would come from us, by treaty. With the cross-border treaty, you could join the EU to that treaty, so that the body which would operate and be democratically answerable both to Stormont and Dublin could have EU observers, or they could be linked into the treaty. There would be no secrets; it would all be above board. The North/South Ministerial Council to which that body would report is an existing, widely accepted institution. We also have the east-west dimension, with the British-Irish Council, which could also have a role. Instead of the agreement sitting there as a threat, it should be used as part of the solution.
There are these technical schemes, such as trusted trader status. I get all that. The big problem we have in Ireland is not simply technical. It is people feeling that they have been short changed and that they are in a situation not of their own making and which is out of their control. We could give them this control back.
My party does not have the technical back-up and support necessary to work out the detail. At least the Taoiseach said, when we released it the other day, that he was prepared to look at it. It is easy to say that; it does not mean anything. Instead of having the referendum argument all over again, we need to spend our time concentrating on solutions. Only solutions are going to avoid the difficulties of leaving the European Union in a disorderly manner which does not suit anybody in Ireland—north, south, east or west. I certainly do not want to see it.
There is another thing that people forget. There is a land border of 300-odd miles—we know all about that. The vast majority of material moving between Ireland and Great Britain does not come across the border. It goes from Dublin to Holyhead and Fishguard to Rosslare. Some 80%-90% of Irish goods travel on the British land bridge. They either go to the UK market or to the European or world markets. The north-south trade flows represent one-10th of 1% of EU trade flows. Of total imports to the Irish Republic from the whole of the world, only 1.6% comes from Northern Ireland. The vast majority of this is agri-food and animals. It may be 1.6% of imports to the Irish Republic, but it is a bigger percentage of our exports, so a lot of our small businesses depend heavily on it. It is a bigger deal for us in many respects than it is for them. Their problem is the exports to Great Britain, where for instance 55% of their beef comes to the UK. This is a huge quantity which is not going to be replaced by other markets in five minutes, particularly if you get 45% tariffs applied.
Let us redouble our efforts and stiffen every sinew to find solutions. There is no point in arguing over who said what in 2016 at the referendum. Everybody is to blame either through sins of omission or through sins of commission. We all put our hands up for the legislation. Let us look for solutions. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. Those technical issues are part of it, but we need—
Lord Lea of Crondall
Is the noble Lord not effectively saying that the whole of the British Isles should be part of one internal market and customs union?
Lord Empey
If that is the case, why would we leave the European Union? If the noble Lord is arguing that the referendum results in us staying in the customs union and the single market, I do not see what the point of leaving is because the whole rationale is different. It is all right saying that here, but we must not forget that the coalition Government brought this legislation into Parliament in the first place. We must remember that everybody has had their hands on this issue, and not always with distinction. Let us focus on solutions that can work.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I have not spoken on a European issue for two years—
Lord Empey
I am sorry. I thought the noble Lord was intervening and was giving way. Perhaps the noble Lord is giving me a hint. I have not quite broken the record of some distinguished noble colleagues in making the 20-minute mark, but I urge colleagues that we need to be prepared to open our minds. We do not want a disorderly departure or to have the can continuously kicked down the road or to retain the uncertainties that not having a solution brings. I think that, despite what people say about their negotiating tactics, with what has been said by Chancellor Merkel and President Macron, the time has come for Her Majesty’s Government to put some solid things on the table, and then we can get to grips and have a proper negotiation. Once things are on the table, people will have to say why they reject them and if they cavalierly dismiss them, they will be weakening their case in public opinion.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak. I have not spoken for two years on European issues, and I certainly will not speak for 15 minutes. I accept my responsibility. I have been a pro-European all my life. I have been very active in the House of Lords in European Union committees and am very much in favour of staying in Europe. But I was responsible in part for us coming out of Europe, like many other people, because I did not make the case for Europe with the public in the way we should have done over the years, and certainly I did not play my part in the referendum campaign to the extent that in retrospect I believe I should have done. So I accept my responsibility.
I have been a remainer from the beginning, but I have watched the way changes have been taking place and the way that the country has become ever more divided—not many people have spoken about that today—and I recognise that, in accepting my responsibility, I have to shift my position as a very clear-cut remainer who wanted in principle to stick with remain all the way. I have now shifted my view; I am moving towards the deal that Mrs May reached.
I welcome the Bill, because it gives us time for a little more reflection and may start bringing together more people who are prepared to make little compromises to try to find a solution that will produce two results. First, it will take us out of Europe. I do not want that, but I am prepared to live with it because I suspect that the divisions happening with us, in Europe, in America and all around the world are part of a shift that is taking place and cannot be stopped. So I am prepared to go some way with it. Secondly, I want to have terms and conditions that are acceptable and will benefit the people of this country, and that will not be immediately harmful, even in the short term for a few years, but will broadly represent where people stand at the moment. If it is a soft settlement, it will go some way towards ending the divisions within families, communities and groupings by bringing us closer together. That will be on the basis of coming out, but with a soft landing.
This Bill provides us with that opportunity, if we have people of goodwill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, put his finger on the solution, which has been on offer since Mrs May came to the end of her negotiations and which is now in the political declaration. I do not remember precisely which clause it is, but in either Clause 17 or Clause 19 there is an offer from the Commission for further negotiations on the backstop. This has not been pursued by anybody, but it is there, it is on offer and it is time that people of goodwill came together and picked it up. They would then get a deal that could come back to the Commons and command its support. Then, at the end of the day, it should be put to the people to have their view on it.
So I have shifted, and I hope that, if we are really serious about trying to find a way forward, and having listened yesterday to the coarseness to which we almost descended in some of our exchanges, we will put that to one side and come together as we truly should to represent the best interests of the people.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a remain voter, but one who is convinced that the referendum result must be respected. I want to focus today on the central issue of trust. There have been some really good points made on trust between this place and the Government—particularly those made by the noble Lords, Lord Hayward, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Kerr. I entirely concur with those points, but there is another angle to trust: the trust between Parliament and the people. That is the point I want to focus on today.
It was Confucius, I believe, who said that,
“three things are needed for government: weapons, food and trust. If a ruler can’t hold on to all three, he should give up the weapons first and the food next. Trust should be guarded to the end: ‘without trust we cannot stand’”.
I think that is absolutely right. During the referendum campaign, the people were repeatedly told by the Government that if we voted for leave, that is exactly what would happen. If, for whatever reason, we do not leave, or even continue for many years with the current paralysis—following what was, we must remember, the biggest democratic exercise in British history—it would be fatal for trust in politics, which has already been much damaged by the events of the past three years. Many already feel the gulf between the so-called Westminster elites and the people, which will only be widened by that continuing. The extremist politics we have seen on the rise in the UK in recent years could pale into insignificance against what could be unleashed if the vote is not respected.
So what has that to do with this Bill? It is a Bill that rules out the United Kingdom leaving the EU without a deal. I understand the reasons of those noble Lords who do not wish to leave without a deal. Many excellent points have been raised today about the difficulties of no deal. There would be much hardship, at least in the short term. But I work in business, as do many noble Lords, and, to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I believe that it is essential to hold no deal on the table—to keep it as an option—to ensure that we can get and maintain that leverage with the EU in our negotiations that will result in a better deal for the UK.
In the end, this issue will be resolved via an election, but I believe that no deal must be maintained as an option to get the best deal for the UK and ensure that we do indeed leave and get the democratic will of the people seen through that vote.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have had a very constructive debate today. It has been much more interesting and wide-ranging than the long hours we had yesterday attempting to prevent today’s debate. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his return. I had understood that he was on a sleeper train to Scotland last night—perhaps he was not—but it is very courteous of him.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord is referring to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, told me off for intervening because I did not get here in time. I had to go and speak at a social care conference and came back at the first opportunity—which I would have thought was perfectly admissible. While I am on my feet, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. What we were doing was preventing this House from having a guillotine Motion—it had nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is all the more courteous of the noble Lord to return if he had a speaking engagement in Scotland. I regret that the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have not had the respect for the House to be here today, having detained us for so long in those circumstances last night. I hope that the Conservative Whips will make it clear to them that respect for the House in these circumstances would have suggested that attendance was more appropriate in their circumstances, as far as those of us who cut short our sleep and returned on time are concerned.
We are discussing some fundamental constitutional issues in this Bill: the relationship between Parliament and the Government. It is highly relevant to that that the leave campaign promised us that Brexit would restore not just British but parliamentary sovereignty.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, reminded me of some of my undergraduate studies in history—the 17th-century conflicts and the emergence of the Tories and the Whigs, the Tories being those who defended the Crown against Parliament, with the Whigs favouring a stronger Parliament. However, the noble Lord referred not to the divine right of kings but to the will of the people. In some ways, this is an equally difficult concept to pin down and define.
These are very wide-ranging issues. The future of the union has been mentioned. My son now lives and works in Edinburgh and I have therefore visited it much more frequently in the last three years. I understand that the future of the union is at stake in this debate for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Then there are the questions suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, my noble friend Lord Campbell, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and others. What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of values do we think we are about? Do we think that we do not share European values, that we share more with the American right and that that is where we would like to be instead? We have also discussed the conventions of what we used to regard as our wonderful unwritten constitution.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. May I apologise for my discourtesy —in his view—in not being able to be here for today’s debate in its entirety? I have attended the debate and have listened to his wise words on the monitor. Sadly, there are other duties which people must attend to. I would be very appreciative if he would apologise for his discourtesy in getting his facts wrong and personalising something that should be about politics, not personalities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The question is about the role of this House, the way we all conduct ourselves in this House and the way we conducted our business yesterday evening. I am very happy to discuss this further with him off the Floor of the House.
Lord Dobbs
Could the noble Lord give a little moment? This is important. I have been referred to on the Floor of the House. Will the noble Lord simply accept that these matters should be about policy and politics, not personalities? I hope that he will reflect on the fact that referring to personalities actually demeans his case and does not strengthen it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am sorry. I have not read many of the noble Lord’s novels. I am sure that they do not stress that personality is important in politics. It seems to me that it is rather difficult to disentangle personality from politics. Let us discuss this further off the Floor. I even promise to buy the noble Lord a drink.
I was talking about conventions of the British constitution. I have been recalling the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, gave last year when the question was raised about the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments’ sharp letter to the Foreign Secretary when he resigned about the way in which Boris Johnson broke the Ministerial Code in three places within three days of resigning. The noble Lord extremely carefully stressed that the Ministerial Code is an honour code and depends upon the honour of the men who sign it, leaving the question of whether Boris Johnson is a man of honour hanging in the air.
That is part of the issue of trust which the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hayward, and many others across the House have raised today. The matter of whether the Government would consider ignoring a law passed through Parliament if they did not like it, quoted in the Times today, increases the degree of mistrust. When the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said that he cannot believe that the Prime Minister is negotiating in good faith, he speaks for a large number of people, which is worrying. He also says that we have to remember that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff is in contempt of Parliament and has written a blog showing many examples of his contempt, not only for Parliament but for most politicians in all parties. The problem, therefore, is that we cannot trust this Government, so Parliament is justified in tying their hands, which is the purpose of this Bill.
There is then the question of the role of evidence in policy-making, and of Civil Service advice and impartiality. The relationship between the Civil Service and the Government is based on the principle that civil servants advise on the basis of the best evidence they can find, and Ministers decide. What we have seen throughout this long argument about our membership of the European Community is Ministers and politicians disregarding advice and putting aside the evidence. I recall during my time in government, long before we reached the referendum, when, with David Lidington and Greg Clark, I chaired a Committee which at Conservative insistence looked at the balance of competences between the European Union and the United Kingdom. The Conservatives had insisted on it in the 2010 agreement because they were convinced that the evidence would demonstrate that business and other stakeholders would want to claw substantial powers back from the European Union to the UK. One of the most conscientious suppliers of evidence to the 32 reports that were provided was the director of the Scotch Whisky Association, Mr David Frost. He had been engaged in this for some time and he clearly knew what he was talking about and where the evidence lay. When those reports concluded that the balance of competences as currently established suited British business and other stakeholders well, the Prime Minister’s office did its best to supress further debate.
I hope that I misheard the noble Lord, Lord Howell, when he suggested that David Frost was perhaps not pressing the Prime Minister’s case on the Irish backstop as hard as he might in Brussels—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am glad to hear that. We have seen a worrying number of occasions when Ministers have blamed civil servants for decisions that they should have taken responsibility for. Poor Ministers blame officials in the way that poor workmen blame their tools. Michael Gove on experts, David Davis on officials, and others have lowered the quality of political debate in this country. We desperately need to rebuild it. It is not only the Government; the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, reminds us of the migration issue. I have read many of the Migration Watch UK reports over the years, with good evidence presented to suggest that the migration problem in Britain is largely a European one, rather than a global one. That helped the leave campaign very considerably, and I regret that misrepresentation of evidence. Operation Yellowhammer is the most recent example of good evidence being presented by civil servants, so far as we understand it, and suppressed by the Government because it did not fit what they wanted. Again, I may have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on Tuesday. I thought he said that the report was based on “reasonable assumptions” about the outcome of a no-deal Brexit, and that it was a “worst-case analysis”. The think tank I worked for dealt in scenario planning, and would have central analyses, and best-case and worst-case analyses. I understand that Operation Yellowhammer was a central-scenario analysis of the risks. The Government should therefore be prepared to share what they think are the potential risks of a no-deal Brexit.
