Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I give the usual reminder: if there were to be a Division in the House, we should then adjourn for 10 minutes.
Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be required if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. The regulations correct deficiencies in EU regulation 2018/956, which concerns the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions from, and fuel consumption of, HDVs—heavy duty vehicles—such as trucks, buses and coaches.
Emissions from the UK HDV sector made up 16% of CO2 emissions from transport in 2016. At the European level, HDVs account for about a quarter of road transport emissions. To address this, the European Commission introduced three measures. The first was the introduction, through the certification regulations in December 2017, of a new computer based tool, VECTO, which came into effect from 1 January 2019. The second measure is monitoring and reporting regulations, which the statutory instrument we are debating today is based on. The final measure of the package is a legislative proposal to set CO2 emission standards for new HDVs, which was agreed by the Environment Council on 20 December 2018.
The monitoring and reporting EU regulation—the second measure—came into force on 29 July 2018. It requires member states and HDV manufacturers to monitor certain data relating to the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of new HDVs registered in the EU from 1 January 2019. Manufacturers must report that data to the European Commission from 28 February 2020. The Commission will hold a database, verify data quality and compile and publish an annual report. There are provisions for administrative fines for HDV manufacturers if these data requirements are not met.
The publication of data collected under the regulation will increase the transparency of HDV CO2 emissions and fuel consumption and underpin the new emission reduction targets. It will provide transport operators access to information on the performance of HDVs of different makes with similar characteristics, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. It also enables vehicle manufacturers to compare their vehicles’ performance with their competitors, providing an increased incentive for innovation. Finally, publication allows the analysis of the data, for example to assess the penetration level of certain technologies and to support the proposed future CO2 emission reduction standards for HDVs.
The regulations that we are discussing today amend the EU regulation to ensure that it continues to function correctly after exit day. Through this SI, all relevant data calculated in line with the certification regulation will be monitored, reported and published. The data will be available to all stakeholders. The main policy content, including the purpose and objectives of the current EU regulation, remains unchanged by this SI. Provisions about the monitoring and reporting timetable, data to be monitored, HDVs in scope, fines and publication of data will also remain unchanged.
The focus of these amendments is on ensuring that the EU regulation will continue to apply to HDVs registered in the UK after exit day, and to transfer responsibilities from the Commission to the Secretary of State. For example, after EU exit manufacturers will need to report data for new HDVs registered in the UK to the Secretary of State and not to the Commission, and any fines would be levied in pounds rather than euros.
Given the minor changes proposed, a formal consultation has not carried out. However, the Government have made stakeholders aware of this instrument and their plan for its introduction into UK law.
Correcting the inoperabilities within the existing EU regulation will ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime which allows for the collection and monitoring of HDV emissions data in a no-deal scenario. As set out in the Government’s strategy The Road to Zero, we are committed to,
“a future approach as we leave the European Union that is at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulation”.
This SI supports that commitment. I beg to move.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I presume that when Constantinople or Rome fell, there were still committees sitting somewhere in both cities looking at issues such as drainage and transport. The record should show that the House of Lords has felt it necessary to adjourn at this moment but the Committee looking at statutory instruments for exiting the European Union continues to sit. Of course, this instrument has been introduced by the Minister with her usual clarity and good sense.
We welcome the commitment by the Government to continue with the monitoring of CO2 from heavy goods vehicles. It is important to ensure that the UK is meeting its target in relation to emissions and air quality, and reporting is key to keeping us on track for reducing emissions and air pollution. However, we have to face the fact that, by leaving the European Union, we will lose its valuable oversight in ensuring that the Government comply with air quality legislation.
We have not been the greatest pathfinder in terms of environmental protection. I once worked for the water industry and, following European legislation, that industry was dragged kicking and screaming into what was probably the 19th century at the time, and I think that the same may be true of air quality. I am not sure that we will be as good at this on our own. We need to prioritise the reduction of emissions, given the thousands of deaths being caused every year and the serious impact they can have on health, particularly on that of children.
These regulations were initially conceived in tandem with targets for CO2 reduction that were suggested by the Commission and revised by the European Parliament. Will the targets set by the Government keep in tandem with any standards set by the EU Commission and Parliament?
We welcome the use of the ambitious CO2 reduction targets, but we must ensure that the industry is sufficiently supported to meet them. What are the Government doing to encourage the adoption of ZEV/LEV HDVs—I am pleased to note that, after I inquired earlier, the Minister knows what that means—be that through subsidies or improvements in the infrastructure? How will we help the industry to keep pace with developments of zero and low-emission HDVs? Do the Government envisage that the fines levied against those who fail to comply with the data gathering will be in line with those proposed by the EU, and will they keep pace with the fines to ensure compliance?
The instrument provides for further regulations to be made to set out the procedures by which manufacturers can notify the Secretary of State of errors in data. That will be key to ensuring that we have an effective and transparent system. When will those regulations be brought forward?
These regulations were brought forward by the European Union as part of a wide package of measures to ensure that Europe’s future mobility system is,
“safe, clean and efficient for all EU citizens”.
What impact could our exit from the EU have on our future plans to reduce harmful emissions?
Finally, the Minister mentioned that it was not thought necessary to go through a formal consultation process, but were environmental and health groups consulted in any way during the discussions? Some have made accusations of a lack of transparency while the regulations were considered.
Further, what continuing access will we have to EU-wide data collection and analysis in order to drive up standards and related matters? Are we not cutting ourselves off from the best practice data which helps to drive good standards?
As I say, we welcome the way in which the instrument has been presented and the work done, but it leaves these questions unanswered.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I make my standard statement that I wish I was not here and that we were not preparing for a no-deal scenario. I fear that such a scenario would be every bit as bad as predicted. I think we must all hope and pray that it does not happen.
Turning to the generality of what the statutory instrument does, I think it obviously makes sense within the general theme of developing controls on transport-related CO2 emissions. I have only three real areas of concern, and certainly none which would cause me to oppose the statutory instrument.
First, in paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, sub-paragraph c) says among other things:
“Some data is commercially sensitive and exempt from publication”.
That seems to me to be completely opposite to the concept of the statutory instrument and the regulation that it modifies. Surely, its whole concept is that all data is available to everybody in the same format, so that even small firms with one or two vehicles would have no problem in comparing manufacturers when they consider purchasing one of these heavy duty vehicles. Having said that the data is commercially sensitive—and I cannot see why that statement is there at all—if it is commercially sensitive, that would require us to be kept in line with the commercially sensitive decisions that the EU made; otherwise, the usefulness of this data-collecting exercise would otherwise be rapidly eroded. Does the department have any plans to somehow consult the European Union on what areas of commercially sensitive data it is going to suppress? I hope that the answer will be none.
I was sufficiently curious about this SI to look at regulation 2018/956. I am amazed to find that its requirements are in fact for the collection of 78 pieces of data without air drag values—which I could not understand at all but which had their own separate table. One thing that struck me was that about a third of the regulation was made up of the preamble, which is 22 paragraphs and four pages long. I think that the Minister has already alluded to some things that it says:
“The Commission’s 2016 European Strategy for low-emission mobility sets the ambition that, by mid-century, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will need to be at least 60 % lower than in 1990, and be firmly on the path towards zero”.
Does this regulation coming into English law mean that we are accepting the Commission’s low-emissions strategy targets? Is it part of our law, or is that covered somewhere in the complexity of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act? After it comes into law, where would one find it? Would that be in the Kew records, as I call them?
Finally, how would the regulation be enforced? The statements in its preamble are really statements that the Government should have regard to in the future.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the importance of addressing the issues around air quality, and of course emissions from transport vehicles are a key part of that. Our aim as a Government is to put the UK at the forefront of the design and manufacture of zero-emission vehicles, with all new cars and vans being effectively zero emission by 2040. We recently published our strategy The Road to Zero, which sets out a clear pathway to zero emissions and an end to the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040, with the aim that by 2050 almost every car and van will be zero emission. The aim is that at least half of new cars will be ultra low emission by 2030.
In respect of HDVs, which we are discussing today, we want to see the development and deployment of zero-emission vehicles. For example, we have agreed an industry-wide voluntary commitment from the freight industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2025, and we are working closely with the industry to develop an ultra low emissions standard for trucks and increasing the supply and sustainability of alternative low-carbon fuels. The SI we are considering today supports those aims by maintaining the current CO2 emission monitoring and reporting requirements and underpins the new regulation which is currently being finalised before being brought forward.
The noble Lord asked about fines. The fine levels will remain the same as those set out in the European regulation, albeit having been translated into pounds rather than euros. The powers in the regulation and the SI do not allow for a change to the level of the fines, so they will stay the same.
The noble Lord also asked about consultation. As I said in my opening speech, given the limited impact of this SI on industry and businesses, a formal consultation has not been carried out, but there was a full consultation when the initial EU regulation came into force. That was carried out by the Commission. It was a full, open and public consultation, which received around 100 replies, and of course environmental groups were closely involved in the formation of the regulation. However, as we are keeping things the same, we have not spoken specifically to environmental groups about this SI.
On the new CO2 emission standards regulation, the EU has provisionally agreed targets and incentives for HDVs to 2025 and 2030. They are due to be agreed by the European Parliament later this month and, once agreed, they will come into legal effect via a new European regulation. As that is yet to be finalised and adopted, how its requirements might be implemented in the UK will depend on when that is achieved, but our commitment to tackle climate change remains strong. We know that we must do more to meet our collective commitments on climate change and, indeed, the UK Government was one of those who led the way on increasing our ambition during the recent EU negotiations on emissions reduction as well as on standards for passenger and light commercial vehicles. As I have said, in the strategy The Road to Zero, the Government have committed that, as we leave the EU, we will ensure that we are at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulations.
On data sharing, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, one of the key advantages of the EU regulation is that the data will be published and shared. Currently, the data will be reported by manufacturers in member states of the EU, and the Commission will maintain and manage its publication. It will be published annually from 31 October 2020 and the data will be openly available. Although some of it is commercially sensitive and thus exempt from publication, we expect the vast majority to be published. The commercially sensitive data exemption was agreed at European level and that is set within the regulations. It means that it will be published more in the form of a range rather than exact points. However, only data that is genuinely commercially sensitive will be withheld. We will replicate the data publication for UK-registered vehicles in the event of no deal. The content and the date of the report are set in the original EU regulations and are carried over by the withdrawal Act. That will not change, so it will still be possible to use UK data as a comparison against EU data—aside from the data that will be exempted for commercially sensitive reasons, and that will be the same for the EU and the UK. All the data will be openly available, and the EU 27 plus the UK will be able to be looked at side by side.