It is three years since the referendum. The focus of negotiations has been within the Conservative Party and not between the UK Government and the European Union. Theresa May, as Prime Minister, was pulled to the right by the European Research Group and imposed tight red lines. There could have been a compromise. Had the Government said that we would have a soft Brexit and stay within the single market and customs union, everything would have been over and dealt with long before now. The red lines were tightened and tightened, in late 2016 and early 2017, which led us to where we are today. After three years, the Conservative Party is even more deeply divided and we now see it crumbling at the edges, with the Cummings purge and even more so with the resignation of Jo Johnson this morning, when he said he is,
“torn between family loyalty and the national interest”.
We need politicians to think about the national interest, although I see Twitter remarked that this is the first occasion that a Minister has resigned to spend less time with his family.
The time remaining is short. The clock is ticking and deadlines are approaching. After three years of drift, without a clear government policy on what sort of exit to take, the idea that a deal could be reached on 17 and 18 October and implemented by 31 October is as absurd as some of the other things we have heard. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, remarked, the legislative basis for an ordinary Brexit will simply not be there. We will be going out without the legal framework that we need; that is not an orderly Brexit. We need more time. We need more honesty about the choices, more respect for evidence, what is possible and what is not. We need a Government and an Opposition who put the national interest ahead of party factionalism. Since we do not sufficiently have these qualities in our national debate at present, we need this Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who said that it is a privilege to be a Member of your Lordships’ House and to participate in debates such as this. I would make the point that I have said that before, but I am worried about being accused of dementia by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, for repeating my previous speeches. To listen to this debate today and the contributions from such distinguished former civil servants—we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Wilson, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Butler of Brockwell—has been extraordinary. The quality of contributions has been inordinately high, as has the thoughtfulness of the debate. We have been debating this now for six hours. Over 40 speakers, without any form of compulsion or even a speakers’ list, have been able to make contributions. That is a very adequate way to allow this House to consider the Second Reading of the Bill. In light of what was said yesterday, that is important to note.
The Bill is simple but necessary. It essentially stops no deal, but not altogether. I want to make that clear. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, shaking his head enthusiastically at this prospect, because it allows no deal if the House of Commons can be persuaded to pass a Motion in support of that. Let me come back to that. The Minister will obviously add what he wants to on it. It is necessary, because there is a real concern, referred to by a number of your Lordships, over a lack of trust in the Government and that, unless they are constrained, the Government will allow us to crash out never having approved a final deal or it not having the approval of the House of Commons.
A number of your Lordships referred to the dangers of crashing out without a deal, and we have talked about this on a number of previous occasions in this House. On the whole, this House has clearly indicated its view that leaving without a deal would be detrimental. Today we heard the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on the risk to the economy. On security and the union, we heard powerful and compelling speeches on Northern Ireland from my noble friends Lord Mandelson and Lord Hain and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and on important aspects from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others. On Wales, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others. As to the risk to young people and disadvantaged persons, we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
These are the risks that we want to see avoided. The criticisms of the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, in particular, are that it distorts our normal process of the separation of powers. I think he has a rosier view of the separation than I do, but let us be clear; this does not prevent the House of Commons, which is the legislature, giving its approval or non-approval to an event, but says that that is necessary before we could leave without a deal—or that an agreement has been reached.
It is also to be noted, given what has been said about hampering the Prime Minister in his negotiations, that the Bill is clear that not until after the European Council meeting on 17 October does the moment come when, if he has not reached a deal or obtained the consent of the House of Commons, he has to ask for an extension. Clause 1(3) does not trigger the need to ask for an extension until 19 October. In those circumstances, that particular element of concern is met.
I return to a point made by a number of noble Lords: the lack of trust in the Government, which has resulted in a Bill which is more constraining than one might have hoped to see. I must say, as many other noble Lords have, that what has happened on Prorogation is deeply concerning. It was deeply concerning when it was said that Prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit when it was plain to all of us that it had everything to with it. We did not need to see the documents that have been revealed in the Scottish case to know that. Now that we have seen them, however, we know that completely.
What is more, we know that the decision was made in the middle of August, at a time when it was not revealed to the House of Commons, this House or the public—or, apparently, to the Cabinet. Maybe I am wrong to see a sinister approach in that, but that sort of concern means that this House is entirely justified. The other place, whose Bill we are following, wants in the light of that lack of trust to make sure that this does not happen without either an agreement or the other House giving its approval.
It has been said that this will not solve the problem a number of noble Lords have raised. That may well be right, but it solves an immediate problem: the risk that we will find ourselves with a clock tick-tocking down to 31 October, not actually having a deal or even seeing any negotiations for a deal going on. That worries a lot of us as well. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who first raised the point in an intervention that the Prime Minister had said that he needed, or was happy to have, 30 days to come up with alternative arrangements. The clock tick-tocked, and we did not see what those arrangements were. We still have not seen what they are. In those circumstances, to say that Parliament is right to insist on a clear set of rules for what will take place seems absolutely what we should do.
One of my few regrets about the debate concerns what happened yesterday, partly because we spent a lot of time with bitterness and rancour, which we do not want to see in this House. However, particularly due to the efforts of my noble friend Lady Smith and the Government Chief Whip, we came to an agreement that we can all be happy with. That is important.
I was a little saddened because, at the beginning of that debate, there was confusion between me and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Normally, it is extremely flattering to be confused with him—I make that clear—but statements were made in the context of complaining that I had previously said things that I now appear to be disagreeing with by having made strong statements against the kind of Motion that was being put forward. I was cut by that—but not quite as cut as I was by a young French waitress recently when I was on holiday with my family, my children and their friends. They wanted to know, because there was a casino attached, what the age limit for the casino was and the young woman said to me, “There’s no maximum age limit”. Your Lordships may be relieved to know that that reassured me and I can provide the address of this excellent establishment, if noble Lords would like, afterwards.
The fundamental point is that we support the Bill. We are grateful to the other House for having sent it to us and to my noble friend Lord Rooker for putting it forward. We will have Committee, Report and the remaining stages of the Bill tomorrow. It would be good if the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, when he winds up for the Government, could repeat the assurances he gave during the debate that the Government will accept the Bill and make sure that it is in a position to get Royal Assent. As I suggested in an intervention, I hope they will advise Her Majesty to give Royal Assent. I accept that they cannot promise what Her Majesty will do, but they can give advice. We all know that the convention is that if advice is given, the monarch will follow it. I also hope that, as one noble Lord suggested, they will follow the spirit. We do not want to see any tricks, any shifting, any dodging about—whether that comes from Mr Dominic Cummings or anyone else—to get around this. If this House and the other House have said, “This is what should happen; this should be the Bill”, I hope that will be enforced and respected in the letter and in the spirit.
Given the length of the debate—I apologise that I have not referred to the excellent contributions of a number of other noble Lords—I urge my noble friend Lord Rooker to ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and we will support that.
Lord Callanan
I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. I follow the statements of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others and place on record the Government’s appreciation and thanks to all the House staff, officials and noble Lords for their efforts last night, and for their cordiality and good humour late into the evening. It is appreciated by all of us.
The public need Brexit to be delivered on 31 October and we cannot keep deferring it through successive and potentially indefinite extensions. Let us be clear—let us cut to the chase—this Bill is about crippling about our negotiations; it is about stopping Brexit. It will tie the Prime Minister’s hands, undermine the UK’s position and make any further negotiations impossible.
Let me respond directly to the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. He is a distinguished lawyer and he will know as well as I do that this Bill does not prevent a no-deal Brexit because, in one of the great ironies of this process, it is in fact now determined under European law under the Article 50 process. The final decision on whether or not we leave the European Union is now determined by the European Council. Let me also add to the assurance I gave him earlier that this Government will of course abide by the law. I repeat the assurances that the Chief Whip in this House gave last evening that we have received a commitment from the Chief Whip in the House of Commons that the Commons consideration of Lords amendments will take place on Monday, and that it is the Government’s intention that the Bill will be ready to be presented for Royal Assent then.
I shall say a few words about the negotiations. As the Prime Minister reiterated in the other place on Tuesday, and as the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said again on Wednesday, this Government are committed to getting a deal. However, it is a fact that the House of Commons has rejected the current withdrawal agreement three times, and it must now be clear to our friends and colleagues in Europe that it therefore simply cannot be the basis for a deal. That is why the Prime Minister wrote to President Tusk on 19 August to set out why a renegotiated deal must include the abolition of the anti-democratic backstop. We are confident that we can negotiate a deal removing the backstop that is acceptable to both sides. The European Council’s own negotiating guidelines commit to looking for,
“creative and flexible solutions on the border in Northern Ireland”.
The Prime Minister’s EU Sherpa held his first round of talks with the Commission last week. He met the Commission’s Article 50 task force yesterday for five hours to discuss a range of issues, particularly the removal of the backstop from the withdrawal agreement. In addition, both sides discussed the political declaration and the Government’s objective for an economic relationship based on free trade arrangements. The talks were constructive and both sides have agreed to meet again tomorrow, in line with our commitment to intensify talks. The House will of course also be aware that the Prime Minister is meeting the Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, next week.
Our European partners understand that we are serious in wanting a deal, and they are starting to reflect that reality in their responses. However, if you want to leave with a deal, you have to take no deal seriously. This Government have been completely clear in our commitment to leaving on 31 October. As the Prime Minister has said many times, he hopes and expects that that will be delivered through a deal. There is no reason why an agreement cannot be found.
Lord Hain
Will the Minister agree with his government colleague the Cabinet Minister Nicky Morgan, who indicated on BBC Radio 4’s “World at One” at lunchtime that if the Prime Minister gets his way, there is a mid-October election and he wins it, he will repeal the Bill or activate the clause within it to ensure that no deal occurs?
Lord Callanan
It is difficult for me to comment on an interview that I have not heard. I am sure the noble Lord is quoting her words accurately but, if he will forgive me, I will not comment on that precisely until I have seen the details of what Nicky Morgan actually said. We are commenting on a Bill that has not been passed through this House or completed its final stages in the other House. I repeat that the Government will of course abide by the law. I certainly cannot predict what might happen in a future general election, nor can I comment on what a future Government might do with the Bill in response to that.
Lord Hayward
In light of the indication given earlier today that the proposal for an election will be repeated in the Commons on Monday, has someone in the Government checked with the Taoiseach whether he is willing for that meeting to go ahead?
Lord Callanan
As far as I know, the latest information is that that meeting is still going ahead. Even if an election is happening, the Government and the Prime Minister remain in office and there are still live issues to be discussed. I am sure that there will still be intense value in having a meeting.
Lord Patten of Barnes
May I be, as usual, of assistance to the Minister, help him to develop the strength of his argument and encourage him to be a very brave Minister? Would he like to tell us that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Mr Cummings, who has featured quite regularly in this debate, did not say that the negotiations were a “sham”?
Lord Callanan
I am always wary when the noble Lord wants to be helpful, particularly when he quotes things taken straight from “Yes Minister” about being brave. All I can say is that he has not said it in any of the meetings that I have been at with him. Obviously, I am not at every meeting with him and I cannot comment on whether he said it. He says that he did not and nobody else in government has said to me that he did. I know Dominic well and I take his word when he says that he did not say that.
We know that member states want to avoid a no-deal exit. As set out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the other place on Tuesday, we have accelerated our preparations for no deal. For example, as I informed the House in repeating the Statement on Tuesday, there is additional expenditure of £16 million to train thousands of customs staff, traders and hauliers, and an additional £20 million to ensure that traffic can flow freely in Kent and that trucks arriving in Dover are ready to carry our exports into the EU. In addition, the Chancellor has made all necessary funds available to support other preparations.
Perhaps I might say a few words about the Bill itself. Although today’s debate has been of the usual high standard, it was remarkable that very few noble Lords addressed the legislation that we are talking about. However, it is true that continued EU membership would cost the UK roughly £1 billion net a month. The Bill, as it currently stands, would require the Prime Minister immediately to accept any offer made by the EU of an extension to 31 January 2020.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The figure of £1 billion net that the Minister refers to is frequently contested because it appears to be gross and not to take account of the expenditure that the European Union would make in this country if we were still a member. Can he perhaps clarify that?
Lord Callanan
Given the previous controversy about the sums of money involved in our exit, I am loath to get into this but I think that that is roughly the net figure. Our net figure is about £10 billion to £12 billion a year. I think that our gross contribution was about £20 billion and—very roughly, off the top of my head and without looking at the numbers—we receive about £10 billion back in receipts for agriculture payments, structural funds, et cetera. If those figures are incorrect, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bilimoria
Can the Minister clarify something? We pay that £1 billion per month anyway as part of our membership. As the Minister said, it is just under £10 billion net and we get the benefits of being in the European Union while we are paying it. So how can he say that we are paying an extra £1 billion when we are still a member of the European Union?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is a distinguished businessman. I did not use the word “extra”; I said merely that remaining a member of the European Union will cost us roughly £1 billion net a month. That is the current membership fee. We pay in a lot more than we get out from the European Union in purely financial terms.