The preamble to the EU regulation provides background only and its content is not legally binding. The entire regulation will be carried over into UK law, but the targets set will be met through future regulations. The content and the preamble will stay, but specific targets will be set through future legislation.
I think that I have answered all the questions. I will go through Hansard and check. If I have not answered any questions, I will follow up on them in writing.
This SI is essential to ensuring that we maintain control of HDVs registered to travel on UK roads and that the system to support that continues to function from day one after EU exit. It will help us to reach our climate change goals and ensure that we do all we can to improve air quality.
Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, these regulations group elements of four policy regimes: spirit drinks; wines; genetically modified organisms; and agricultural direct payments. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to make purely technical or operability corrections ensuring that these regimes continue to function as intended. These corrections deal with removing or amending references, converting EU procedures to UK procedures and transferring EU functions to the UK. The four policy regimes are dealt with together in a single instrument for the convenience of both Houses. I will cover each in turn.
First, this instrument makes operable the regulation and protection of, and methodology for analysis of, spirit drinks once we exit the EU. The amendments specify protection for the UK’s geographical indications, and this instrument will make the necessary operability amendments to ensure ongoing protection of the US spirit drinks Bourbon whiskey and Tennessee whiskey, following the signing of the UK-US spirit drinks agreement in January. This instrument will also prevent EU 27 spirit drink geographical indications being automatically recognised as protected in the UK after leaving the EU.
With respect to wines, this instrument will amend EU retained law to make it operable from the day of exit. The amendments will allow us to continue to apply or enforce provisions relating to detailed wine-making practices, including the blending and analysis of wine. The absence of these amendments would undermine consumer confidence in wines, damage our trade in and production of wines and impact on the significant contribution the sector makes to the UK economy.
The amendments for spirits, together with those for wine, are part of establishing geographical indication schemes in the UK. These amendments are a component of the wider suite of Defra legislation on geographical indications, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated on 13 March and approved on 19 March, and the Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated on 20 March and approved on 21 March.
On genetically modified organisms, the SI makes purely technical changes to keep the retained EU legislation operable on exit from the EU. The amendments will allow us to continue to regulate and enforce the applications process for consent to market genetically modified organisms in the UK. It will also allow us to continue to regulate the export of genetically modified organisms, both those which originate in the UK and those which are merely passing through the UK. It also seeks to correct minor errors in exit statutory instruments which have already been laid.
Finally, on direct payments, this instrument will make minor technical amendments to roll over currently existing provisions in retained EU law relating to: environmentally sensitive permanent grassland; buffer strips, field margins and strips of eligible hectares along forest edges without production; the ratio of permanent grassland; and criteria for ecological focus areas. No policy change is made by these corrections. They address drafting errors in two of Defra’s EU exit statutory instruments relating to direct payments. I apologise to noble Lords for this oversight. The earlier instruments were laid at a time when Defra was preparing a large amount of EU exit secondary legislation, but Defra has sought to rectify the errors at the earliest opportunity.
In seeking only to allow the policy regimes to continue to function as intended, this instrument generates no new enforcement bodies and there is no significant impact expected on the existing enforcement regime.
It is worth noting that this statutory instrument was originally laid under the negative procedure. However, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the regulations be made under the affirmative procedure. The suite of legislation on geographical indications under the EU withdrawal Act confers new duties on the Secretary of State. This is in consequence of the Secretary of State taking on functions from the European Commission as a result of withdrawal. However, it is not this instrument that confers new legislative duties; for example, for spirits drinks it was the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we debated earlier this month. This instrument confers only administrative functions to the Secretary of State from the European Commission. The Minister at the time the Committee made the recommendation to change this SI to an affirmative instrument, George Eustice, agreed that this instrument should be made subject to the affirmative procedure, and it is a pleasure for me to speak to it before your Lordships today.
Defra has consulted with the devolved Administrations on the amendments contained in this instrument, and they have been consented to. For genetically modified organisms, decisions to release or market GMOs are a devolved matter in Wales and Scotland and a transferred matter in Northern Ireland. However, there are no GM products in the approval pipeline for release in the UK and none is expected in the foreseeable future.
We have engaged extensively and listened to stakeholders’ views on all these policy areas. We have consulted on the issue of geographical indications, which cover both wines and spirit drinks, and continue to stay close to our key stakeholders in those sectors. No consultation was undertaken for direct payments, because the changes are entirely technical and intended to ensure current provisions continue to be available after EU exit.
On GMOs, a technical notice and, more recently, further guidance was published. The changes are entirely technical and intended to ensure currently available provisions continue to be available after exit. This SI makes minor corrections to earlier GMO-specific SIs, on which Defra engaged with parties with an interest in GMOs.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument, as its purpose is to maintain existing regulatory standards and there is expected to be minimal impact on business. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing these amendments, which are technical and will allow a smooth transition when we leave the EU. As she said, they are technical changes that affect certain aspects. I have a couple of things to raise, and I should declare an interest since our farm receives environmental payments—she referred to grassland, buffers and ecological areas that are included in this SI for which we receive payments.
My question concerns the fact that, as she referred to, the Select Committee selected this for the affirmative procedure. She said that this was not really necessary and that it was due to something that had happened earlier. Was that known before this SI was produced in the way it is? Otherwise, it seems unusual to have it included as an affirmative instrument, although I accept what she said.
I also want to ask her whether there will be changes to any other statutory instruments coming through. It is getting more and more confusing for those of us looking at them to look at something that happened a week or two ago and try to compare it with what is happening now. I hope she is able to tell me that this will be the last of this set of statutory instruments that we shall look at.
So my two questions are: why was it included in this SI if that decision had not been reached before? Will there be some consolidation of any further SIs coming through? That would make life much easier for all of us.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this SI and for her time, and that of the officials, in the briefing last week. This is something of a catch-all statutory instrument, clearing up elements omitted from the previous SIs we have debated on: geographical indications for wines and spirits; minor amendments to GMOs, veterinary medicines and residues; and common agricultural policy direct payments to farmers. Tomorrow, we will debate more SIs related to agriculture. I will not make the obvious comment about the efficacy of debating them all on the same day. I have great sympathy and support for the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Hopefully, this will be the final SI in the process of tidying up those elements missed out of previous legislation.
There is also relevance to the devolved Administrations: Regulations 9 and 11 apply only to England and Wales, and 10 and 13 to Northern Ireland. I have only a few comments to make, as most of the issues have already been debated at length.
Regulation 3(21)(i) makes amendments in Annexe II of the EU regulation,
“in the section headed ‘Other spirit drinks’”,
where there are references to “Rum-Verschnitt” and “Slivovice”. All this is very interesting, but I cannot see its relevance. I do not know an awful lot about Rum-Verschnitt, but I know that Slivovice is produced in the Balkans, in Bosnia, and I would like to know why these two spirits should get a specific mention. Perhaps the Minister could say.
On page 12, in Regulation 5, we come to the crux of the matter. As the Minister has said, this relates to Tennessee whiskey and bourbon, currently imported from the United States. It also covers spirits produced in Mexico, tequila and mescal, which will be added to the list along with Tennessee whiskey and bourbon. I am pleased that this SI will make it possible for these spirits to continue to be freely available in the UK. While I am not personally a bourbon drinker, my husband—whose relatives all live in the Deep South in the USA—is, and I would not want him to have difficulty getting hold of his favourite tipple.
Such is the nature of this wide-ranging SI that it covers Irish cream and Somerset cider brandy—I have read it, and that is what it says. I had better look in my drinks cupboard to see what I have and whether I will readily be able to purchase further supplies in future. It would have been extremely helpful if the Explanatory Memorandum had listed the drinks covered in annexe III, referred to in the SI.
As the Minister said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the regulations went beyond what is required to maintain the operability of the law after EU exit by conferring a new duty on the Secretary of State in respect of GIs which,
“could have a considerable commercial and economic impact”.
I agree with this statement and remain concerned that many of the catch-all SIs that cover such a wider range of topics may have implications for many regional producers.
Defra has indicated that it will bring forward guidance. The Minister has told us that this will be published before exit day and will be on the Defra website from exit day. I hope this guidance has been written and has taken account of the various permutations currently under discussion in the other place. There could be serious implications for some of our most revered wines, spirits and produce if the guidance is not clear and readily available.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, may I add my thanks to the Minister and to her team of officials who met us last week to go through the issues contained in this SI? It was helpful. It may have shortened what I was going to say; it may not have done.
I start with a question about GMOs. The Minister has explained that certain corrections have had to be made to legislation that had already been passed, and that this is a bit of a tidying-up procedure. We accept this, because we know that there has been pressure to produce a lot of these SIs very quickly.
I suppose it is necessary to ask the Minister about impact assessments. These SIs—I am talking about GMOs in particular now—will surely add some existing burden to UK authorities as well as to the devolved Administrations. In Northern Ireland, I assume that the decisions will be made by civil servants, as there is nobody else to make them. Is this right? It does not seem satisfactory but, in the absence of a functioning Administration, the whole situation in Northern Ireland is not satisfactory. I presume this is all that can be done.
Can I ask one specific question? If in future we wanted to tighten up the regulations about GMOs, would it be straightforward? Would there be any implications for trade with the EU? I assume that the reverse would not apply. I hope we would not want to liberalise our regulations but, if we did, it would run counter to EU practices.
I turn to the question of direct payments. I have some sympathy with the Minister here. For a time, I was a junior Minister in Northern Ireland and agriculture was one of my responsibilities. I will not bore the Committee with anecdotes about Agriculture Council meetings in Brussels, amusing as some of them were. Although it is not quite on the same subject, I will say that we consistently had tremendous support from the Irish Government. Whenever an issue came before the Agriculture Council—and there were many—the Irish Government went out of their way to be supportive of the British Government. I should like this to be on the record. I presume that the corrections that had to take place were as a result of oversights. We will move on from there.