I said that the Bill would require the Prime Minister immediately to accept any offer made by the EU of an extension to 31 January 2020. If the EU offered—or, rather, instructed—a longer extension, whatever its date and regardless of its conditions, the PM would automatically have to accept it unless the House of Commons said no within two calendar days. The fact that the Bill mandates updates on the negotiations and Motions on those updates after 31 January 2020 and on a rolling 28-day basis, with no end date, means that it clearly envisages either a lengthy extension or possibly a string of extensions. This is a very poor piece of legislation.
If we pass the Bill, in our view there is no chance at all of renegotiating the deal before 31 October. It will completely undermine the Government’s negotiating position and the future talks that the Government and the EU have committed to. Parliament would then be left with three unpalatable options: first, to revoke Article 50 and overturn the results of the referendum; secondly, extension after extension, therefore failing to deliver on the will of the people over three and a half years after the referendum took place; or, thirdly, accepting the existing withdrawal agreement, which has of course been rejected three times in the other place.
Therefore, I say to noble Lords across this House that, if they wish to accept the democratic decision that the UK should leave the EU—I accept that some parties do not wish to accept that decision—and if they want to leave with a deal, then do not support this Bill. The Government remain committed—
Lord Cormack
Is my noble friend saying to the House that if the Bill passes into law, which I think Parliament believes it should, negotiations will automatically end at that point? Is he saying that these negotiations, which are apparently continuing and doing very well at the moment, will suddenly be withdrawn from in a fit of pique? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Callanan
I am saying that it seems blindingly obvious to me that the EU has no possible incentive to negotiate anything because the two options that would then remain on the table would be either revoking or the existing withdrawal agreement, both of which the EU is perfectly happy with. Why would it negotiate anything else once we have removed the option of no deal from the equation?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Does the Minister agree that Europe offers further negotiations on the backstop in the political agreement? If so, why are we not picking that up?
Lord Callanan
Lots of negotiations are predicated in the political agreement. There are also arrangements within the existing withdrawal agreements for exploration of alternative arrangements, but the problem is that, in the meantime, we would have to legislate for the backstop, which then gives us no option unilaterally to withdraw from it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
The noble Lord said that there is no incentive for Europe. All the incentives are there for Europe to negotiate a deal with us and it has made an offer to which we have not responded, unless the Minister tells us that we have.
Lord Callanan
I am struggling to see the point that the noble Lord is making. Europe’s offer is effectively the withdrawal agreement, which personally I thought was an acceptable compromise, but it is a fact that the House of Commons rejected it. His party and the Liberal Democrats voted against it. Presumably there is something wrong with the withdrawal agreement, then.
Lord Cormack
Since my noble friend has vigorously supported the agreement, as did I, and since the Prime Minister voted for it on the third occasion—he therefore clearly agreed with it or he would not have done so—why do we not just bring it on?
Lord Callanan
I am sure it has not escaped my noble friend’s attention that Parliament as a whole voted against it on three occasions. Whatever view I or the current Prime Minister took that it was an acceptable compromise, it has been rejected.
Lord Goldsmith
I am just thinking through the implications of what the noble Lord has been saying. I have been hearing and reading that the Prime Minister has said he is negotiating and that the negotiations are going very well. I took that to mean that something was being discussed that he thought might be acceptable, not just the existing withdrawal agreement, and he jumped at the idea put to him by Angela Merkel of coming up with alternatives in 30 days. Is he now telling us that if the Bill passes, the Prime Minister will decline to negotiate any further? Is that the Government’s position?
Lord Callanan
No, that is not what I said at all. I am saying that it makes the Government’s position very difficult to persuade the EU to do any kind of alternative deal because all the other options remaining on the table are perfectly acceptable to it. In our view, as I said, the Bill would wreck any prospect for a renegotiated deal ahead of 31 October. It clearly would not honour the referendum result. It would be another pointless and harmful delay and would continue to contribute to the rancour we are experiencing in this House and in the public debate generally. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords whatever that the Government cannot support the Bill. I urge all noble Lords across the House who are committed to leaving the EU and to respecting the referendum to therefore vote against it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Just before my noble friend sits down, could he say what he understands is meant by,
“the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union”,
referred to in Clause 1(4) of the Bill?
Lord Callanan
I do not have a copy of the Bill in front of me. Obviously we are not the sponsors of the legislation. My noble and learned friend is a distinguished lawyer, and I will decline the opportunity to clarify exactly what I think the proposers of the clause mean. It is not our Bill. I would be happy to write to him with an opinion on it.
Lord Cormack
My noble friend will know that a very distinguished Member of the Opposition in another place moved an amendment to this Bill which makes it all the easier for the agreement that he so warmly supports, and which the Prime Minister voted for, to be voted on again. The circumstances have changed. We have a new Prime Minister, so even the Speaker could not refuse a vote on it.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend is referring to the so-called Kinnock amendment. We have looked at it quite closely and, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, believe that it is fatally flawed, contradicts other parts of the Bill and is legally inoperable.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has contributed. I am merely the messenger for the elected House because we are dealing with unique legislation from the elected Commons to try to deal with the uncertainties. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, are probably the only two Members who have spelled out that while the purpose of the Bill is to stop us crashing out without a deal, it contains a mechanism for any Prime Minister who can pack the Commons to take us out without a deal. That is in the conditions in Clause 1. I have no doubt that that will be raised in Committee.
I have two brief points. I have picked up from the debate that it would be a very high level of political immaturity for leaders in the other place to buy an election before 1 November. It is quite clear that trust has broken down. It would be absolutely barmy.
My final point—and I am sorry that it is a bit of a domestic policy issue—is that this is a Private Member’s Bill. It is bit like the Cooper-Letwin Bill in April. At that time, because the Bill was a Private Member’s Bill, the Government Front Bench, who basically regulate the Chamber when things break down, went on strike. They removed themselves and it caused a degree of chaos in our administration. Today, we have had a Second Reading without a speaker’s list, and it has gone great because everyone could see that there was enough time to get in to speak. We have a day on this tomorrow. After the events of April, as the Member in charge of the Bill, I complained to the Procedure Committee that when a Private Member’s Bill that the Government do not agree with is in the House and the Front Bench go on strike, the power to regulate should be given to the chair so that the chair could say “That is wrong” or “This is wrong”. I have had no acknowledgement or reply from the Procedure Committee. My complaint has just been dismissed.
We are going into Committee and Report tomorrow and I have no idea about any amendments being tabled. I do not want any chaos deliberately caused by the Front Bench abdicating their responsibilities if help with regulation is needed. It is quite clear. Earlier today there were three hours when there was hardly anybody on the Front Bench. Nobody took any notice of any breaches of procedure, and there were quite a few—only one was picked up, by my noble friend. I hope that, tomorrow, the Government will live up to their responsibilities. Irrespective of whether they agree with the policy or the legislation, the Government Front Bench have the power to regulate the House. If they are not prepared to exercise it, they should give it to the chair for the day. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I think the noble Lord said that there would not be time in the Commons to deal with amendments and that therefore, on the whole, he would prefer not to have any. Did I pick that up correctly, or is that wrong? I would like to see the purpose referred to in Clause 1(4) in the letter.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Friday 6th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 202-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (6 Sep 2019)
Lord James of Blackheath
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
My Lords, a week ago, I wrote a letter to the Lord Speaker in which I suggested that in certain circumstances which might occur, such as this morning, the entire House of Lords is ineligible to sit. I do not intend to pursue this point, but I want to explain why it occurs. I think it is important to us.
If the Lisbon treaty is allowed to stand and is not wiped away at midnight on 31 October, we are all, every single man jack of us, in breach of our oath on joining this House because we have allowed the omniscience of Parliament to be reduced by the elimination of the veto which was standing in our benefit until the Lisbon treaty. That has far-reaching consequences which go way beyond us and reach into the Palace and the Crown itself. We need to be aware of those implications. If I am right on that assertion—I have taken it to the Table Office and asked it to think about it, so there must be some professional opinions around—then we would be ineligible to sit today, and it would mean that this Bill cannot pass the House. I am not pursuing that.
What I am going to say is that I think the basis on which we are going forward from here is wrong because we have a situation in which we are facing a choice between remain, the no-go solution and, as came very much into focus in the latter stages of yesterday, the possible resurrection of the May deal. The May deal and remain both carry the same consequence that they would still leave us in breach of our oath. We need to have our oaths restored to us, which would happen if at midnight on 31 October if the Lisbon treaty was wiped away.
The first person we need to be concerned about in that respect is Her Majesty because we have the power of government placed in our hands by the coronation oath which she swore never to diminish, but we have diminished it for her. In those circumstances, do the British public realise they are being asked to consider a situation which might create a position in which Her Majesty would consider it was essential for her to abdicate? If that occurred, would it ever be possible to resurrect the monarch because nobody else could swear the same coronation oath? Let us be realistic about this. My whole criticism of the situation of opposition to no-go at the moment is that we simply have not informed the British public of what is at stake. It goes way beyond this.
We have this wonderful paper called Yellowhammer, which tells us all the dreadful things that will happen if we do go no-go. My secretary has an alternative list that I have complied called the Black Vulture, which is my list of the things that people do not know about which will happen if we do not go no deal. The first is the hazard it creates for the Crown. The second is: will somebody please tell us the truth about the European defence union? This is by far the biggest issue facing the British public and they know nothing about it officially. Can we please have a proper account of what it entails? Is it really true that the Government have entered into private agreements with the European Community that they will, on completion of remain or whatever it is to be, transfer to the European Union in Brussels the entire control of our entire fighting forces, including all their equipment? [Laughter.] Noble Lords may jest, but it has been done and they should check it out. It is too important to ignore. We must know the truth of this. We must have it clear for the whole public to know. I believe it is true, and I think we should be told. I understand that it is intended that the oath of every serving member of our forces will be cancelled and they will be required to undertake a new oath of loyalty to Brussels. I understand that in recent months, we have had a series of people sent from our Armed Forces to create and install the command and control centres to be used for the control of our troops once we have ceased to have any control over their use, application or deployment. It goes beyond this. They are to take control of our intelligence services, the whole core of Five Eyes. They will have MI6 and the Cheltenham monitoring centre, and we will be completely excluded from it under the new arrangements and have no access either to the—
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to give way just for one moment. I appeal to him to conclude, because it is not in either his interests or the interests of the Committee for him to continue.
Lord James of Blackheath
I thank the noble Lord. It is, however, in the interests of the British public, who, in the end, will have to vote blind on this issue. They need to be informed but nothing has been done to bring that about. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask one short question. I refer the Committee, and in particular the Minister, to col. 1203 of yesterday’s Hansard, in which my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering raised a very important question. She said in the final paragraph of her comments to this House:
“Can we have confirmation today not just that the Government will apply for an extension in the terms of this Bill”—
this is the salient point—
“but will vote for such an extension in the European Council?”.—[Official Report, 5/9/19; col. 1203.]
I would add the proviso: “and will not seek to oppose such an extension”. The Minister was not in his seat when that observation was made. I make absolutely no criticism but it would be very helpful to have an assurance from the Government in those terms.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, for raising what are obviously much wider issues than are contained in his amendment. The amendment itself is probably not necessary and therefore we will not support it.
I want to make one point about today. From today there are 55 days until Brexit. Anyone who has gone to the Hampstead Theatre recently will have seen the play “55 Days”. I remind noble Lords that it relates to the 55 days between the creation of the Rump Parliament and the execution of the King. I do not think that we are quite in that territory yet but I urge all noble Lords to remember that a clock is ticking. We should get on with the Bill as rapidly as we can today, but I do not think that the amendment would add to it in any way whatever and therefore I hope that the Committee will not support it.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, it is not clear which Minister on the Front Bench is responsible for the Bill. Is no Minister taking any interest in these affairs at all? The Minister for Exiting the European Union is notable by his absence in the Chamber now, as indeed he was for a large part of the debate yesterday.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Minister for Exiting the European Union is at an important meeting at the moment but will be joining us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
The reality is that this is private Member’s business and the Government Front Bench is on strike again, as I said at the end of yesterday’s sitting. It is as simple as that. That is what it is all about.
The noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, made a very important speech, which we listened to with care and attention. He raised a lot of serious and important points, but I turn to the nub of his amendment, which is what we are here to deal with. I think we can be guaranteed that almost any potential Prime Minister will seek to ensure that the sovereignty of the UK is preserved, as it has been all along. Therefore, the noble Lord’s amendment would not really add to the Bill and, with respect, I ask him to withdraw it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to speak, because my noble friend Lord Hailsham brought up a very pertinent point that I raised at the end of what I realise was quite a long speech yesterday. If our Front Bench is not to reply, I cannot comment, but I find it very unsatisfactory that we could be in a position where my own Government apply for an extension and then, in the course of that process, vote against it. I would like a categoric assurance from our Front Bench today that that will not happen.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I understand that this matter has followed what has been a sometimes difficult and prolonged debate. I agreed with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party that we would make sure that the Bill was passed by the end of today and sent back to the Commons. As my noble friend indicated, the Government are not in favour of the Bill but we made those undertakings. We will complete them but we are not responsible for the Bill.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The mover of the amendment has the right to reply at this stage.
Lord James of Blackheath
I thank the noble Lord. I tabled my amendment because, in everything that has been said so learnedly on this matter, nobody has covered the subject of sovereignty, which is really at the core of the original intention to take back control. Therefore, I am concerned that the public might be asked to give an opinion on this—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
We had a very long period of what some people have called filibustering. It resulted in a deal between the Front Benches in which the Opposition Leader gave an undertaking not to use the guillotine or this procedure again. We respected that. We agreed that the Bill would be given safe passage with speed through the House. Does my noble friend not think that it might be more sensible to withdraw his amendment and allow us to proceed with what both sides of the House have agreed to do?
Lord James of Blackheath
I entirely recognise that fact. My concern, which I am sure the noble Lord will share, is for the understanding of the British public when they have to accept whatever is the final decision. I do not believe they have enough knowledge of the reality of what stands behind the agreements between which they have to choose. That is why I worded the amendment as I did, as the only way to bring this into the discussion today. I thank noble Lords for their comments. I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment but at the same time I make an urgent plea to all who are concerned about this to get the public better informed. They are not well informed.
Baroness Deech
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, this is a straightforward technical amendment to plug a gap which I noticed as soon as the Bill was published; indeed, I referred to it in my speech on it. As we know, the Bill mandates the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the withdrawal date provided for in Article 50 in the form of the letter in the Schedule. It goes beyond the earlier withdrawal Bill, known as the Cooper-Letwin Bill, of April. That Bill required the Prime Minister of the day to seek, but not necessarily to achieve, an agreement about extension. Mrs May could have picked up the phone, asked Monsieur Barnier for an extension and then said that on reflection she did not want it. Of course, that is not what happened.
That loophole is closed by the Bill in Clause 3(1) to (3). Subsection (1) says that, if the European Council agrees an extension to 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister “must, immediately” agree to the proposed extension, without qualification or consultation. But subsection (2) says that if “a date other than” 31 January is offered, the Prime Minister may not have to agree; subsection (3) says that if the Commons decided to disapprove the extension offer, the UK does not have to agree it.
I do not know why the two are treated differently. I note that the Commons is given this opportunity to consider the offer if an extension is granted that is not 31 January; it could be 30 January, or December next. But if the extension is 31 January, this is what might occur. Suppose the European Union agrees to an extension to 31 January but attaches a condition—for example, the holding of a second referendum, a payment of billions, settling issues to do with migration, or even a new Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to accept it immediately, as set out in line 4 on page 3—no consultation, no Commons approval, unlike the provision in subsection (2). My amendment adds to the arrangement contemplated in subsection (1) the same requirement that the Commons should have two days to consider and accept or reject any condition attached. That must be right. I imagine the difference was an oversight, unless the proponents can explain the discrepancy.
I also note, but have not attempted to amend, a difficulty with the meaning of “two days” in subsection (2) and “two calendar days” in subsection (3). They are different—why? Imagine that the European Union offers an extension which is not to 31 January and that this is offered in early October or during some period when Parliament is not sitting. Is Parliament to be summoned to agree the question, or does “two days” mean two sitting days—indeed “Lords sitting days”, whatever they are—as set out in Clause 1? Might Parliament be prorogued to sidestep these time provisions? It is not clear. What is clear is that the Commons should have some power, for two days, to scrutinise and approve any offer of an extension to 31 January in exactly the same way as it is empowered so to do if the date were to be 1 February. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
I will make a point that I made in the previous debate in the hope that the Government will respond. I hope they will also respond to this amendment. Clause 3(1) is premised on the basis that the European Council decides to agree an extension. So long as the United Kingdom is a member of the European Union, in respect of a unanimous decision, it is at least possible in theory for the United Kingdom to oppose the extension, despite having applied for one. I seek an assurance from the Government that they will not seek to oppose an extension for which they have applied.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 2 as my name is on it. Second Reading yesterday was a fascinating debate with much history covered, as is appropriate at Second Reading. There were some wide discussions of well-rehearsed arguments, often most eloquently expressed. Like many noble Lords here today I had the—I should not quite say—pleasure of listening to the debate on the business Motion the preceding day, which went on until 1.30 in the morning. I can only admire and respect those Members of this House who, having left at the same time as me, at 1.30 am, came back to the House the same morning with such powerful and well-written speeches on a Bill which itself arrived only a few hours earlier.
The speeches at Second Reading were political, of course, but in Committee we come to the business part. This is the time this House should come into its own, looking at the detail of the legislation and offering suggestions to the wording which might have been missed out in the other place. Although the Second Reading debate contained some excellent and thoughtful points, today is when we as a House might take a cold and calm look, away from the politics, and add some value to the Bill.
I recall that yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, specifically said that the Bill is “rather skilfully drafted”. It may be. I am sure it was done by those with vast experience in such matters, but it was prepared in a huge rush and I understand that one amendment from Stephen Kinnock was included by accident. As I have suggested, there was an almost indecent hurry between the Bill arriving here and Second Reading, so it is more than understandable that noble Lords did not have the full opportunity to reflect on the actual wording and meaning of the Bill line by line, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said.
There were of course exceptions; I would like to highlight the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—and not only his wonderful sentence which from here on in I will try to remember every time I am in a debate:
“I wanted to speak near the end so that I would hear the wisdom of others rather than my own”.—[Official Report, 5/9/19; col. 1212.]
I want to pick up on his observation that Clause 1 seems to identify the reason for the extension. I quote from the Bill:
“The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension … in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks”.
I should declare my interests. Although I voted leave, I publicly supported the agreement to which this refers, both in debates in this House and in print in a national newspaper. I am not sure in retrospect that I was right, but I did. Even if people like me were happy that the agreement to the extension was one that we still wanted, what happens if it is not the one we are offered by the EU because of the terms attached, as said by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech? The reason this amendment has been suggested is that it is entirely possible that the EU will only grant an extension which contains new conditions not in that agreement or not currently on the table. As I understand it, the Prime Minister would have to agree these new conditions, and this was not the intention of the Bill as it appears to be drafted.
Some of these new terms might be acceptable and attractive. I put on record to the House that I went to Brussels to meet Monsieur Barnier as part of the all-party parliamentary emergency task force led by Alberto Costa MP to try to persuade him to give citizens of the UK rights in the EU, and citizens in the EU rights in the UK, immediately. We had a friendly meeting for over an hour and he clearly understood the points made by the representatives of both Houses and indeed those of the citizens concerned, but he refused to budge an inch. The EU can dig in when it wants to, as indeed can we. For the record, he has agreed to meet us again in October. If he acquiesces to our requests then that will be extremely helpful, but there may be other requirements that the EU would make, particularly perhaps financial, that none of us would find acceptable. We have to reserve the right for Parliament to review those in the usual way. Accordingly it seems only fair and right that such changes should rather be approved by Parliament under this Bill, and that is the purpose of the Bill. Of course the Bill has to go through the House, but it is entirely appropriate that it carries amendments that your Lordships feel are appropriate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I think she has spotted a loophole in the Bill. I am very surprised at my noble friend Lord Hailsham asking for responses from the Government. This is a private Bill, a piece of private legislation. Like a lot of private Bills, it is—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord has expressed surprise. Private Members’ Bills go through this House frequently, and not only are the government Front Bench present but they actually respond, normally, to every amendment. I am sure he would agree that, while he disagrees with it, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House has considered in the last year. For the Government to refuse to answer any questions or make any response is an abuse of this House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not want to take us back into the territory that we were in earlier this week, so the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not respond on the abuse of this House, given that the Bill itself has arisen from an abuse of the procedures in the other place.
I am genuinely concerned that we should pass a Bill whose implications people do not realise. I have had no contact with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and until I read the Bill and her amendment this morning, I had not realised that there was a real problem here. I was simply making the point that private Members’ legislation, without the benefit of the drafting and the backup of the government machine, is often defective. One of the things this House does is to point that out and to make those Bills sensible and possible to be carried forward.
I understand—and here perhaps I am agreeing with the noble Lord in his intervention—that where the Government have a particular interest in the Bill, it would be perfectly appropriate for Ministers to respond, but it is certainly not right to ask Ministers to comment on the drafting and nature of a Bill over which they have no responsibility.
Viscount Hailsham
Would my noble friend accept that the question that my noble friend Lady McIntosh posed yesterday relates not to drafting but to policy? As a matter of policy, this House and the country are entitled to know that the Government will not seek to oppose an extension that they have sought. That is a straightforward question to which Parliament is entitled to a clear and straightforward answer.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
And that would be a very good question to ask at Second or Third Reading, but we are in Committee here and we are discussing a particular amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
We are aware of that because my noble friend told us so not 10 minutes ago. What we are discussing here is the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who has made a perfectly good point about the drafting of the Bill, and I hope very much that the noble Lord in charge of this private Bill will be able to address it.
My second point, in support of the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is that I understood that the amendment to the Bill made by Mr Kinnock in the other place was considered deficient and defective and was passed because the Government, by mistake, refused to put in Tellers, but I do not see an amendment on the Order Paper to correct that. I would like to hear from the Chief Whip what the position is on that at some stage during these proceedings.
As we are concerned at the moment with the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be able to explain why she is wrong. My experience is that she is a clever and informed barrister and is seldom wrong. If she is right, this is a real problem with the Bill.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I rise in the hope that some EU constitutional law expert may assist me. My understanding was that until the end of the Article 50 period we remain a full member of the EU, with all the rights and obligations of such a member except in instances where we have voluntarily decided not to exercise such rights. Therefore, an extension to the Article 50 period would be an extension of our period as a full member of the EU. Any such extension that was offered with some sort of reduction in those rights would therefore seem to be not an extension of the Article 50 period but something else entirely. Have I misunderstood?
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness’s amendment. She is clearly right, and I hope that will be accepted around the House. The drafting of the Bill treats the European Council’s response to the request for an extension as if it might take one of two forms, but in fact the position is not binary; there are three possibilities.
The first is that the Council will unconditionally agree to the extension. In that case, pursuant to the Bill, the Prime Minister is bound to accept that. The second possibility, which is different, is that the Council might agree to the extension until the end of January, subject to conditions that may or may not be acceptable to the Government and the people. That is not an unconditional agreement; it is a counter-offer. As a matter of law, a counter-offer destroys the initial offer, which no longer remains open for acceptance, and is a new offer that can either be accepted or not. It is that possibility which has been overlooked by the Bill as presently drafted. That is why the noble Baroness’s amendment is plainly right.
The third possibility is that the Council will make a different type of counter-offer, which is to propose an extension that ends on a different date. That is a separate type of counter-offer, and that, as the Bill is presently drafted, triggers the provision in subsection (3). The noble Baroness’s point, as I understand it, is that the second type of counter-offer should also fall under the scope of subsection (3). She is plainly correct.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who has set out clearly why the Bill is plainly defective. I think it happens to be a terrible Bill, and all that it will achieve if passed is to kick the can further down the road, which has a huge cost in terms of prolonged uncertainty and putting off decisions to make new investments.
As my noble friend who has just spoken has pointed out, there are different possibilities as to how the EU will react and respond to a request for an extension. Noble Lords will remember what happened at the last request for extension: there was a very long debate in Council, with President Macron seeking to allow us a much shorter extension whereas some other member states wanted to offer a very much longer one, and 31 October was a kind of compromise date. There was also much talk in the Council as to what other conditions should be applied to any acceptance of a request for an extension. That is the reason for the noble Baroness’s amendment.
It is not just on that point that the Bill is defective. I would like to know what is a “Lords sitting day”. There are two instances in the Bill of something called a “Lords sitting day”, which I have never heard defined before, as well as “calendar days” and “days”. So, the Bill is a bit poorly drafted. I have always understood that the role of your Lordships’ House is to scrutinise and improve deficient legislation.
I have another question; I think it is for the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because he introduced this Bill. Clause 3(3) refers to what happens if the House of Commons has decided not to pass a Motion between two calendar days. It does not say what happens if the House has not decided to pass, or not decided not to pass, a Motion within two calendar days. Also, should “decision” have an upper-case d? If it is intended to signify a formal decision of the Council, it should have an upper-case d. If the decision is made on a Friday, or a Thursday when the other place is not sitting on the two subsequent calendar days, it is quite likely that the other place will not have had an opportunity to decide whether or not to pass such a Motion.
Quite apart from the very harmful effect of this Bill on our country and the current negotiations with the European Union, I think the least your Lordships’ House could do would be to support the noble Baroness in doing something to mitigate its harmful effect by making it a little clearer.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I rather echo the puzzlement of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I would like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, or other sponsors of Amendment 2, to explain what part of Article 50 gives the EU 27 any power to impose conditions. As I read it, paragraph 3 of Article 50 just says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State”—
the UK in this case—at the end of the two-year period, or the end of the extended period. Could the noble Baroness explain what is the basis in EU law for believing that the EU 27 have the power to impose any conditions?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Baroness is vastly experienced; having been in the European Parliament, she understands these things and I cannot pretend to do so. When the issue of the extension beyond 31 March was discussed, I recall that President Macron and others were intent on imposing all kinds of conditions. Is she saying that, when he said that, he was not aware of the nature of the Article 50 process, or of European law?