Finally, I turn to the question of wines and spirits. In the briefing with the Minister, we spent a little time talking about tequila and mescal. These are two alcoholic drinks which I have never touched. I did my best to find some tequila before today’s Committee, but I failed. I wonder if the Minister would care to buy me a tequila at some time in the future—or allow me to buy one for her. We are talking about retained EU legislation on wine and spirits. I understand that the issue is about the geographical origin of products. We have been talking about Tennessee whiskey and bourbon. I understand that the Mexican drinks will come on the scene at some point in future when further negotiations have taken place. So we are going ahead with some of these drinks and the others will presumably follow.
My understanding is that geographical indications are used to identify a product whose quality, reputation or other characteristics are linked to its geographical origin. This will now be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, having previously been an EU responsibility. I assume that the question of geographical indication will cover many products in addition to those covered by this SI—this is a fairly common thing. It is right and proper that we should continue to co-operate with the EU and retain as many of the existing EU regulations as possible in practice.
I am not quite clear why these regulations would replace the current annexe with a shorter list. I hope I have this right. I understand that only UK spirit drink GIs would be automatically protected in UK law after exit. In contrast, UK GIs for spirit drinks will continue to be recognised by the EU as third-country GIs after exit, including in a no-deal scenario. I am not quite clear if I have understood that, and maybe the Minister will be able to clarify it.
The questions are: how prepared are we to operate our own GI systems? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the department will have the necessary staff and resources, and of course the expertise, to run the new system? The Government have stated that Defra will publish guidance on how to apply to the UK GI scheme in March 2019, which is this month, so can the Minister give an update on the completion of that guidance? Lastly, what consultation has the department undertaken with the devolved authorities over the design and implementation of the new UK GI scheme?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has turned out to be a short debate. I expected it to be fairly short, but some very valuable questions have been raised so I will be very pleased to answer as many as I can. If there is more that I can add then I will certainly write.
I turn first to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Byford. It is always a pleasure to have her in the Committee to make sure that we are doing things correctly, and she certainly does that. She referred to the issue of the Select Committee and the instrument being made affirmative. Without wishing to detract at all from the valuable work done by the Select Committee, it is the case that the functions being transferred across in this SI are administrative functions, not legislative. There was a potential slight misunderstanding about exactly which powers were coming across. Other legislative functions have come across in other SIs but not in this one. However, we took the decision that this gives us as a Government the opportunity to explain the position, so we decided that we would accept the Select Committee’s decision to make it affirmative, although there was always the opportunity for us to have gone back and explain that. We felt, “Why not make sure that everyone is completely happy?”, so we decided to stand in front of your Lordships today and explain that these are administrative functions, while those legislative functions came across in other SIs that were affirmative anyway and have already been discussed by the Committee.
My noble friend also asked whether there were further statutory instruments to come. There are a few but not as many as there were, so that is a bonus. Nearly all of them have now been scheduled for debate, so we have a good idea of what is left. Obviously, we are consolidating where possible to ensure that we do not have too many debates. It is vital to ensure that our legislation is up to date for exit day, whenever that comes. We can certainly say that we are in the end game now; we are at the end of the process and we should have everything in place very soon. As my noble friend will know, there are more coming tomorrow, so I hope she will join us then.
Baroness Byford
I thank the Minister for that. The difficulty is that sometimes some people are present in the debates, such as the one that we are having now, who have not had the advantage of hearing the earlier debates that we have had, which makes it quite difficult for all of us—myself included—to pick up on some of them. I am grateful for her clarification. I am well aware that we have quite a lot more to come, but my hope is that they will be complete in themselves so we do not have to go over ground that we have already covered, which I think has been the frustrating bit with some of these instruments.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely accept that comment. I recognise that this is sometimes very difficult because we are dealing with the same issues for different products in different SIs. Certainly, the instruments that will be under discussion tomorrow are much more wholesome and complete.
I turn to some of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who also made the point, which I will take on the chin, about the efficacy of debating all these separately. As I have said before, that issue is always to be balanced with the danger of having too many issues in one place; we all know of the famous BEIS SI that was over 500 pages long. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck, and both noble Baronesses have made some very good points.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I just want to comment on the Minister’s assurance that we will not see the introduction of any genetically modified crops in this country that have an impact on the environment and human health. I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Government when they read the terms published by the Americans for future trade agreements with this country.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Obviously, such issues will have an impact on our future trade agreements. I reiterate what I just said about our ambitions for GM crops. We will look at the science; that is the most important thing.
I believe that I have answered all the questions. If I can add anything else later by letter, I certainly will.
Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak also to the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with which this instrument has been grouped.
These two regulations amend existing domestic legislation implementing the EU’s plant health directive and provide the basis to maintain plant biosecurity when we leave the EU. The plant health directive is implemented in England by the Plant Health (England) Order 2015 and, in relation to forestry matters, by the Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005, which extends to Great Britain. The existing orders set out obligations for the control and management of plant health risks arising from the import from third countries and movement within the EU single market of plant material, in order to protect biosecurity.
It is our responsibility—particularly mine in my role as Minister for Biosecurity—to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health and the wider ecosystem. It is also important that we have a robust process of ongoing review to strengthen biosecurity protections where this is possible and necessary. The regulations debated today are specifically about protecting plant biosecurity. The amendments address technical deficiencies and inoperability issues relating to retained EU law on plant health that will otherwise arise when we leave.
I should make it clear that although businesses will see some changes to import arrangements, they are risk-focused and avoid unnecessary new burdens while, importantly, preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest and disease threats. They do not diminish our controls in this important subject area but seek to protect biosecurity while continuing to facilitate trade in plant material.
The main purpose of the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is to set out the list of harmful pests and plant material that will continue to be regulated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from exit day. This is the same list of pests and plant material from the EU plant health directive, which we have transposed into our existing legislation, and includes harmful pests that we want to stay free from, such as xylella fastidiosa. The instrument also sets out amendments to deal with technical deficiencies in retained, directly applicable EU legislation to ensure that plant health legislation operates effectively. For example, it provides for the existing derogations to facilitate the import of specified material, such as bonsai plants from Japan, to ensure that this trade can continue under the same stringent quarantine conditions after exit.
Similarly, the instrument sets out the actions required by UK plant health authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to control certain pests in the event of outbreaks. The provisions cover matters such as official surveys and eradication measures that currently apply to competent authorities under EU emergency legislation. For this instrument, the plant health authority is the Secretary of State in relation to England and Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, with delivery in both countries undertaken by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. In Northern Ireland, authority and delivery currently rests with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. For timber and forest pests in England, the Forestry Commission is the relevant authority.
In addition, plant pest and disease experts in Defra, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission, with support from Forest Research and Fera, will continue to work together, providing an exceptional capability to advise Ministers, manage risks and control outbreaks. As part of EU exit planning, we have increased our capability and capacity in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is nearly doubling the number of plant health inspectors from 118 to 227. The new inspectors are currently being trained to be ready for when we leave. We continue to keep under review whether we need to strengthen further our capacity in this important area of biosecurity protection.
Plant health is devolved. The devolved Administrations have worked closely together in developing their EU exit legislation to ensure a co-ordinated approach. As a result, these regulations apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scottish Ministers have decided to introduce separate legislation in Scotland, and their equivalent legislation will give effect to UK-wide arrangements. In practice, this means that we have a common list of regulated pests and plant material across the United Kingdom.
One of the main purposes of the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is to correct technical deficiencies in our domestic legislation after exit. For example, they remove references to EU legislation and revise definitions to be UK-based instead of EU-based. The instrument also transposes provisions in certain Council directives in relation to the control of relevant potato pests, adding to the provisions already transposed in our existing domestic plant health legislation. These additional provisions mainly cover official activities that competent plant health authorities are required to carry out under these directives, such as official surveys and monitoring for the presence of the pests. The aim is to provide clarity to third countries that, following exit, the UK will continue to maintain the same rigorous control over the production of potatoes.
In relation to the changes to import arrangements I highlighted earlier, there are two aspects in this instrument. First, regulated plant material, such as ornamental plants in pots intended for commercial planting and certain trees and shrubs, that currently enters the UK from the EU or Switzerland with an EU or Swiss plant passport will in future require a phytosanitary certificate. This will be issued by the official national plant protection organisation in the EU member state, or Switzerland, in line with international obligations. This applies mainly to plants for planting and will ensure that we maintain the biosecurity assurances currently provided by the EU plant passport regime. Regulated plant material from the EU or Switzerland will not be subject to routine physical checks at the border. This recognises that biosecurity risks from such material do not change immediately on exit. However, we will always be vigilant about such imports and, where necessary, take additional measures to stop the introduction of harmful plant pests into the UK.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking these two statutory instruments together. Although they are huge, they are complementary. I am also grateful to him for his explanation. As he said, it is a matter of making sure that we have an operable legal framework when we leave the EU. I have one or two questions.
I am grateful for the detailed Explanatory Memorandum on the first instrument. Paragraph 2.5 talks about “existing fees”. Will we continue with those fees until at some future time they might be changed if that needs to be done? At the moment it just states that the existing fees will continue.
Paragraph 2.7 talks about the new certificates,
“issued in the country of export in accordance with International Plant Protection Convention obligations”.
I was delighted to see that any imports will not be stopped at the border but will be examined and looked at in great detail at the centres to which they eventually go. I understand that physical checks will not be carried out on anything that has come through existing EU member states, and that that will continue into the future—I hope I am correct and that we get clarification on that—but anything coming in from a third country that does not come through the EU will be dealt with in a totally different way. It is hugely important that we control anything coming into this country. We have seen with great sadness ash and oak trees being lost through infections and diseases. These are really important steps we are taking. Are the premises that will need to be authorised by Defra to provide those inspection facilities all over the UK or based around the London area? It is not clear where they will be based.
We have a new offence in relation to non-compliance with import requirements in this statutory instrument; I welcome the opportunity for us to prosecute serious cases. Do the Government anticipate that there might be set fees for anything coming in that fails to live up to the expected standards, or will they come later?
I turn now to the statutory instrument itself. On page 23, Article 22A(3) states:
“The conditions are that—(a) the packaging in which the relevant material is transported and any vehicle which is used to transport the material is free from soil and plant debris and any relevant tree pest”.