Baroness Ludford
I obviously have no idea what went on in the private office of President Macron. However, as noble Lords know, there are loads of lawyers in Brussels; the legal services of the three institutions are very distinguished. I imagine that there could have been some lively discussion between the politicians and the lawyers as to what was possible. I acknowledge that I am not aware of exactly what the content of those discussions could have been. I make no pretence to be an EU lawyer, but I remain untutored—just on a reading of Article 50—on what power would allow the EU 27 to impose those conditions. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, moved the amendment—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, is keen to come in, perhaps because this is also relevant to Amendment 3—I ask where that power comes from.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I might be able to assist the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, because this is very much the subject of my amendment. If the Committee is willing to hear from me now, I will not need to move it later.
On 11 April 2019, when responding to Mrs May’s request for an extension of Article 50, the European Council’s concluding statement took the form of a decision. I returned from Brussels just yesterday; I would have spoken in the debate yesterday, but I was unable to, as I missed the beginning. In Brussels yesterday, I was told that the decision of the European Council of 11 April 2019 stands as law. That European Council took note of the duty of sincere co-operation. That duty exists in all treaties and the United Kingdom has been bound by it. In particular, it referred to the conduct of the UK as applied to its relations with the EU as a withdrawing member state. Moreover, in that decision, it added a further caveat, saying:
“To this effect, the United Kingdom shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and shall refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives, in particular when participating in the decision-making processes of the Union”.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the problem we have today is that we are constrained on time. That is entirely the fault of the Government for deciding that Prorogation should take place next week. Therefore, we are in something of a constraint. We owe a great deal to my noble friend the Chief Whip, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and those who reached a sensible compromise solution in the early hours of Thursday morning. We are grateful to them. They say, and I accept, that we need to conclude proceedings on the Bill today. This is because of the Prorogation guillotine, which was announced by the Prime Minister two weeks after he decided to do it—we know that from the depositions in the Scottish court.
I regret that there is no Minister to reply to these debates. It is frankly an insult to the House and I deeply regret it. But when he was here yesterday my noble friend Lord Callanan made it quite plain that he knew that our European friends and neighbours would accept two things. One was the revocation of Article 50. Clearly that will not happen and I do not want it to happen, but he also made it plain that the deal that had been on the table—Prime Minister May’s deal—was still possible. He also made the point that he had enthusiastically promoted it, as indeed he had. All members—I correct myself—most members of Mrs May’s Government promoted it valiantly.
I believe that we now have the opportunity under the Bill, imperfectly drafted as I acknowledge it is, with the Kinnock amendment, to bring the Theresa May deal back and enable this Parliament to make a decision with a fourth vote on it. I am bound to say that I believe it will be a service to the country to do that. As I said yesterday, it is only the beginning of the beginning, because there are many more rounds of negotiations to take place, but it would at least mean that we had something that had been supported by the present Prime Minister and Mr Rees-Mogg in the third vote, so clearly they believed it was the right thing to do at that time. I wish we could now get on and do it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I entirely agree with my noble friend on the subject of getting on with discussing these amendments and their nature, but is he seriously arguing that if a problem that affects our national interest arises from the drafting of the Bill, we should just ignore it and allow it to go forward? It is perfectly possible for the sponsors of the Bill to agree the amendment, for it to go to the House of Commons, come back and for it all to be covered before Prorogation, particularly since both Front Benches have agreed to take whatever measures are necessary to try to expedite it. It is perfectly possible. Surely we need to address the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other Members of the House have identified. All this repetition of all the arguments we have already had for the past three years is, frankly, a waste of time. We are at the final point now and we need to put the Bill on the statute book, but in a way that makes sense. We cannot as a House say that we are going to pass imperfect legislation because the Government were responsible for Prorogation.
Lord Cormack
That was a fairly lengthy intervention, but the fact of the matter is that we have been placed in a straitjacket by the Government’s decision on Prorogation. We have an agreement between the two Front Benches here. That is why we should move forward and get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I had not intended to follow my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup’s remarks because he included in them an invitation to some EU constitutional experts. I absolutely do not aspire to the status of an EU constitutional expert, but what he said was absolutely correct. There are two possible statuses: one is the that of a member of the European Union, the other that of a former member. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is absolutely right that there is no provision in Article 50 for qualitative conditions on an extension. Temporal conditions—the length of the extension—are possible. That is what we are talking about.
The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, about the European Council decision refers to the treaty rights and responsibilities of a member, one of which is the duty of loyal co-operation. That is set out in the treaty. It would not be possible to withdraw treaty rights by European Council decision. The only way to change treaty rights is by amending the treaty, which requires unanimity, and while we are members we would presumably not vote to limit our treaty rights.
The language in the decision referred to by the noble Baroness relates to the contingency, which sadly has now arisen, that the United Kingdom is not present and voting in all committees and regulatory organisations of the European Union. The United Kingdom has voluntarily decided not to exercise some of its treaty rights. Some of these organisations operate by unanimity. If there is an empty chair there and we are a full member with full voting rights that we have not exercised, decision-taking machinery among the European Union—of which we are a member—being exercised by only the 27 could grind to a halt. That is why that language is in the European Council decision. That is why our Government, though in my view quite wrongly, has decided to operate an empty-chair policy in certain parts of the European Union organisation. They have agreed that the Finnish presidency shall exercise our voting rights as though we were there so that unanimity, where it is necessary for a decision to keep the business going, can still be reached. That is the purpose of the language of the European Council’s decision.
The key point is that paragraph 3 of Article 50 is about only temporal extensions. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for whom I have huge admiration—of course, she is a lawyer and I am not—that I believe it is not possible to set conditions to the extension of time under Article 50. I therefore say to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, that both amendments are unnecessary and should not be pressed.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Could the noble Lord clarify whether it would be possible for the European Council to set the condition that the British Parliament, or the British Government, agree to hold a referendum? I agree that it would not be possible for it to set conditions that limited our powers within the period of membership, but surely it is possible for it to do that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
That is absolutely out of the question. The treaty language, including in Article 50, is absolutely clear that it is for the member state to proceed under its own constitutional procedures. That is specifically spelled out, including in Article 50. The idea that the European Union would interfere in our domestic decision-taking constitutional arrangements is out of the question.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, on a slightly more pedantic level, I will try to assist the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, with his earlier question. I think he thought that Lords sitting days had not been statutorily defined. They are actually defined in Section 13(16)—
Lord Lisvane
I promised pedantry. They are defined in Section 13(16) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Viscount Trenchard
I thank the noble Lord for his clarification, but that does not affect my basic premise that the Bill nevertheless refers to “Lords sitting days”, “days” and “calendar days” in a confusing manner. That also needs to be clarified.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I said yesterday what a privilege it was to be in this House, but having heard the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is not on the Cross Benches, they have answered the points that I wanted to make on this amendment. The starting point for the context is, obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, the limitation on time for this House and the other House imposed by Prorogation. We are in circumstances where we might think theoretically about asking the Commons to think again, but there will not be time. There will not be time for ping-pong because, if Prorogation hits, the Bill falls. I believe that that is what this House wanted to avoid, by pushing through and accepting Second Reading yesterday.
Let me come—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for allowing me to intervene. Has not the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, given us the answer? Does it not just simplify entirely the amendment before us?
Lord Goldsmith
The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right about that, which is why I particularly complimented and thanked him for his intervention and observation. The conditions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—such as the monetary issue, us being required to have a new Prime Minister, and a referendum—are not, in my view, things that the European Union could impose on this country. We have said this before and I say it again: although the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is not a lawyer, he drafted Article 50 and so knows something about what its conditions contain.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey
Perhaps I may assist the House by addressing this point, which arises out of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He indeed drafted Article 50. It is drafted in terms that do not expressly confer a right to withdraw an Article 50 notification. However, according to his views, it has now been held that such an entitlement impliedly exists. It is not difficult to argue for an implication that it is legitimate for the European Council to seek to impose conditions to our request for yet another extension, which is a request for an indulgence. Can the noble and learned Lord assist on that?
Lord Goldsmith
I beg to differ from the noble Lord. The Committee will also bear in mind that anything the European Council does, or seeks to do, is itself subject to the requirements of the treaties. If it does something which is thought to be outside the treaties, that is justiciable in the courts of this country—we now know very well that they can do that—but also in Brussels and Luxembourg. I do not see a problem with that. I do not see the difficulty that is raised. The Bill is clear that, if we get the answer, “You can have this extension to this date”, the Prime Minister has to act. If the date is different, that is a different consideration, and will have to be considered by the Commons. However, if we were to make an amendment now to deal with something that we are being advised the European Council could not do, we would be defeating the Bill because we would be sending it back to the Commons, which would not be sitting to receive that amendment and deal with it. I therefore respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. If she does not do so, certainly we will oppose it.
Lord Lilley
My Lords, I am not a lawyer but, from what I have heard, I believe that this amendment carries considerable weight. I am not persuaded, even by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that conditions could not in practice be imposed. We know that that has been talked about frequently by the leaders of our partners in Europe and by European Commissioners. Are noble Lords able to tell me what would happen if, when we asked for an extension, those in the EU asked what it was for? They have repeatedly asked us that. What if we said that we did not know, and they then told us that we could therefore not have an extension? Or what if we told them that we were going to have a referendum, and they then said that we could have an extension? Is the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, saying that that process of discussion and dialogue could not happen? It seems to be quite compatible with paragraph 3 of Article 50, which says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the … agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned”—
implying that there may be a range of things to be agreed—
“unanimously decides to extend this period”.
What I originally wanted to ask was this. To my mind, this amendment raises a rather more fundamental question about Clause 3(1), which begins:
“If the European Council decides to agree an extension”.
It can decide only by unanimity. Once it has decided, its decision is European law and binding upon us. There is therefore no possibility of coming back to the House of Commons and overruling that decision. We were told that in March, when the Prime Minister went to the Council and agreed an extension. When she came back, people in the House of Commons wanted to have a vote on it and were told, “You can have a vote if you like but it is law anyway”. The assurances we have been given that Parliament itself could overrule an agreement, or not agree to a decision made by the Council, if we did not like its length or any terms that might be implicit in it are, as far as I understand it, simply not true. Now, I am not a lawyer —those were my opening remarks—but if a lawyer is prepared to stand up and say that a decision of the European Council is not binding in European law, and therefore not binding on us before we have left, my objection falls. If not, we have found a very major weakness in the Bill.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, it would appear that everybody in the House is toing and froing to Brussels. I have to make it clear that the last time I was in Brussels, when I was still a Northern Ireland Minister, on the day that the beef ban was lifted I was serving Northern Ireland beef to trade delegations to rebuild that industry. That was my last time in Brussels, so I am not party to any of the discussions.
The point about the amendment, which has been sufficiently answered in a much better way than I could do, is that it is built on an assumption about the unconditional extension of time. It would actually confuse Clause 3. Clause 3 is precise in some ways but subsection (4) gives it flexibility. It is interesting that an amendment has been tabled by the same group of people to knock out subsection (4), because that provision gives the Prime Minister the capacity to agree a different date. That flexibility and precision are built in to achieve the objectives because, at the moment, we are in an unknown area. To be honest, to add the amendment would be confusing.
I am not going to get into disputes with lawyers and drafters of legislation, but the fact of the matter is that I would take the explanation of the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Cormack, over and above legalistic nitpicking of what is quite a precise clause. In fact, when you look at the Bill, this is probably its best drafted clause.
Lord Lilley
Did the noble Lord notice that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, did not come back to deny that the sort of discussions I suggested could take place, which would implicitly involve conditions?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I do not think it is for me to comment on discussions in the European Council. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I do not know what happened when President Macron argued for a shorter extension at the last European Council. It is perfectly possible that dialogue with the British Prime Minister might take place, but what is not possible is that there could be a conditional extension. The extension would be unconditional because that is what the treaty says, or rather the treaty contains no powers for imposing a conditional extension.
Lord Rooker
That being the entire point, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, much more heavy weather has been made of this than I intended. I have a couple of opening comments: it is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, over here, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that those who draft law are not thereafter charged with interpreting it. Once they have launched their draft, it is over to others to interpret it. I do not claim by any means to be a European lawyer—far from it—but my point is very simple: if an extension is granted to 30 January, the Commons gets two days to consider it. If an extension is granted to 31 January, it gets no time at all. I have still heard no reason or sense for why that should be so, and I remain convinced that this was some drafting oversight.
No one has clarified either whether the “two days” are sitting days or calendar days. What if an offer comes at the weekend, during the Christmas Recess or some time when we are not here? Since the lawyers, both the noble and learned Lords in this House and those who are clearly just as learned but are mere QCs, have different opinions about this, it is quite possible that something that is a bit tricky may come our way at a time when we are not sitting or when the Act provides no two-day pause for the Commons. So either the Commons should have two days to consider anything or it should not have two days at all. I have heard no logical answer to that.