I do not know how one can fully guarantee that, even if the material is wrapped and fully secure, there will not be some leakage or mishap during transition. Has thought been given to that? Then on page 29, in Part D of Schedule 13A, paragraph 11(a)(vii)(cc) refers to,
“controls for the disposal of waste, soil and water, as appropriate”.
The two do not seem to sit terribly well together. Why is there different wording in different areas? It may be that I have missed something, but I am not quite clear and I would be grateful for clarification.
Basically I very much welcome these regulations, because—like other noble Lords who will take part in this debate—I have for many years been very conscious of the risks we run. The more plants and shrubs we import, the greater the risk to our native species. Also, the climate is warming here, and therefore we may well, as we are seeing, be able to grow more vines and things, but as we import additional shrubs and other habitats into this country, the risk is even greater than before. It is just a matter of trying to make sure that the system we are establishing here is strong enough and has enough powers. Hence my questions on the way fees will be dealt with and on what regulations there will be about the charges when people do not live up to the standards we are setting in these instruments. They are hugely important. I would not normally speak at such great length, but I am very aware that while we cannot control certain things, such as wind-borne diseases, we certainly can control physical things coming into our country. I want to make sure we have taken enough precautions in these two statutory instruments.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for so clearly outlining the changes. If we enter a no-deal Brexit scenario, we will lose a fully-functioning system that regulates the very important trade in fruit, vegetables, freshly-cut flowers and timber that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, is critical to ensuring our continuing biosecurity.
I have three points. First, I struggled to get a sense from the Explanatory Memorandum of what increase in the inspection rates will be necessary as a result of this new scenario in the event of no deal. As the Minister rightly said at the beginning, the majority of plants and fresh fruit will not have any more inspection, but all the plants and produce coming in by virtue of the EU plant passport regime, which are not subject to inspection now, will be subject to inspection in future. I was grateful for the responses that I had from the staff when I asked them that question: they made it clear that we are looking at a 30% increase in the number of inspections necessary in plants, fruit and cut flowers, and a 50% increase in timber. We are not talking about small numbers here. The figures that they gave me are that at the moment we have about 100,000 consignments per year of regulated goods, so a 30% increase on those figures is not going to be small. There will therefore be considerable on-costs to the public purse as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission will have to undertake those inspections.
The staff helpfully made it clear that at the moment the Forestry Commission has 10 inspectors who undertake inspections but, if we have to go forward with this SI because of a no-deal Brexit, it will have to have increase its inspectors by 50%, which means another five. In real terms that does not sound like a very large number, but it is still of 50% more inspectors, not in the London area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly highlighted, but geographically spread out, so it will not just be a question of staff costs; it will mean resources to get them out and about in the country. There will be significant on-costs to the public purse as a result of the necessary increase in inspections if we leave the EU.
Secondly, I would like to tease out a bit more on the inspections that are going to take place at authorised premises in order to ensure that there are no backlogs at the RORO points. The Explanatory Memorandum is quite clear that the Government want to avoid that, and I think we all wish that. The Minister just said, if I heard him correctly, that 35 businesses have applied to have authorised premises so that these inspections can take place at their facilities around the country. My understanding from the Explanatory Memorandum is that 900 businesses that are presently engaged in this arena. So 35 business have have applied to have their premises authorised and there are potentially 900 businesses that are already within this arena. Again, I am grateful to the staff because when I asked them how many of those 900 businesses had premises that they thought would be suitable—not everyone is going to have premises that are—they very kindly indicated that they thought between 75 to 100 businesses would have suitable premises. So up to 100 of those 900 businesses are potentially able to get their premises licensed, and only 35, so far, have done so. Will the Minister say a bit more about exactly how we will ensure that we do not get delays at the ports? I applaud the desire to have no backlog at the ports but, at the moment, the figures do not quite seem to stack up.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing these two instruments before the Committee this afternoon. I am also grateful to him that Fera will be involved in this, since he will recall that Fera is in the Thirsk and Malton constituency. As a slightly amusing story, I remember seeing a beetle at Fera that had been extracted from a wooden bed. It had been quite scary for a honeymoon couple to have heard its constant scratching. Finally, the morning after their nuptials, they called the hotel staff in and found out that the beetle had been imported within the wood that the furniture was made from. It was obviously more company than they had bargained for. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work that FERA does.
I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend Lady Byford referred to plant health and pests in the air. What shocked me and colleagues on the EFRA Committee in the other place in the midst of the ash tree dieback was the fact that we were exporting seeds to be sown in parts of Europe such as, dare I say, Denmark—I am half Danish, so there was obviously some embarrassment—and Poland, which then grew these ash trees. We then reimported them to the UK as saplings with the Chalara fungus; I will not even try to say its name. We were reintroducing the ash tree saplings to this country with that disease. Can my noble friend give the Committee a reassurance that, under the arrangements set out in the statutory instruments today, that will not happen and that we will continue to update the list of species at risk which fall under these regulations on plant health and biosecurity? As the EU continues to amend that list, in the event of no deal will we share the information on our list as we go forward? Will we update our list with any updates to the EU list as well? I am sure that my noble friend will say that that is a matter for negotiation. Will he please make it a priority for our negotiations?
It is obviously of some concern that the threat is not just from dieback to ash trees. Currently, horse chestnuts, pines and other trees are also threatened. Have we learned nothing from elm disease? Kew Gardens and the arboretum at Castle Howard fulfil a national role in making sure that we continue to have seeds which we hope will be free of these diseases. Can my noble friend reassure the Committee that there will not be any threat in future?
In the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place, there was a lot of talk about the Irish border and the arrangements in Ireland. At the moment, there is no Northern Ireland Assembly. We understand that this issue was raised for the first time two weeks ago by the Minister’s Defra colleague in the other place, particularly in respect of the arrangements for his department. There are going to be no checks at the borders on plant health, but they will be, as it states, in some internal location. Is this entirely sensible when we are dealing with something as fundamental as plant health and biosecurity? If there is an alert for a particular plant disease, should we not reimpose checks at borders for this purpose to make sure that we keep the national biosecurity safe?
In the smaller regulation as I shall call it—the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulation—paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum sets out obligations,
“for the control and management of plant health risks”,
for the import of plant material from third countries and the movement of such material,
“within the EU single market”.
Given that our position will be that of a third country, can we clarify what the status will be for plant movements between here and the EU?
On page 21 of the SI, Regulation 19 refers to,
“Prevention of the spread of tree pests: England”.
Again, can we ensure that there will not just be plant passports, as it goes on to say, but physical checks, if there is reason to believe that there is a specific threat? At the moment, we know of threats to three particular tree species. We need to be careful and to understand what our status will be in relation to the EU if we crash out and leave with no deal.
I hope that we can give these instruments a fair wind, but both instruments raise a number of issues of potential concern to the biosecurity and plant health of this country.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, as several noble Lords have pointed out, plant health is a vital issue. I declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust.
Pressure from introduced diseases and pests is serious and growing. Already there has been reference to the publicity surrounding ash dieback, which could kill off 80% of our ash trees and change the nature of our countryside and hedgerows. I am sure that noble Lords—particularly those of my age—will recall the devastation from Dutch elm disease. “You haven’t seen anything yet”, because poised and waiting to come over are killers such as xylella fastidiosa, to which the Minister referred. This is a Darth Vader of plant disease. It could infect a whole range of species of plant and trees. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about three species that are under threat. In reality, it is pretty well true to say that every native tree species is at risk of pest or disease. So plant health needs to be taken very seriously. I thank the Minister for his explanation of these two regulations and for the briefing meeting he set up with himself and senior Defra officials.
The regulations are indeed intended to replicate the current arrangements in Europe, but they contain some differences and illustrate some serious issues. First, as has already been noted, they move the line of defence against the risk of the importation of disease from the port to the importer’s premises in the case of regulated material from third countries. The new process means that the premises of these importers of regulated plants and trees will have to have their process authorised and provide specific inspection facilities, which will then be subjected to a yearly audit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Defra has estimated that between 80 and 100 premises may want to be authorised, but authorisations opened before Christmas and only 33 have gone through the process so far. There is a way to go in achieving readiness. Can the Minister tell us what his department is doing to ensure that all those who need to be designated will be designated in time, whenever “in time” might mean?
I must admit that I was concerned that, in the interests of not gumming up the ro-ro ports and creating friction in the trade process, we would no longer stop and check these materials at ports. I was assured by the Defra chief plant health officer that the plants and trees concerned would be transported in bonded conditions so that the disease could not be spread in transit before they had been checked. Can the Minister assure us that such bonding or sealing provisions, as he called them, will work so that there is no risk of trailing pestilence across the country in the interest of simply avoiding embarrassing queues at the post-Brexit ports?
Once the plants and materials are held in authorised premises, they will need to be inspected by the Animal and Plant Health Agency before they can be moved and distributed. As has already been noted, that will require more staff, including additional plant health inspectors. Support staff will also be needed to manage the uplift in the number of phytosanitary certificates required to ensure that exports from the UK to the EU can be handled. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to that. Defra kindly provided us with figures showing that an additional 117 plant health inspectors and support staff, and an additional five Forestry Commission inspectors, will be recruited. This is a virtual doubling of the workforce. Can the Minister tell us the estimated cost of this new regime? It sounds expensive. Simply doing some sums on the back of a fag packet indicated that the staff alone could cost upwards of £3 million. The public are wholly unaware of these sorts of costs when making their minds up about the value, or otherwise, of Brexit and its variants—so much for the Brexit dividend.
Of course, we are only one country, even if we are four nations. Much depends on effective arrangements being in place—particularly in Scotland, which will subject to separate legislation. Can the Minister tell us whether that legislation has been passed in Scotland and, if not, when it will be passed?
The Minister referred to a new criminal offence being created to provide an enforcement mechanism in the event of failure to comply with a notice issued in respect of a demarcated area. Your Lordships will remember that the House expressed concern about the creation of criminal offences by statutory instruments during consideration of the then EU withdrawal Bill. While this new criminal offence does not count as a relevant criminal offence under the Act, can the Minister confirm the maximum penalty for the offence?
Of course, the new regime deals only with legitimate trade, although the Minister is of the view that it will provide more information for traceability should an outbreak take place. The Minister assures me that the Animal and Plant Health Agency is hot on the tracks of any illegal imports, and I assure the Minister that the agency is regularly under-cover as a mystery shopper at car boot sales in car parks.
These SIs basically recreate a slightly less satisfactory UK regime to replace the existing EU regime for plant health. At heart, this is a lipstick-on-a-pig situation—you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The scale and threat of plant and tree disease is increasing. In general terms, the Government’s policy for all but regulated materials is of surveillance to spot infestations early once introduced to this country and contain them with vigour. This does not keep out pests and diseases and is insufficiently robust to tackle the current and future threat. Brexit has few merits in my book, but one of them would come into play in this instance: as part of reclaiming our borders, we would have a chance to do a New Zealand or an Australia and adopt a policy of no entry for any plants and trees unless they are demonstrably disease and pest free. If that were in conjunction with a major push for plants to be UK sourced and grown, to reduce the need for imports and to give a valuable boost to the UK nursery trade, that would genuinely be in the spirit of Brexit—I never thought that I would use those words.
I look forward to discussions with the Minister on how we can improve the plant health regime in the context of the forthcoming biosecurity strategy.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses who have contributed to this debate. I suspect that we are united in every particular of the essentials. I stress again that as the Minister with biosecurity in his remit, I could not place a higher importance on keeping our country safe from pests, disease and invasive non-native species, all of which cause immense damage to our natural ecosystems.
As a farmer in the Vale of Aylesbury I was very scarred myself, as a boy, by the loss of all the elm trees on the farm. Now, having planted ash trees over the years and seeing them depleted, no one could be unhappier about that situation. However, in 2012, when it materialised that all sorts of extraordinary things were happening, whereby ash seeds—I think it was even small saplings as well—were going to other parts of the EU to come back and bring Chalara with them, that precipitated a change in Defra and an understanding that, while animal health had rightly been given a very considerable priority, plant health needed to buck up and become as rigorous and as sharp. I could mention many names, but the appointment of the chief plant health officer, Professor Nicola Spence, was one repercussion of an understanding that we needed to do a lot better.
On the issue of bonding and sealed, or whatever word may be used, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I was absolutely clear in the early stages of this situation that I too wanted reassurances. I am well aware that pests may arrive at a port and we may find them going all around the country because we have done something utterly stupid. I was assured, and I will go into further detail on the assessments, about why this was a sound and sensible thing for us to do.
I will go through the points in no particular order. My noble friend Lady Byford asked about existing fees and any changes. Existing fees will apply to these import inspections at inland premises, so we will follow the existing fee arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about the estimated number of consignments and inspections. I want to be clear that by inspection we would mean physical inspection of a consignment of plant material, rather than simply checks of the documents associated with it. In a no-deal scenario the majority of plants and plant products imported from the EU, including fruit, vegetables and cut flowers, will continue to enter the UK freely without physical inspections, as currently. Those goods managed under the EU plant passport regime, such as certain species for planting and shrubs, will require an internationally recognised phytosanitary certificate. There will be no physical inspection of the goods at the border, although our risk-based inland surveillance system will continue. A documentary and identity check will take place remotely, without requiring that goods are stopped either at the border or inland awaiting checks. The importer will be required to pre-notify the Animal and Plant Health Agency about details of a consignment of regulated plant material. At this stage we are, in a sense, keeping what we have for certain regulated plants from within the EU—in other words, the phytosanitary certificate.
The important area—if the Committee does not mind my setting this out, because it is terribly important to establish the sequence—is that material originating in third countries that enters the UK via the EU without being checked in the EU will require a physical inspection in the UK, in the same way as we currently physically inspect material coming directly from third countries. So whether or not the material enters the UK at the ro-ro ports, we will inspect the goods at trade premises inland that have been authorised in line with biosecurity requirements. At this stage we do not have data on the current number of plants and plant products entering the UK from third countries via the EU which will require an inspection, but we estimate that there will be around 14,500 consignments per year.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked about the location of inland premises. They are located across the United Kingdom. We do not have to hand the exact locations of the 33 premises currently being organised but I can provide that information in due course. I should say, and this issue arose in another connection, that a lot of the current facilities are around Heathrow because obviously a lot of the plants from third countries come in there. I know that there have previously been considerations about the fact that it is London-centric; that is because often the bulk of plant material from third countries has come in that way. I have been to the excellent inspection unit alongside Heathrow, where so much of the biosecurity protection takes place with imports directly from third countries.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about the costs. It is the Government’s policy to charge fees for many publicly-provided goods and services. The standard approach is to set fees to recover the full cost of service delivery. This relieves the general taxpayer of the costs so that they are properly borne by users who benefit from the service. Charging for plant health services is consistent with the principle that businesses using these services should bear the cost. The costs incurred in any 12-month period are recovered by fees levied in the following 12 months. For example, fees for 2019-20 will be based on the costs incurred in providing services for the period from April 2018 to March 2019.
My noble friend Lady Byford and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised transporting, moving inland and the biosecurity risk. As I have said, experts both from the APHA and within Defra have made it clear that in their assessment, under the containerised, sealed and bonded arrangements, these materials will be secure until they are inspected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about the volume of the imports from the EU that would be subject to the new process. We estimate that around 0.75 million tonnes of regulated plant products from the EU, out of around 7 million tonnes of total annual imports, will require a phytosanitary certificate. On the question that she also raised on concerns about blockages at points of entry, we are seeking to do this because the paramount concern is that we keep the country biosecure. Clearly, though, where inland premises have been inspected and are both suitable to the inspectors and secure, we have been advised that there is no biosecurity risk from that.
I want to respond to another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She asked about the dangers of spreading pests. It is clear that we must ensure that that does not happen; that is the whole point of our carrying on with the EU system of requiring pre-notification with phytosanitary certificates for certain EU plant products. That is an important pre-notification system to enable APHA to be aware of arrivals. Moreover, part of the regime is that random checks are made of plant materials. We place the greatest importance on this area.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the risks. She talked about ash dieback; the outbreak has precipitated an enormous amount of research—here I am moving away slightly from the statutory instrument before us. Research now being undertaken into tree health is remarkable for both its public and private funding, through universities. The John Innes Centre has undertaken research into the genome of the ash tree which gives us hope that perhaps 15% to 20% of the trees may have some tolerance. We can ensure the future of the ash tree from them. This is an important area and we will work with evidence to develop a risk-based, proportionate approach to plant health measures.
In the past we have introduced precautionary national measures to protect the UK against threats. For example, the UK produced stronger national legislation against xylella in response to the situation elsewhere in the EU. We have also introduced national legislation to protect against oak processionary moth. In fact, during my early months in this post I am afraid that I made myself unpopular with our very nice Spanish friends when dealing with the Epitrix potato pest by requiring further washing because we were concerned about the arrival of unwashed new potatoes at certain times. Moreover, of course we will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure there is protection across the United Kingdom.
I turn to the question of Northern Ireland. As we have discussed in a number of debates, the island of Ireland is an epidemiological entity for obvious reasons. In fact, when we looked at aquaculture, we found that there are fewer fish pests in the island of Ireland than there are in Great Britain. It is terribly important that the all-Ireland concept is seen in that context because pests and diseases are not respecters of borders. It is intended that a similar SI will be made for Northern Ireland. The specific legislation will align with our own legislation to ensure a consistent approach to plant health. It will be laid before day one.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can my noble friend explain how we will keep that legislation in line with what happens in the south?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I said to my noble friend, the whole point in raising the single entity is that is why it is so important that there is close co-operation. If my noble friend had seen our earlier consideration of Northern Ireland matters, he would have heard about the very strong relationship between bodies in the north and the south on almost the whole of the natural ecosystem area. That is tremendously important.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about changes to the list of regulated pests. A plant health risk register is publicly available and I am afraid to say that currently we have 1,000 pests recorded on it. That somewhat bears out what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. I have regular meetings with Grown in Britain, and which side of the argument on the European Union one might be on is, frankly, irrelevant. We need to be more biosecure within the United Kingdom. We all need to be more biosecure around the world because our laxity in these matters has already caused enormous problems around the world and we need to attend to it.
Baroness Byford
I thank my noble friend for clarifying the extra money that has been allocated. Will that money be clawed back from importers and people who are buying the products, or will the Government put the money up and make no attempt to get recompense? I thought from the conversations we had earlier that there would be a charge.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The fees are for the costs of inspection or whatever. The additional costs for people will partly be borne by the Exchequer. I think I had better have complete clarification on that. As far as I am concerned, the fees cover the cost of inspections and we will have to upscale them. It might be helpful if that £7.4 million is allocated in a way that my noble friend and other noble Lords can appreciate, so that we get it right and I get it on the record right.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Parminter, mentioned the 33 premises. There are obviously other businesses. Officials are engaging with export businesses and encouraging applications. We look forward to being helpful because it is important that these premises are inspected, secure and fit for purpose. Then we can help to ensure that these products come to the inland premises as swiftly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about future plans. The policies in regulations are risk-based and proportionate, and will apply temporarily from day one until we develop our future plant health regime. This will include consideration of the extent to which we implement aspects of revived arrangements to be introduced in the EU from December 2019 through its new regulations on plant health and official controls, given their significant influence in shaping these new arrangements. Clearly what we in this country want to do is to have the highest possible standards of biosecurity. We will be looking at the advantage of available technologies to facilitate trade that is as frictionless as possible, but the paramount importance is to have high standards of biosecurity. Defra and the Food Standards Agency are working closely together to develop proposals for this and plan to consult on them this year.
The noble Baroness asked about Scotland. By chance, I met Mairi Gougeon, the Scottish Biosecurity Minister, along with Lesley Griffiths from Wales only about three hours ago as they were in for other meetings at Defra. I requested that the three of us meet, perhaps when this particular hiatus is over, so that we can work positively together. For Scotland, the Plant Health (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019 were laid in draft on 13 March and were debated and passed scrutiny unchallenged on 14 March, while similar regulations for Wales were laid in draft on 19 February.