I sense that it is the will of the House that I withdraw the amendment. However, before Report, I expect to hear some sense from someone. I do not know who gave the draftsmen their orders. I have not yet heard a sensible reason why an extension to 30 January gets two days’ consideration but an extension to 31 January does not.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
Perhaps I may try to give an explanation. It is because Clause 3(1) specifically states,
“at 11.00pm on 31 January 2020”.
By definition, that would have been passed by the House of Commons, as indeed it did on Wednesday this week. Therefore, it does not really need two days to agree something that it has already agreed to and put in statute.
Baroness Deech
I understand that point, but, given that there has been enough disagreement to worry me about what the European Union might say—others who know much more than me have expressed different opinions—and we are left with this “two days” definition and nobody knows what it means, I think that there is a real legal problem. I do not know who drafted it; I do not know who gave the orders; we have not really heard a logical answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I expect someone to give a proper explanation at some stage during the discussion, because we are in a bit of a legal pickle over that provision.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the House rightly scrutinises Bills that come from the Commons, including a Private Member’s Bill such as this.
I apologise for my late arrival today. I moved a time-critical meeting to very early and was then afflicted by a transport delay. Circumstances can upset timing, as we all know from our debates on these Bills.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, we have a duty in Parliament, and this House plays a key role, wherever we come from, to make clear that legislation works—otherwise, I fear that we will be held up to contempt by the people of this country. They look upon us already with increasing incredulity, and that is a big concern. I just hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right on Amendment 2.
This is Committee, and my amendment is a probing amendment. I gave notice of my concern at Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has only half answered my question.
I am concerned that subsections (1) to (3) tie the Government’s hands too tightly and put UK interests in jeopardy, whatever the motivation for the Bill—which was of course agreed in the other place.
I will be brief. I do not understand what subsection (4) does and how it interrelates with the rest of Clause 3, or indeed the rest of the Bill, or the sponsors’ game plan for our relations with the EU once the Bill becomes an Act. I am also keen, like others, to hear what is happening to the Kinnock amendment, which the Minister explained yesterday was defective. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
This provision was put into the Cooper/Letwin Bill very much at the insistence of the Government at the time. I am not trying to make a point against the Government—the reason for it was to preserve the prerogative of the Government to accept an amendment. At that stage it was thought possible that the European Council would offer an extension at a Council meeting and there was the question of whether the Prime Minister would be able to accept it. After consideration of that, it was put into the Cooper/Letwin Bill that the Prime Minister should in fact be able to accept. This Bill, in Clause 3(4), says again that nothing will,
“prevent the Prime Minister from agreeing to an extension”—
it does not allow him to refuse an extension—
“of the period specified … otherwise than in accordance with this section”.
So he does not have to go through the procedures if he wants to accept it. That is a way of preserving the prerogative, or privilege, of the Government to make agreements at an international level, but on that specific basis.
That is the reason for it, and it is appropriate to have it in this Bill too. The time for it to arise is limited and, if I understand correctly what Mr Johnson said about ditches, there will be no question of his agreeing to anything unless he is constrained by the Bill. So it is an interesting question and I think it is entirely academic. In those circumstances, I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question and we can move to complete Committee.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Will the noble and learned Lord explain, if the Prime Minister is faced in a Council meeting with the question of a change along those lines—if there were conditions placed upon it in the meeting—how will this subsection address that possibility?
Lord Goldsmith
Given what the Prime Minister has said, it is not going to happen. But the prerogative of the Prime Minister is retained under this provision—as it is in the other Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
This simply keeps free from constraint the prerogative of the Prime Minister, notwithstanding this Bill. This Bill simply deals with requiring the Prime Minister to apply for an extension; if he manages to get one anyway, it does not matter. That is what is preserved. There is no question at that stage—if we accept the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the nature of extensions—about conditions, except temporal conditions. Therefore, what the Prime Minister is allowed to do here is what, apart from this Bill, he would be able to do. This Bill is an additional requirement on him when it is activated.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I ask the Committee’s forbearance. Noble Lords on all sides are entirely agreed that the extension which the Bill demands that the Prime Minister seek is for one purpose only—look at the Kinnock amendment in the second part of Clause 1(4)—which is to try to get something like the May deal finally agreed. Heaven knows, I strongly support it and have long suggested that it should be agreed. However, having got such an extension, it would be quite unlawful for anybody to then say, “Ah, but we must use it instead to retract the Article 50 notice”—or seek a referendum or anything like that. Are all noble Lords happy and agreed on that?
Lord Goldsmith
No. I want to be clear that there is no certainly commitment coming from these Benches that that is what the Bill requires. If it is passed into law, it contains those words, but it does not constrain what the extension is used for.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, there is not much for me to say—although, as I alluded to in the previous debate, Clause 3 is precisely drafted and subsection (4) is there to give flexibility if other circumstances prevail. I had forgotten about where the Cooper/Letwin Bill—which I started off myself in April—came from. In other words, it came from the current Government on strike saying, “Please put it in your Bill”. We are happy to agree to the Government’s original plan to have it in the Bill. The noble Baroness said that this was a probing amendment. I would be very happy therefore if she would withdraw it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful for the good legal advice from all sides about what this provision means. It is obviously a helpful provision, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I am concerned that this Act has no end date, so it is right to make sure that we understand the provisions and how they would work in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I would like to say something about that. This is the text of a letter that the Prime Minister is required to send under the Bill. If there had been time, I would have proposed that the letter included a reason. After all, it is to the European Union that the reason is to be expressed. As I understand it, the European Union says that, if it is asked to grant an extension, it wishes to have a reason. In the ordinary course of events it would be right to have the reason in the letter. Unfortunately, time prevents that happening. That would have been better, but I am sure the initiative will be sufficient for the reason to be communicated to the European Union, even though it is not stipulated in the letter. The terms of the Bill say that this is the letter, so there may be a risk in adding to it—but that may be a risk that should properly be taken.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the noble and learned Lord is arguing that the letter has to have a reason in it, does that not mean it is conditional?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The condition is obvious: to give the reason why you are applying for an extension. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the important point is about time, and the EU wants to know how this time is to be taken up. That seems to me a perfectly sensible idea.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble and learned Lord is far smarter at this than I am, but the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, argued that it was not possible for any conditions to be applied. So why is it necessary for us to give a reason?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It seems obvious to me that if you are asked to make an extension, you do not do it just for the sake of doing it; you have some reason for it. I do not think that the European Union, far as it may be from common sense in many respects, is so daft that it provides for an extension to be applied for with no reason on earth why it should be granted. It seems common sense to me that the reason is required and, of course, the Bill contains the reason but has just happened not to put it in the letter. I suspect that what happened may have been a copying of the previous Bill, the Cooper Bill, which did not have the reason in at all, as I pointed out at the time. This Bill is much better and includes the reason. Unfortunately, it is not so good that it has it in the letter as well but, as I say, I do not think that matters. At least, I do not think that ultimately it will matter.
As for my noble and learned friend’s question about the reason, it is quite important that the reason given in the Bill is the reason that has to be given in support of the application for the extension. I would certainly have suggested that it should go in the letter if there had been time, but I fully appreciate that there is not time and therefore we must leave it as it is.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, beside what my noble and learned friend has just said about the letter and its deficiency in not including a reason, do your Lordships not think it would be much better if it also made clear what the parties are supposed to ratify? It simply says:
“If the parties are able to ratify before this date”,
but there is no object of the sentence, so there is no object to ratify. It is clear that it refers to a withdrawal agreement—I understand that—but it is very sloppy drafting and it could be argued that it refers to the ratification of something else.
Lord Rooker
To respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, we spoke outside the Chamber last night, because he raised this right at the end. He has a valid point, but the Bill as it stands is still sufficient, and we are under the Prorogation guillotine. If we were not, we would have some flexibility. It is the Prorogation guillotine that has removed the flexibility from the House to deal with this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for forgetting the letter.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, the House will now adjourn to allow for amendments to be tabled for Report. The Public Bill Office will be open to receive amendments for the next 30 minutes. The House will then resume as soon after that as possible and timings will be displayed on the annunciator.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Friday 6th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 202-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (6 Sep 2019)
13:42 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 47 / Noes: 268 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
14:18 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 28 / Noes: 283 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House in any way.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I mean that seriously. However, it may be of assistance to your Lordships if I explain why I have tabled this amendment. It arises from an exchange we had in Committee when my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern queried why the letter the Prime Minister is required to send under the Schedule to this Bill did not include a reason. We had an exchange about how, if you had to have a reason, surely that would be a condition. He said that the reason is in the Bill.
The reason is indeed in the Bill; it is the bit I want to take out—page 2, line 14, from “2020” to the end of line 20. I am not sure how many of your Lordships have studied this and thought about its implications. It is written in language which makes it less easy to understand, but it is essentially saying that the letter has to be sent,
“in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks”.
It means we are asking the Prime Minister to send a letter saying not only that he wants to debate the May deal and the subsequent matters that were agreed between the parties but that he intends to pass a Bill, when he has made it absolutely clear that he is determined not to do that. More particularly, for those Members who have argued about the supremacy of the House of Commons, it is a deal which has been rejected by the House of Commons on three separate occasions.
Here we have a piece of legislation which, by agreement between the Front Benches, is being given safe passage—I certainly do not support the Bill but I do not wish to delay it, if that is what the Government want—but what on earth is going on with the Government? Why have they not tabled an amendment to take this out? It does not reflect their declared policy, nor the view that the House of Commons has taken on three separate occasions.
I therefore went to have a look at the Hansard of the House of Commons to find out how this had got into the Bill. It has done so by accident. The Labour Party’s position in the other place was to abstain on this matter. Its author—showing that some families stick together—was a certain Stephen Kinnock.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend Lord Cormack says that he is a very good chap. I know we are a broad church, but—.
Stephen Kinnock is quoted as saying on this matter:
“I understand that our position at the present time would be to abstain, but I am not 100% sure of that”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/9/19; col. 262.]
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay corrected me, quite rightly, when in Committee I said that the Government had failed to put in tellers for the Division—although I am confused because in my day, only the Government proposed Business Motions and matters of that kind. However, it was of course the promoters of the Bill who failed to provide tellers for the Division, which is how this has ended up in the Bill.
We therefore have a provision in that Clause of the Bill which the Labour Party did not want—it was going to abstain on it—and the Government cannot possibly have wanted. I am as good as my word—I said that I would not seek to delay the implementation of this legislation, if that is what has been agreed between the parties—but that strikes me as extraordinary. I did not table an amendment in Committee, which in the normal way I would have done, because I expected the Government to put down an amendment to deal with this, and they have not done so. I say to my noble friend that we would be very grateful indeed if he could explain why the Government are leaving in a Bill which they are proposing to support, a provision which requires the Prime Minister to write a letter for the purpose of giving an undertaking to debate and pass a Bill to implement the so-called May compromise agreement, including the discussions that took place between the previous Prime Minister and the Labour Party, which include giving assurances about regulatory requirements and the rest. It seems extraordinary, and that is the reason behind the amendment, which I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I very much hope that the House will not be seduced by the silver tongue of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Drumlean.
Lord Cormack
I apologise profusely to my noble and learned friend. Of course, nobody could possibly confuse an erudite lawyer with—
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it is important that the Bill goes through as it came from the House of Commons, and I say that for one reason above all others. I believe that this Kinnock amendment gives an opportunity to bring to a seemly end the wrangling and the disputes that have taken place.
There are many in all parts of your Lordships’ House who would have supported the Theresa May deal. That was made plain in debate after debate. We never had the opportunity specifically to divide on it, but it was quite clear that a large number of influential Cross-Benchers, and of my friends on the other side of the House and this, would have accepted it. I believe that would have been a sensible decision.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday I raised the issue of the opportunity that rests within the political declaration for a solution to the problem which the country faces. The offer from the Commission is still open for the Government of the day to hold discussions and negotiations to find a way through on the backstop, linked to the political declaration. I asked the Minister twice yesterday why the Government have not, as yet, taken up the opportunity to embark on a negotiation along those lines to try to find a way through, which in turn would link to the deal negotiated by Mrs May.
If, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, wishes—he has spotted this—we take out this provision, that prevents that opportunity to take this forward. Those of us who are looking for a way through, who have been prepared to shift our ground to a degree to find an accommodation to try to get some healing of the divisions which exist, should vigorously oppose what he presents to us. We should ask the Minister and the Government to pick up the opportunity offered by the Commission to negotiate on the political declaration and find a way forward. Then, in turn, we should get the Bill through the House very quickly today as the basis for moving forward.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I am rather surprised at my noble friend Lord Cormack, because he has always been a great champion of the revising powers of this Chamber. When a Bill comes before us containing a clause that is clearly a complete mistake and which the proposers did not intend to be there, surely it is our job to send it back to the Commons, which has already organised to accept Lords amendments on Monday. The Commons can then accept my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment, which will go through anyway. It will not delay the Bill or make the slightest difference; in fact, it will make the Bill better than it is already. It is quite extraordinary that, when a mistake like this has been made and is widely acknowledged by everybody as such—it happened because the Bill’s proposers did not put in tellers; that seems a bit amateur but there we are, that is what they did—we are not in a position to put the Bill right and concur with the wishes of the other place, which will pass the amendment so that nothing will change in terms of timing or anything else. I cannot understand why my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment is being resisted in any way.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I heard the noble Lord say that this was a mistake. I am curious as to how he knows that. Does he have some inside knowledge—not just gossip?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I have the inside knowledge that the Labour Party wanted to abstain on this and that there was no way that the amendment would have been carried had tellers been put through by the Bill’s proposers.
Lord True
I seem to have become very swiftly a Member that this House does not want to hear from. That has been confirmed because this House does not care for certain inconvenient truths—or Trues. In my 22 years of service in this House, first in the usual channels and then having the honour of being a Member of the House, I have never made it my practice to comment publicly on the usual channels’ discussions. I do not do so now. The only thing I will say, which should be placed on record, is that at a certain significant hour in the small hours of Thursday morning, it was my understanding that this amendment would, by agreement, be removed. That was clearly a misunderstanding.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I would have preferred not to see the Kinnock amendment in the Bill, whether it was a mistake or not. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out in Committee, it is not open to the European Union to impose conditions on an extension, and this amendment seeks to remove the provision that suggests that there could be conditions. It is certainly not possible for the European Union to impose conditions on the conduct of the British Government during any extension. The words of the Kinnock amendment that this amendment seeks to remove are so woolly as to be meaningless. They refer to the outcome of cross-party talks, which was uncertain; indeed, the talks were abandoned. Along with the Bill’s promoters in the House of Commons and here, I believe that the words of the Kinnock amendment would have no legal effect.
To the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, I say this: there is nothing whatever in the Bill as it stands to prevent the negotiation of a deal by the Government, if it were negotiated and passed through the House of Commons. The central point is that we have to live with the Kinnock amendment. We need to vote against the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because we are under the time constraints of Prorogation. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, says about the opportunity that may be there on Monday morning, we cannot foretell what may happen in the Commons on Monday morning if we send back amendments. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment, which will not affect the central thrust of the Bill in any way.
Lord Jones of Birmingham
So tolerant of democracy.
I support the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for one reason only: there is not a small business woman or small business man in this land who has not had it up to here with this place and the other place. They just want everybody to get on with it and give the businesses of the land—which generate the profit, pay the tax and build the schools and hospitals—the chance to get on and make money, employ people and pay tax. They hold us all in very high disregard at the moment—all of us. The political class has let down this country and business, and that is not a partisan point. We should all, of every party in both places, look into our souls about what we have done to this country in so many ways. If these people, who hold us in such high disregard, thought we spent a Friday afternoon accepting the fact that we just knocked through on the nod something factually inaccurate, they would think we were even worse than they do right now.
I thought the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was excellent. The chance of coming together and healing—he used that word, and I thought it was excellent—has a lot of merit in it, but we surely cannot knowingly vote for something that is factually wrong. On that basis I support the amendment—I do not think it would hold up anything on Monday—but after this debacle is over we ought to go from this place and just start trying to respect the optics: the businesses, the businesswomen and businessmen, the good people of this country, have had enough of us. If we do not start communicating with them as to why we are on their side, God help us.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
This amendment proposing to delete what is in the Bill strikes me as rather unnecessary, apart from the fact that we have difficulty with time. In my view, the amendment proposed by Mr Stephen Kinnock—a distinguished member of a distinguished family—was perfectly in order. The fact that, though the procedures of the House of Commons, it went into the Bill and is in the Bill we read for a second time, passed in Committee and are now considering on Report strikes me as perfectly in order. It makes the important distinction, which I tried to make yesterday, between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.
It has always seemed to me that the Irish backstop has the character of a future relationship. What is objected to is the fact that it is said to be permanent and so on. That is part of the future relationship, and therefore I have always felt that the backstop itself is not an objection to the withdrawal agreement as such. There may be other objections but, so far as the backstop is concerned, the aspect of it to which objection has been taken is as part of the future relationship. I would therefore welcome the idea of the House of Commons having a discussion separating out these two, which the Kinnock amendment does with complete accuracy. I do not for a minute believe that it does not make sense; it is perfectly readable and understandable, even for lawyers. In my view, therefore, this should stay in.
My noble friend says he expected the Government to object to it. The Government are not for the whole of this Bill. The whole thing is a Private Member’s Bill by a group that was not part of the Government as such. It may have included Members who were previously in the Government, but at any rate it is not a government Bill. The Government therefore do not care for it at all, so I do not know why they should have to propose an amendment to part of it. It is perfectly right that they had not done so. I understand they have been advised that it is meaningless. I do not agree with that, and I do not think anybody who reads it will think it is meaningless; it is perfectly clear what is wanted. It is the basis on which an extension is asked for.
According to the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, no conditions are attached. However, if you apply for an extension the European Union will require a reason—which seems to be common sense—and, if you give a reason, good faith suggests that that is the reason, and therefore it promotes the likelihood that something may suddenly emerge which distinguishes between the political formulation and the withdrawal agreement, which is the vital thing to get through in time.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Perhaps it would be helpful for the Committee if I said a few words about the amendment. Both my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord True are essentially correct, except in one important detail. I should say to my noble friend Lord True that even if the rest of the Committee does not want to hear from him, I do, because he speaks a lot of good sense on these issues.
It is true that initially, during the fast-moving events at a late hour on Wednesday evening, it was our intention to ask the House to remove this amendment. However, since then we have looked at it further. My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that the Government do not support this Bill and do not favour it. We think it is flawed and that this Kinnock amendment tries, but does not succeed, to make it even worse. The amendment is confusingly drafted, is contradictory to the aims of the rest of the Bill and its deficiencies are such that its effect is rendered pointless.
I always hesitate to disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay but my strong advice is that this amendment is legally inoperable. It appears contradictory with other parts of the Bill because it requires an extension to pass legislation to implement a deal, when, under this Bill, the extension is being sought only because no deal has been agreed.
For all those reasons, as I have said, we think it is inoperable and largely pointless. I am happy to say that it was our original intention to take it out—we had discussions to that effect and so my noble friend Lord True is correct, as always—but since then we have looked at the matter further.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for helping the Committee at this stage by explaining the Government’s position. We do not support the amendment. In short, given that the Minister has said the Government’s view is that the Kinnock amendment is legally inoperable, it does no harm to keep it in the Bill. I do not know why noble Lords are laughing because the critical point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is that the Bill has to pass. We do not have time to send it back to the House of Commons given the guillotine of prorogation imposed by the Prime Minister.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, in principle, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes a seductive case—in principle. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made the point that the House of Commons might want to look at it again. I do not see any contradiction in the fact that they have rejected the agreement three times. It is their choice—the meaningful vote is theirs, not ours—and it is a soft Brexit. It is Brexit in name only—there is no question about that. They are free at any time they want in the Commons to fix their business to do it. It is nothing to do with us because we are not part of the meaningful vote process. It is not our job to manipulate the way they organise their business on an issue that we have nothing to do with.
It grieves me that we cannot do our proper scrutiny. There is a breakdown of trust because the Government say that there will be time in the Commons on Monday to deal with this Bill. Any amendments sent down there can be amended and something in lieu can come back. Forget the idea that this is a sound deal. Trust has broken down; the prorogation guillotine is there; we have no choice. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Oh my goodness. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for whom I have great admiration, that I am struggling with that response because the words say that a letter should be sent by the Prime Minister requesting an extension in order not just to debate but to debate and pass a Bill. He has to send a letter saying he wants an extension because he is planning to pass a Bill to implement the May agreement, which has been rejected three times—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is absolutely right—and put in place the results of the discussions, on which I do not have information, other than what I have read in the newspapers. That is anticipating the decisions by the House of Commons.
My noble friend Lord Cormack said that he supported the May deal and that there are many people who supported the May deal, but the May deal was rejected by the biggest vote ever in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, made a very good point about the political agreement and having discussions. He may be right in his criticism that not enough has been done to take that part of the thing forward. Taking out this defective part of the Bill does not prevent discussions taking place.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton made a crucial point that if this provision is deficient—and everybody agrees that it is deficient—what is this House for if not to deal with those matters? The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said there is a matter of trust. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Callanan for his honesty and transparency. We were under the impression that the deal agreed between the Front Benches would result in this matter being taken out—he has confirmed that—and we are now being told that it is not being taken out because the legal advice is that it would not fly anyway, so we put into the Bill something which is legally deficient; that is okay, and that is what this House has come to. We do that because we do not believe that the Government will be as good as their word when the people who were on the other side of the agreement have not been as good as their word. I hope that the Government are rather better than that. We have a duty to pass legislation which is proper. I am not a lawyer, but the noble Lord, Lord Marks, told us that it would have no legal effect whatever, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern—not Drumlean —gave us the opposite advice, so it would appear that there is at least some doubt about whether it would have legal effect.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said it was not meaningless and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said he agreed that—I hope I am not pushing too far here—it should not be there but because it is meaningless, it could stay there. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, told us that the entire country is sick to death of all of us. On that, I am sure we can all agree.
Lord Goldsmith
I am going to ask the noble Lord this question because he has questioned the comments that have been made about trust. In that context, does he want to comment on what the Prime Minister said this morning, which was that he will not seek an extension even if it is passed in law? Does that change his view on whether a question of trust is at play here?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No, it does not change my view. What the Prime Minister says he will or will not do has nothing whatever to do with what the law of the land is.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
What he says he will do has nothing whatever to do with the law of the land as decided by both Houses of Parliament. I would expect every single parliamentarian to obey the law of the land. In passing the law, there is a responsibility on us to ensure absolute clarity about what it means and what it does. The noble and learned Lord’s party was not prepared to vote for this matter. It was going to abstain on it, and it was put into the Bill because Tellers were not appointed by the amateurs at the other end who had taken control of the agenda. For this House, and in particular for the noble and learned Lord with his vast experience, to suggest that we should leave it in while making that point makes my argument for me.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, yesterday the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—gave an assurance that the Government would fully comply with this Bill once it became an Act. Not only would it get Royal Assent but the Government would comply with it. However, almost simultaneously the Prime Minister said that he would be dead in a ditch before he would request an extension. Does the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, think that we should rely on the Minister’s assurance on behalf of the Government while the Prime Minister says something completely different? Does that not undermine trust not only in the Prime Minister but in the assurance that we got from the Minister yesterday?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the Prime Minister is dead in a ditch, he is not the Government, and at this stage in considering these proceedings we are talking about ensuring that we have clear and effective law. That is why I tabled this amendment. My noble friend Lord Callanan did not really give me a satisfactory answer, although I appreciated the answer in which he said that the Government had decided that they would not after all take out this measure because they had received advice that it would not have any effect—advice that is contrary to what we have heard from perhaps our most distinguished former Lord Chancellor. Therefore, I am sorry but I do not wish my name to be associated with defective legislation passed by this House and I intend to test the opinion of the House.
“(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.(5A) All other provisions of this Act come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations made by statutory instrument, following the first general election to take place in 2019.”
Lord True
My Lords, I start by saying that when an agreement is reached by the usual channels, in my view that is an agreement which must hold. Not only was an agreement made in the usual channels but, in the course of that, I gave personal assurances that no effort would be made to delay the progress of this Bill. I stand by that assurance. I did not take any part yesterday. I hope this will not be made an occasion for prolonged debate; the debate we just had took no more than three-quarters of an hour. It is up to Members of the House whether they are interested in the remarks I am about to make, but I hope that this will not be the occasion of a very prolonged debate. Without being discourteous to any Member of your Lordships’ House, if it appears that it is tending in that direction, I will rise—or support the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, if he rises—to attempt to bring the debate to a close without any need for the repugnant nonsense of the closure Motions used on Wednesday.
I wish to bring one point of principle to this House and ask the House to determine the matter publicly. I shall be pressing this amendment to a Division in which each and every Member of this House will have to declare publicly their position on the simple proposition that I put before them, which is that the Bill, which will be an Act when it passes from this House and goes to the other place, should not come into force until the British people have had a chance to decide the matter in a general election.
Yesterday there was talk that the Labour Party might accept a general election and now there is not. I am not particularly concerned about who said what when. I agree with all those who say that somehow we need to bring a conclusion to this matter. In the history of our great democracy, in the times of greatest crisis and doubt, that has been done, is done and—please God—always will be done by recourse to the people of this country to ask them to decide the matter in a general election—yes, in a general election, not in some second referendum, a first referendum or a third or a fourth cooked up by a majority of the time with the power to decide the question.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Over the years that the noble Lord has been a Member of the House, he has regularly lectured it about its role in relation to the other place. Does he really think that this amendment, at this time, is at all appropriate for a revising Chamber?