I am going to have a close look at Hansard regarding other points. My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned climate change. Obviously, this is an area where we all need to work collaboratively across the world. Because of climate change, plant diseases and pests have, in my view, become much more alarming. The issue of physical and windborne is absolutely the case. I am afraid that we would have got Chalara even if we had not done the unwise things that we did because, as my noble friend Lord Deben and others will know, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and such eastern counties are suffering because of it being airborne. That leads to a much wider issue: whatever our arrangements with our friends in the EU 27, this is an area where we all have to collaborate. I am afraid the challenge that I would put back to Europe in this area is that a lot of things are coming here because when they arrived in Europe, there has not been zero tolerance. I mention the oak processionary moth and the Asian hornet as examples of where arrivals in Europe have not been dealt with, so we are having to seek to deal with them here. We do not have enough sea to match the ambition of New Zealand or Australia; it is only 22 miles wide. We all need to do very much more.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the maximum penalty, I might not have a note from the Box but I think the fine is limitless. All I can say is that if someone transgresses, I hope the fine is substantial because the disasters that can befall our country due to these pests and diseases is very grave. I will study Hansard. I will write if there are embellishments or further details that I can supply.
Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws in the event that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without a deal. They relate solely to the Government’s no-deal exit preparations. Should Parliament approve the withdrawal agreement, which incorporates an implementation period, and pass the legislation necessary to implement that agreement, the commencement of these regulations would be deferred until completion of the implementation period.
The regulations amend or revoke legislation relating to five EU measures; first, the victims of crime compensation directive. That directive established that each EU member state should have a national scheme to provide compensation to victims of violent intentional crime. It also provided for liaison between the relevant authorities of each member state to facilitate the compensation of victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority manages the compensation scheme for England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has a separate scheme; however, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is the assisting authority for the whole of the United Kingdom and liaises with other member states to help victims apply for compensation from them.
The second matter is the European protection orders. The directive provides a framework to allow certain kinds of protection order made in criminal proceedings in one member state to be transferred to another EU member state where it can be recognised and enforced.
Thirdly, there are the European supervision orders. These enable the transfer of certain supervision measures between EU member states. For example, bail granted subject to conditions issued in criminal proceedings in one member state can be transferred to another EU member state to be recognised and supervised there.
Fourthly, the mutual recognition of financial penalties provided a framework so that certain financial penalties imposed in criminal proceedings in one member state can be forwarded to another EU member state for enforcement.
Fifthly and finally is the matter of taking account of convictions in EU member states in the course of new criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom. This requires known prior convictions in another EU member state to be taken into account—for example, when passing sentence—to the extent that national law requires national convictions to be taken into account. This means that, upon sentencing, the court in any member state can treat convictions from another member state exactly as they would domestic convictions.
The purpose of this instrument is to address the changes necessary in domestic law upon our exit, in the event that we exit without a deal. I will not go into the detail of what the SI does for each EU measure or tool—I hope that the regulations themselves, the Explanatory Memorandum and the provisional impact assessment are already clear on that—but I will briefly draw attention to the main points and to what occurs in the event that we leave without a deal.
For the victims of crime compensation directive, the instrument will revoke the implementing legislation relating to mutual assistance since it provides a system of intra-EU member state co-operation that will not be present in a no-deal scenario. I emphasise that the regulations do not impact on our national compensation scheme; that will continue.
For the European protection order directive, the instrument will revoke the implementing legislation since the scheme can operate only between EU member states, and in this scenario the United Kingdom will not be one. We take the opportunity of these regulations to make transitional provision to ensure that any order made consequent to an incoming request received prior to exit will continue to be enforceable until its conclusion, whenever that is, so that persons will remain protected. I should add that this system is seldom used. My understanding is that only four orders have been made by the courts of England and Wales in respect of such protection orders since it came into operation, while only six applications have been received from EU member states. That is over a period of three years.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank the Minister for his clear introduction of this instrument. It seems to be an inevitable consequence of a no-deal scenario but one of its provisions is of great importance: the taking into account of previous convictions. A lot of work was done to try to improve the system across the EU for recording in a standard form the information in relation to previous convictions, which are of considerable importance in the court deciding what to do. Is the Minister able to say what arrangements are being made so that there continues to be the fullest co-operation on obtaining information about those convicted in member states? This is obviously particularly important in cases dealing with paedophiles and other violent offenders, as the courts here would want to take into account all details of prior convictions to ensure that appropriate penalties were passed. If that information was not available, it would obviously be of some considerable detriment to the safety of the general public.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of points that I have made on previous occasions. I am always unhappy about things that deal with the law being discussed only by lawyers. It seems to me that non-lawyers should sometimes refer to the matters in front of us.
I heard the Minister say, kindly, that we now have the impact assessment. I am always fascinated by how the Government can say that they do not intend to provide guidance because a measure relates mainly to technical changes before they have produced the impact assessment. That seems like a decision before the fact. It is also interesting that the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“No, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen … The impact of this instrument, including on individuals, is negligible”.
That cannot be true if, for example, this information is not available; the noble and learned Lord made the point a moment ago that that will have a considerable impact on individuals.
The point I really want to make to the Minister is that this is another example of trying to deal with Alice in Wonderland. The idea that we would seriously not give the information we have to the rest of the European Union, nor hope that they would give us that information, seems outwith any kind of sense. I am perfectly prepared to accept that we will have to pass these regulations—because, no doubt, if that situation arose when we are not a member of the European Union, many of these provisions would not function in any case—but I wish that Ministers would just admit every time that it is much better to have a system in which you share than not. We are all fixated by the lunacy of the whole business of Brexit but that does not mean that a little humility from Ministers would not be welcome. They could say, “We are sorry to be in this position because it makes things very much worse”, instead of pretending that everything will be the same, that we will just fix things, that everything is perfectly okay and that if we have a no-deal situation, this will just go ahead. That flies in the face of the truth.
Every time we discuss these statutory instruments, we increasingly recognise what a nonsense the whole proposition is. I just want to hear that occasionally from the Government. They do not seem satisfactorily engaged in trying to solve the problem anyway, but it would be nice to hear an occasional ministerial comment that they are sorry to have to put this forward because it is obviously not a sensible situation or better than what we have at the moment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the regulations deal with the current situation of mutual assistance, not just the passing of information from one country to another. That is what we are concerned with.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to taking account of convictions. As he explained, a lot of work has been done to make sure that convictions are presented mutually in an agreed format, which assists a sentencing judge greatly. The regulations—particularly in Part 6, entitled “Taking account of convictions”—provide that all individuals with prior convictions from outside the UK, whether from the EU or non-EU countries, are treated the same. Clearly, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, there is a developed system of mutual assistance relating to convictions. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the difference between the system developed between EU member states and that developed with non-EU states “outside the UK”. Those are the words used in the impact assessment. What difference in standards can we expect between the two systems?
Perhaps I may turn first to compensation for victims of crime. A significant change has been made because, at the moment, there is an obligation on EU member states not simply to offer advice but to co-operate in providing access to their compensation schemes. It is proposed that that system should go and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will simply offer advice instead. We know from the impact assessment that, for example, it is not known at the moment how many British nationals have applied for compensation from EU compensation schemes because victims can apply directly. I am anxious to know whether the Minister can enlighten us about the nature of the advice that will be given to people injured as a result of criminal activity abroad as compared with the mutual assistance given under the current scheme. It seems that there could be a very considerable difference between the two situations. The Explanatory Memorandum states that there is currently,
“a system of formal communication between the relevant authorities”.
That will go, so what is the advice? If an injured person happens to learn about the scheme covering the offer of advice from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, presumably he or she will have to take the initiative of approaching the CICA to obtain it.
I turn to mutual assistance. Of course, EU protection orders and supervision systems have not been used considerably, as the memorandum makes clear. These are important possibilities that no doubt could have been developed more than they have. For example, if a person has engaged in violent conduct towards their spouse in a European country and the spouse has taken out a protection order, there is great value in that being enforced in this country as well without any further proceedings. However, according to the regulations before us, it seems that separate and additional applications for protection will have to be made to the British courts.
It is a similar case as regards supervision orders. If a person found guilty of criminal conduct abroad to the effect that a supervision order has been made against him moves to this country, unless there is a separate and additional application to a British court, the protection against him that a supervision order provides will no longer exist.
The mutual recognition of financial penalties is another important area. Currently, a fine imposed in one EU country can be enforced in another. What mechanism does the Ministry have in mind following the implementation of this instrument—should that ever come about, which seems highly unlikely—for recovering financial penalties imposed in another EU country? How will that compare with the recovery of financial penalties from non-EU countries at present?
Although these regulations appear complicated and technical, there is an important principle of mutual assistance involved. Among EU members, we have built up systems that protect the people of this country. These are all to be swept away and replaced by separate applications and so on. This seems an undesirable outcome that has not been given the publicity it deserves.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in all sorts of matters, particularly perhaps in matters Brexit, it is not as fashionable as we might like either to be succinct or fair to one’s opponents. So as not to exacerbate the Alice in Wonderland world described by noble Lords, I would say that the Minister is in an unenviable situation. Surely we all know that the problems are not with this draft instrument but with any possibility of exiting the European Union without a deal. It would be a disaster in all sorts of areas—trade and other aspects of co-operation—but in the context of criminal justice co-operation, we all ought to acknowledge that the idea of no deal is particularly disastrous and dangerous for people in this country and in the European Union, especially for victims of violent crime and survivors of domestic abuse.
Having said that at the outset, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Minister to agree and to do his best with particular questions about the various areas of policy and co-operation covered here. We acknowledge that it is not about the instrument. We are in an unenviable position. The clock is ticking down and we seem to be no closer to a final scheme for what criminal justice co-operation will be. The problem is that the political declaration is vague on matters of security and justice co-operation. As we have heard from noble Lords, access to Europol and European criminal records is essential, as is access to the extensive database system. Perhaps we can all agree on this. I am sure that, in due course, the Minister will do so as well and he will suggest that this instrument and its provisions are not an ideal alternative to having a proper scheme for co-operation after Brexit.
If the Minister is able to do so, I wonder if he might discuss what the total cost to the UK authorities might be from not having, for example, access to the system of formal communication in relation to compensation for victims of violent crime. The Explanatory Memorandum makes a lot of store about the total number of requests in each relevant case. Can he assist on the total amount of compensation that has resulted in the past three years in relation to this request? Thare might give more of a sense of the importance and severity of the matters we are dealing with.
In relation to European protection orders, paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states,
“the UK will no longer be able to issue requests to other EU Member States and expect them to be acted upon”.
This is predominantly about domestic violence. Can the Minister confirm that this change could make life less safe for the survivors of domestic abuse after exit day? Could the Minister perhaps articulate how travel restrictions would be placed on the perpetrators of domestic abuse in such a scenario—for example, on a man who is an EU citizen with a woman victim who is a UK citizen—without an EPO? Similarly, on financial penalties, does the Minister have any idea what the potential cost would be to the UK authorities for losing access to the framework?
In all this, I am making the point that it is not really fair to impugn the instrument itself but, as there are people beyond this Room who are still advocating a no-deal Brexit, it is none the less important to try to get the Minister’s thoughts on some of these matters.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. I begin by observing that my noble friend Lord Deben has misunderstood the purpose of these regulations. They are not concerned with the transfer of data or information or with access to it; they are concerned with what the courts do with it once they have it. I will elaborate on that in a moment.
In light of the observations that have been made, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Thomas—this is a bit like a rugby commentary featuring Joneses, but I will not go there—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I shall take each of the five relevant regulations’ directives in turn, pick up each of the points that have been raised and then come back to the issue of data and how that is being addressed.
The first is the victims of crime compensation directive. Let us be clear: in the event of a no-deal exit—I am not seeking or advocating that; I am dealing with the situation that arises in that eventuality, as the noble Baroness observed—any EU citizen who is the victim of a violent crime in the UK will still be able to proceed to make an application under the UK scheme in respect of a violent criminal act in the UK. Conversely, even though we no longer have the relevant directive in place, where a UK citizen suffers such an act in a member state that has ratified the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, which is the preceding European Council convention, they will also be able to access compensation, and there are 18 EU members that are signatories to that convention. In addition, there are some member states that are not signatories to the convention but whose criminal compensation schemes admit of applications just like the UK’s for any citizen who suffers that violent criminal conduct within their country. There are at least two which fall into that category; I believe that they are Ireland and Latvia. There are in fact a total of 20 existing EU member states where it will be possible to continue applying for compensation under these schemes.
To follow up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the intention is that the CICA will support victims in accessing compensation from those countries where an application can be made—in other words, it will do essentially what it does at present, which is to assist the victim in directing how and where the application should be made in the circumstances. I readily accept that that is not a complete answer to the existing scheme; it is deficient to the extent that at least seven existing EU member states will not facilitate such an application. That said, it is important to put this into context. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, not every application has been notified to the CICA in the UK. In so far as it is notified, though, we are aware that in the past year, 2017-2018 to the end of February, there were 59 requests for assistance, 29 notified unsuccessful applications and only two notified successful applications. I readily accede that not all those who made an application notified that fact and not all those who made a successful application notified that, so the data is limited. As a consequence we do not know the sums that were awarded in these cases because there is no requirement for notification. It is a limited compass and what will be in its place is not as good as what exists at present. Nobody is pretending otherwise, but it is appropriate that we put the statute book into proper form in order that people are not confused when they come to determine what their rights are in this context.
Turning to the European protection order and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, it is simply not possible to operate that scheme if we leave without a deal because under the terms of the relevant provision only the court of a member state can make a request and under the scheme it can make a request only to the court of another EU member state. In the event that we receive an application before exit, we will process it because it will have been competently made by the other member state and we will be receiving it at a time when we are a member state, but after exit we cannot make such orders because they will not be accepted as competent by the EU 27 states, and we cannot expect to receive any because they cannot competently make such a request of the United Kingdom once it ceases to be a member state. To put this into context, I should emphasise that this order is very rarely used. Four EPOs have been issued by the English and Welsh courts and the Northern Ireland authorities since this provision was implemented in 2015, and only two of those were recognised by the receiving EU state over a period of four years. In the same period, six EPOs were received by the courts from other member states of which four were recognised and two were declined, so we are talking about tiny numbers in this context.
On the European supervision order, I would, with respect, seek to correct the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The supervision order is directed to pre-criminal trial matters such as bail. It does not apply to any post-criminal trial order of the court. The reference to supervision is perhaps a little misleading in that context. It deals essentially with a situation in which somebody is placed on bail under bail conditions and the relevant supervision order can be enforced in another EU member state with the result that a citizen of an EU member state who is subject to bail may move into another EU member state without breaching the relevant conditions of their bail order. That is essentially what it deals with. It has again been very rarely used since implementation in 2015. The number we had received at the time the regulations were laid was four since 2015. Interestingly, a further six have emerged since the regulations were laid, I think five of which have come from Cyprus. I do not know whether they all pertain to the same group, but the numbers are very small. In turn, the courts in England and Wales have issued two such supervision orders, but neither is extant. They have both expired because the relevant parties have been discharged or have gone through the criminal trial process. We do not anticipate that this will have any major impact.
The financial penalties order came into force in 2012, since which time we have received about 3,759 requests for enforcement of civil penalties, most of them from the Netherlands, and we have issued about 3,400 requests for the recovery of financial penalties, most of them to Poland.
We have one point to bear in mind. Where we issue a request for a financial penalty to be recovered, we do not get the money. It is retained by the EU member state that makes the recovery. To that extent we do not get a financial benefit, but where we do benefit is in the event that we are requested to recover a financial penalty; we can then retain it. The sums involved are relatively modest. The average fine is in the region of £300 based on figures collected in 2015. If that is applied to the number of requests we are getting, we are still talking about a sum of approximately £100,000. However, I emphasise that these estimates are approximate. As I say, it is not a case of us recovering the money that has been imposed by a UK court for reasons best known to the European authorities, I am sure; rather, the proceeds go to the jurisdiction that actually recovers the funds in the event that they do so.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
On the Minister’s last point, the ability of a court to fine someone who is here knowing that it will be enforced of course means that the court considers that a financial penalty might be more desirable than the imposition of a short term of imprisonment. Bearing in mind the desire to get rid of or reduce the number of short terms in prison, has anyone looked at the impact that imposing fines that we know will not be enforced will have on the policy of trying to reduce short terms of imprisonment?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not believe that any distinct analysis has been made of that issue, but the noble and learned Lord will be well aware that the problem of recovering financial penalties is hardly limited to people who have gone to Poland or the Netherlands. There is a far more fundamental problem with recovering financial penalties within the United Kingdom. That is much greater in its extent and impact on the sentencing policies of the courts than that of the few people who move abroad after a financial penalty has been imposed and not paid. Of course we are looking at the whole area of sentencing policy with regard to the issue of short-term sentences, and we can only encourage the courts to move away from them in circumstances where they have confidence in the imposition of non-custodial sentences, which of course include community orders and financial orders. I would suggest that this is a relatively small aspect of a bigger problem, but I acknowledge the bigger problem. It is one that requires to be analysed fully as we take forward our sentencing policy.
That takes me neatly or otherwise on to the final point, which is the question of taking into account prior convictions. Just to be clear: this regulation addresses the question of what the court does once it has the information and the data. Indeed, the question of data transfer is, I am pleased to say, a matter for Home Office Ministers.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble and learned friend speaks for the Government.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Whip has just reminded me that I speak for the Government. Of course I do—with relish. Be that as it may, Home Office Ministers have in fact already brought forward an SI on plans to deal with the transfer of data under the ECR and that has already been debated and approved. But perhaps it is more important to point out that, with regard to the transfer of data concerning previous convictions, that can be secured under a European Council directive and therefore there remains a mechanism by which we can address the matter. The information flows will remain and travel under the mutual legal assistance convention of the European Council.
I come now to the purpose of the regulation itself. Under the existing European directive, the courts are bound to take account of a previous conviction in another member state. That is implemented by way of Section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In the event that we are looking at convictions that occurred in a non-EU member state, the courts have a discretion to have regard to that previous conviction pursuant to Section 143(5) of the 2003 Act. The point that this regulation addresses is that, if we cease to be an EU member, we are no longer tied into the scheme for EU member states pursuant to Section 143(2) of the 2003 Act, but of course we will remain in a position to deal with this as a discretionary matter, as we would with other third-party countries.
The point of this regulation is simply that there is no logical reason for treating one set of third-party countries differently from another set: that is why the regulation brings the position with the EU 27 states into line in the event that we leave without a deal. That is what we are seeking to address, but I underline the point I made in my opening speech that this regulation is not to do with the transfer of data or access to information but with how the courts deal with it once they actually have that data or information. I hope that that covers all the points that have been raised by noble Lords.
Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, as before, this instrument forms part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws in the event that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without a future deal on civil judicial co-operation. Of course, as I have indicated before, the Government’s priority is to secure that we leave the European Union with an agreement that will address these matters. This instrument relates solely to the situation in which we have to accommodate no-deal exit preparations. In the event that we enter an agreement and there is an implementation period, the coming into force of this instrument will be deferred until the end of that implementation period. Of course, its terms and applicability would be considered in the light of any future agreement secured during the implementation period.
The instrument relates to the existing European Union rules that determine which country’s laws apply when citizens have cross-border obligations, such as when they are buying or selling goods and services. They apply to both contractual and non-contractual matters. An example of a cross-border contractual matter would be a contract for the sale of goods by a company in France to a company in England. An example of a non-contractual matter would be the duty of care owed by a party in one EU country to a client based in another—for example, not to give negligent advice that causes financial loss. The rules are known as applicable law or conflict of law rules, and are entirely separate and distinct from the jurisdiction rules that determine which country’s courts should hear a cross-border dispute. They are an important part of the EU civil judicial co-operation framework and they enhance legal certainty, which in turn underpins trade and commerce between member states—and, indeed, between member states and the rest of the world.
The EU applicable law rules are currently found in two main instruments: the Rome I and Rome II regulations. The Rome I regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations is a directly applicable EU regulation. It applies to contracts formed on and after 17 December 2009. It is the current law in all EU member states other than Denmark, which opted out of this regulation. I should note that the Rome I regulation was preceded by the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, a treaty to which the UK and a number of now-EU member states are still contracting parties. That treaty came into force in the United Kingdom on 1 April 1991 and was implemented through the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. It continues to apply to any contracts entered into between April 1991 and 16 December 2009. Of course, such contracts might conceivably still be in force today; also, it still applies to contracts with Denmark because it opted out of the subsequent regulation. The Rome II regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations is also a directly applicable EU regulation. It commenced on 11 January 2009 and, like Rome I, is the law in all EU member states other than Denmark.