Lord True
My Lords, I absolutely do. There is no purpose in this House if it is not to enable at some point the rights of the people to be sustained. Indeed, the one deliberate and absolute power of this House is that it can prevent the House of Commons extending itself indefinitely. We can require a general election after five years; we cannot in this case. That is an absolute power of this House under legislation. I am making a submission to and through this House to all the parties, and to people on both sides who support them, that this matter should be decided by a general election, not by House of Cards shenanigans on one side or the other—if you ask me, both sides are as bad as each other—as they try to do chess moves one against the other. I totally agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jones: it is doing nothing to advance the credibility of politics.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, because I am examining his amendment, the last phrase of which is,
“following the first general election to take place in 2019”.
If no such general election takes place, what is the effect of his amendment?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
Forgive me if I did not make myself sufficiently clear. If there is no general election in 2019, how can the amendment have any statutory effect?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
But surely what it means is that if there is no general election in 2019, the Bill will never come into effect.
Lord Hayward (Con)
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 Greaves (LD)
Notwithstanding what my noble friend and others have said about the amendment not making sense, the noble Lord’s argument is all based on the supposition that a general election can be held before 17 October, when there is a European Council. I am always interested to hear what the noble Lord says, because he has great expertise in these areas, but the Independent today reports that, if the Prime Minister loses the vote on Monday and does not achieve a general election on 15 October, he is going to resign his position. Would the noble Lord give us his expertise on how the provision in the Bill telling the Prime Minister to write a letter will apply if we no longer have a Prime Minister?
Lord True
Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth on a previous amendment, I am not going to pursue the ifs, buts, whys and whats that we have in every newspaper of this country. I return to the fundamental point of principle. Noble Lords can say that they are voting against the amendment because it is defective for one reason or another, but the purpose of this debate, and of trying to put this amendment down, is crystal clear. It is so that under the Bill the decision to foreclose the United Kingdom leaving the European Union on 31 October should not be taken without the sanction of the people.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Perhaps it would assist the House if one could point out that there has been a general election since the referendum. The Bill is about rejecting no deal, and at the general election in 2017, 53.2% voted for parties that opposed no deal—17.1 million people—and only 14.4 million people, 45.1% of the electorate, voted for the Conservatives, the DUP or UKIP, which would sanction no deal. So the people spoke then, and in the 2019 EU election 44.4% voted for the Brexit or Conservative parties while 54.4% voted for parties that were opposed to no deal, which is what the Bill is about.
Lord True
Then the noble Baroness should be very confident about supporting my amendment and voting for a general election.
When I spoke after the disgraceful closure of debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I said that we were now in a situation—the public and the world know this—where the Government were not in control of matters relating to Brexit. Power on those matters rests with a majority in the House of Commons. That majority is served—perhaps driven—by a group of people, some of whose names appeared on the back of the Commons print of the Bill, who are taking decisions, thinking up clever wheezes and have now put forward legislation designed to frustrate the will of the people and an Act passed by this very Parliament that states that we should leave on 31 October.
Who are these people? We know who the members of the Cabinet are. We know who the Cabinet Secretary is. We know who gives the legal advice to the Cabinet. We know the civil servants involved. But who are the people who meet and seek to decide the destiny of this country in relation to legislation on Brexit? Who are those behind this Bill and behind the strategy of the remainer group in this country? Where are their names? They must be accountable in the same way as the Cabinet.
I return to the fundamental point—
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
How much more accountable can you be than putting your name to a Bill?
Lord True
If the noble Baroness is telling me that those six people are now the new governing group driving remainer policy, that is very interesting—but I rather suspect that others are involved. There may be one or two of them in this House, and I think we should know their names.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one simple question. Why did he leave out of the list of those who run the country Mr Dominic Cummings?
Lord True
My Lords, yet again, my noble friend, despite his distinguished Oxford degree, clearly was not listening. I was referring to those driving the policy of the remainer faction—and the public outside know this to be true—and seizing control of the conduct of our affairs without a general election.
Lord Cormack
Will my noble friend stop using the term “remainer faction”? He can use “no-deal faction” if he wishes, but the vast majority of people who voted in the House of Commons the other day, all of whose names are publicly listed, did so because they wanted to save this country from going over a precipice. Why should he take it upon himself—this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—to urge this House, which has no validity in these matters, to seek to effectively bring to an end a Parliament that still has almost three years to run? If the Prime Minister is able to persuade the House of Commons to have a general election, I would personally welcome it, but it is really no business of this House to interfere in that.
Lord True
I would have liked to conclude some time ago, but I have courteously tried to take many interventions. How many more times are the long-suffering people of this country going to be asked to take another delay to what they voted for? Whatever may have happened then or since, on 29 March, they were told that there must be a delay. Now, with this Bill, they are told that 31 October is not enough time and there must be another delay to 31 January 2020. When it comes up to 31 January, how many times will we be told that there has to be another delay? How many times are the long-suffering people of this country going to be asked for delay after delay by those who quite patently want only one thing?
Lord True
My Lords, I will not give way. I have given way many times. There is a custom creeping into this House, which is becoming more and more like the House of Commons, of constant interruptions and interventions. I have courteously taken a large number of interventions and I wish to conclude my remarks.
I repeat what I said: how many more times must the British people be asked to take a delay? How many more times must they tolerate those who wish to change the policy which Parliament has agreed and the vote that Parliament made, enacted on the statute book, that this country should leave the European Union on 31 October? How much more must they take from those who want this country to remain and want this to stop? There will be a limit to the tolerance of many in this country and I beseech those involved to allow the cleansing balm of a general election so that everyone, whatever their views, can put their case to the people. It is the only way in which this matter will be resolved. I would accept the result of any general election wholeheartedly, as I have all through my political career. I have had to accept general election results that were repugnant to me; that is the essence of our democracy.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it may help the House if we are able to curtail this fairly quickly. The noble Lord said at the beginning of the debate that he was going to press the amendment, so we cannot persuade him to withdraw it, which is what we usually try to do. I will make a few comments, then my noble friend Lord Rooker can respond and we can move on.
On the will of the people, there are two ways of doing it: a general election and a second referendum, which the noble Lord has not supported. I will say two things about the amendment, which is close to being a wrecking amendment. In the first minute of his speech, the noble Lord said that it gives an incoming Government the ability to scrap the Act by statutory instrument—which this House, by tradition, never opposes—allowing a Secretary of State to tear it up without the permission of Parliament. This cannot be the right way to treat an Act. The second issue is even more serious and has already been raised. If there is no general election, the whole Bill does not come into force. This seems to be a completely wrecking amendment and I urge noble Lords to oppose it.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I spent 27 years in the other place, so I know a little bit about the problems that Members have with the Table Office there. I can absolutely guarantee that this amendment would not be allowed in the House of Commons, because it is a textbook wrecking amendment. I do not propose to say anything else.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, the House will now adjourn to allow amendments to be tabled for Third Reading. The Public Bill Office will be open to receive amendments for the next 30 minutes. The House will then resume as soon after that as possible and timings will be displayed on the annunciator.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Friday 6th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 202-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (6 Sep 2019)
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has been here for what has been a most extraordinary experience. There are some people not in the Chamber who we should also thank. Those in the Public Bill Office and the Printed Paper Office have enabled us to deal with the Bill in an unusual way. They have worked, along with the doorkeepers, above and beyond the call of duty. On our side, to be personal for a moment, we have had in our office Dan Stevens on the content and Ben Coffman keeping our wits together. I know that it was bad news for noble Lords moving amendments that they are so effective, but for our side it was great, and I use this moment to thank them. The work of my noble friend Lady Smith and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has been superb over this and I think the whole House will thank them for what they have been able to do. We thank the Minister, of course, and I think we are going to hear from him.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I second everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said and I add my own thanks to all those who have co-operated so well to ensure that the Bill has passed successfully, especially the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I thank my leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, and my Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Stoneham. I think we have had an excellent experience in the passage of the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I associate myself with the remarks of both noble Baronesses and pay tribute to the many Cross-Benchers who have been present throughout these proceedings, to whom I am particularly grateful.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I first add my thanks to those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others to the staff of the House, who have worked incredibly long hours—including quite late last night—to process all the different stages, amendments, et cetera. I also personally pay tribute to my officials, who have also worked extremely late—particularly the legal ones, who have had the impossible job of explaining complicated legal constructs to me, a simple engineer, so that I can, I hope, communicate them to the House. They have done a sterling job and I am incredibly grateful.
The Government cannot support this Bill. I quite agree with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that it brings delay and uncertainty. I would add that it undermines our efforts to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration and aims to tie the Prime Minister’s hands when he is seeking to secure the best possible Brexit deal. However, as I reiterated to the House yesterday, in line with assurances made by the Chief Whips in both Houses, if this Bill completes its remaining stages it is the Government’s intention that it will be ready to be presented for Royal Assent.
I hope it will help the House if I respond directly to some of the points raised by noble Lords throughout the discussion. I recognise that we are now at Third Reading, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take some time to address some of the points—
Lord Callanan
I think some noble Lords might want answers to some of the questions that have been asked, particularly about the Government’s intentions—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If I might help the noble Lord, the only point of dissent there was that we are not at Third Reading but the Do Now Pass stage.
Lord Callanan
I apologise—perhaps the legal officials did not explain it to me clearly enough. I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification.
My noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Hailsham raised concerns about whether the Government would request an extension but then vote against it in the European Council. I reiterate, as we have stated many times, that the Government have been clear that we will of course adhere to the law. Noble Lords have the text of Clause 1(4) in front of them and can see what it requires. The noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Falkner of Margravine, and my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Leigh of Hurley have raised the prospect that the extension could come with conditions. Noble Lords are well aware of my position, which is of course that the Bill hands powers to the European Union, and it is true that the Bill, as drafted—
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for answering a slightly different question from the one I put. The answer that I think he wishes to give, as I understand the legal position and as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, explained earlier, is that the UK Government will not be present in the room. My question was whether the United Kingdom will veto its own application for an extension. Perhaps my noble friend can confirm for the record that the United Kingdom Government will not be in the room when the vote is taken, and therefore the situation I asked him to elucidate on would not arise.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for her questions, but she has had the answer that I am going to give her on this subject. The Government will abide by the law. Noble Lords have the text of the relevant clause in front of them and no doubt lots of great legal minds can spend a lot of time advising noble Lords of the legal intent of it.
As I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, raised the prospect that the extension could come with conditions. Noble Lords know my position, which is that the Bill hands power to the European Union. It is true that the Bill as drafted makes no provision for the event that the EU attaches conditions to that extension. However, during any extension the UK would remain a member state. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, noted that Article 50 does not give the EU any special power to impose conditions which would cut across those member states’ rights. The most important point, however, is that an extension is objectionable in itself because it delays the point at which we can satisfy the will of the people as expressed in the referendum.
While the previous extension, which was agreed in April, contained political statements reflecting the EU’s expectations of how the UK might act during the extension period, noble Lords, having no doubt studied the decision of the European Council at some length, will note that these sat outside the central, legally operative provisions of that decision and did not amount to conditions. The phrase which says that this extension,
“excludes any re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement”,
sits in the preamble, not in the decision itself. That difference is important, because it means that this is not a legally binding condition. Of course, it is precisely because there is a difference that the Government have been able to reopen the negotiations and are seeking, as noble Lords are aware, to remove the undemocratic Northern Ireland backstop.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked what would happen if the EU offered a longer extension at a time when the Commons is not sitting for the next two days. Would it be unable to reject it? As a matter of fact, as drafted, the legislation means that the House of Commons cannot reject a longer extension if it is not sitting. The only way to rule out an unacceptably long extension is to reject the Bill, which is why we have opposed it.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Forsyth raised questions about the Kinnock amendment. The House has taken a decision on this but let me be clear about the Government’s position. The amendment is confusingly drafted and contradictory to the aims of the rest of the Bill. It says that the purpose of any extension is to pass legislation to implement a deal when, under the Bill, the extension is being sought only because there is not an agreement. The Kinnock amendment’s deficiencies are such that its effect is therefore rendered wholly unclear.
I have detained your Lordships long enough.
Lord Callanan
I thought that would get a cheer.
We have heard many concerns raised about the Bill. However, more fundamentally, the issues at play here are not just technical. This is about seriously undermining negotiations that could achieve a deal before 31 October, frustrating the referendum result and stopping Brexit.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall genuinely be extremely brief. I just want to say that I object strongly to both the Bill and the way it has been handled. This is a sad day for both the country and for our House.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I second everything that was said from the two Front Benches on this side in thanks to everybody. I have just been the messenger from the Commons, intervening occasionally, because these are unusual circumstances. I certainly thank everybody who has been involved.
At about 1 am the other day, I was quite looking forward to the debate, because I had almost got my second wind—it was just like the old days in the Commons. Then, of course, it all went quiet and packed up. Genuinely, I thank everybody who has participated. I have to say that we have rewritten the conventions, not the least through the seven-minute speech we have just heard from the Minister. That should have been made as a Statement or in the wind-up of Second Reading; it was completely inappropriate under the rules of this House to do it under the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Having got that off my chest, this is not the end, because our procedures will change as a result of the Bill. Things will happen differently. That may be regrettable, it is true, but precedents have been created during the Bill’s passage, some of which we may come to regret, but I thank everybody who has participated.
Royal Assent
Monday 9th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 202-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (6 Sep 2019)