If I may, I will refer simply to the “Rome rules” in addressing this matter. In each case, the Rome rules start from the premise that parties subject at least to certain limitations are entitled to choose the country’s law that applies to their contractual or non-contractual obligations. They operate so that, provided that the requirements of the rules are complied with, their choice of law is valid, will be respected by the courts of a participating EU member state and will be applied to determine any dispute. Where the parties have not chosen a country’s law, the Rome rules lay down a set of default rules to enable parties and the courts to determine which country’s laws will apply.
There are both general and specific default rules. For contractual matters, the general default rule in Rome I is that the applicable law should be the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected. For non-contractual matters under Rome II, it is the law of the country in which the damage occurs. In addition, special rules apply to particular types of contractual and non-contractual matters. For example, Rome I contains rules specific to insurance contracts, consumer contracts and employment contracts, while Rome II contains rules specific to product liability, unfair competition and environmental damage.
Although part of the EU civil judicial co-operation framework, the Rome rules differ from the other EU rules in that framework in one important respect. The Rome rules do not, for the most part, rely on reciprocity to operate effectively between member states. Participating EU member state courts must apply the applicable law determined by the rules, irrespective of whether that law is the law of an EU member state or a non-EU country. For example, if you are in France, the French courts are obliged to apply those rules even though your choice of law may be Russian, American or that of any other state outwith the EU. That is essentially why we are able to retain these rules in domestic law going forward.
This statutory instrument implements the Rome rules in the event that we leave without a deal by retaining the rules as domestic law, post exit. Of course, a benefit of that is ensuring that UK citizens, businesses and consumers continue to have clear and workable rules on which law applies to cross-border situations they may find themselves in. Consequently, when we leave the EU and in the event that we do so without a deal, the Rome I and II regulations will effectively be retained as domestic law; under the provisions of the withdrawal Act 2018, they will become retained European law.
However, certain amendments are required because there will be some differences in how the Rome rules are applied by courts in the United Kingdom and those in EU member states, post exit. Due to the way in which the EU rules are constructed, EU member states may treat UK cases slightly differently in some specific instances, for example where Rome I and II refer specifically to member states or the European community. We will have to accommodate that when we bring the matter into domestic law; we have therefore amended these references. Our status as a contracting party will alter but we will have those rules in our domestic law as retained European law.
However, the position regarding the Rome convention —the earlier convention—is different because our status as a contracting party to it will terminate as a matter of international law once the UK has left the EU. The convention will no longer be binding on the United Kingdom. The approach taken in this instrument is that the substantive rules of the convention will continue and are brought into domestic law but, as I noted before, they apply only to contracts entered into up to 16 December 2009 and in respect of Denmark. One change to the convention provisions will be that UK courts will no longer be in a position under the convention rules to refer questions of interpretation of the 1980 Rome convention to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I think it very appropriate that the Ministry of Justice should decide as a principle as far as possible to preserve the existing rules as they currently apply in the UK immediately after exit day. The purpose is,
“to provide maximum certainty and stability for businesses and individuals”.
However, I am concerned about the impact on business, even though the impact assessment does not throw up anything in particular. I am always very conscious of the strength of Hong Kong, which built its reputation and financial power on the fact that it uses English common law as the basis of its legal system. That means that contracts are readily made and understood, which has been of great economic benefit to Hong Kong. I notice that the impact assessment refers to the,
“strong international reputation as a centre of legal excellence”,
that this country currently enjoys. Anyone connected with the law knows that our legal profession has a great reputation, English law is frequently the preferred law and English courts are used even though a particular dispute has nothing to do with England, so this is a very profitable part of the legal world.
I shall take as an example one matter referred to in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which refers to,
“the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising from infringements of unitary EU intellectual property rights … Trade Marks … Design Rights and … Plant Variety Rights. These unitary EU IP rights will no longer apply in the UK … and UK courts will no longer hear proceedings relating to such rights after exit day”.
It seems to me that there is a whole area of law which may be cut out from the jurisdiction of English courts and the services of English lawyers.
That is compounded by the fact that these regulations remove the ability of UK courts to refer questions of interpretation of the 1980 Rome convention to the Court of Justice of the European Union—to my mind, that is a significant restriction—just as the interpretation of retained EU law generally cannot be decided by that court. We are going from a well understood legal system to something that is much more limited than we have been used to.
On the broad basis, however, the fact that the rights are generally retained is to be welcomed.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in an attempt once more to be succinct, I can echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was making. The concerns from this side are essentially about regulatory diversion. I do not think anybody is going to object to these regulations; the concern is with ongoing regulatory divergence and its potential impact, whether it is on unfair competition cases or IP cases and so on. Perhaps the Minister might consider briefly that risk of regulatory divergence in his reply.
In relation to insurance, the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The Government engaged with representatives of the insurance industry”,
in relation to “insurance risks”. Can the Minister outline the types of risks identified in that engagement? We are told that banks and insurers are shifting hundreds of billions of pounds in assets out of the UK ahead of exit day to keep their contracts and policies within the EU area. We have learned that Aviva, Britain’s second largest insurer, will transfer around £9 billion in assets to a new Irish company, for example. Does the Minister agree with having that sort of risk to our economy? Does this reflect the concern about different outcomes that could result from insurance contract cases being resolved differently in our courts and those of our EU partners in the future?
As I say, my general proposition is on the risks of regulatory divergence, but one can hardly object to the instrument itself.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness for their observations. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, there will no longer be scope for a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union over the construction or interpretation of the convention. Given that the convention has been there since 1980, that may already have happened but we cannot say that it would never have happened again. But I say to the noble Lord—and I address this to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti as well—that, although there is no longer a basis for a reference by a UK court to the Court of Justice, the UK courts may of course have regard to the decisions of the Court of Justice going forward. Quite sensibly, they would have regard to decisions that bore upon the interpretation of the convention, or of Rome I and II as well. That would be of relevance to the incorporation in domestic law of provisions which had their genesis in those European Union provisions.
The immediate matter of insurance is quite narrow and concerns one of the limited derogations from the freedom to choose your own law, as it were. There is a limitation about choice of law where an insurance contract contains provision to cover risks located in the European Union. Essentially, there cannot be an insurance contract that covers risks in an EU member state where the law of Russia is chosen as the relevant law for resolving the contract. The difficulty faced in drafting these regulations was that the reference under the derogation was to a risk in an EU member state. We were going to be concerned not only with a risk in an EU member state but with a risk in the United Kingdom. This is why we have had to move from reference to “member state” to “relevant state”, which is, in turn, defined by reference to member states and the United Kingdom. It is a fairly narrow move, which I do not believe is, of itself, going to impact on the choice or application of law with regard to the type of contract to any material extent. I do not see how it would impact on the transfer of assets such as was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. This is not what this regulation is addressing.
I acknowledge that, if we leave the European Union without a deal—which is not this Government’s preferred option—there will be issues for banks, insurance companies and others with regard to their future arrangements in the European Union. No one would take away from that. That said, this is essentially implementing an existing scheme with just those changes necessary to make sure it operates in domestic law. I do not believe this is going to take away from the attractiveness of English law—or, indeed, Scots law—as a system for the resolution of commercial disputes. English law in particular remains the lingua franca for charter parties, major commercial contracts and so on. Because of the flexibility of common law, it will continue to be used for this reason. I do not see that this is going to result in any major change. No doubt there are options when it comes to choosing a common law system—such as the law of Hong Kong, Singapore or New York, for example. That already exists and we deal with it.
Noting all the observations that have been made, I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 18 February 2019. They are part of the Government’s programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal and an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime.
Leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s top priority. This has not changed but the responsible thing to do is to accelerate no-deal preparations to ensure that the country is prepared for every eventuality. These regulations are made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal deficiencies in retained EU law to reflect that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day. Our architectural sector is a global leader and plays a significant role in the British economy, with an export surplus of £437 million in 2015 and involvement in key global projects such as the Neues Museum in Berlin and the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture in Washington DC.
I trust that noble Lords will allow me to provide a brief overview of how the system works at present. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive enables EEA nationals to have certain qualifications recognised in another member state. This includes the recognition of suitably qualified architects. This is a reciprocal arrangement, allowing UK and other EEA nationals the opportunity easily to register to practice across Europe and UK practices to recruit the best European talent. The Architects Act 1997 sets out the specific procedures for registering architects in the United Kingdom. The recognition of qualifications of EEA applicants is carried out by the competent authority, the Architects Registration Board, an arm’s-length body of my department.
There are currently three routes to recognition for an EEA architect wishing to register in the United Kingdom. The main route to recognition in the United Kingdom for an EEA-national architect is through an automatic recognition system. To qualify for automatic recognition, an EEA national needs to meet three criteria. They must have an approved qualification—that is, one listed in Annexe V of the EU’s mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive—access to the profession of architect in an EEA member state and a statement from their home competent authority confirming that they are fit to practice.
A second route, known as general systems, provides recognition for EEA nationals who do not have an approved qualification. General systems allows EEAs national to map their qualification and experience against UK standards with the Architects Registration Board. An applicant is offered compensation measures, that is, the opportunity to undertake additional training to make up any differences in qualification. This is a long and costly process, which on average only four people pursue annually.
The third route facilitates the temporary or occasional provision of service. This allows EEA professionals to work in the United Kingdom in a regulated profession on a temporary basis while remaining established in their home state. Typically, fewer than 20 EEA architects pursue this option at any one time.
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive will no longer apply in the United Kingdom. This statutory instrument ensures that UK architect practices can continue to recruit the best European talent and maintain their global reputation as world leaders in the field of architecture.
The policy intention is to provide the sector with confidence that almost all applicants can register in the same way after exit day as they do currently. This is the approach favoured by the sector, which recognises the skills brought by EEA architects as contributing positively to the UK’s reputation as a world leader. The instrument also allows applications made before exit day to be concluded under the current system as far as possible. For future applications after EU exit in a no-deal scenario, an individual holding an approved qualification will be able to join the UK register of architects if they have access to the profession of architect in their home state. The instrument will achieve this by freezing the current list of approved qualifications in the EU’s mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive. This approach will preserve access for UK practices to EEA-qualified architects. This process will be open to anyone with an EEA qualification and access to the profession in the corresponding EEA state, regardless of citizenship. Although temporary, this approach will provide continuity to the sector in the immediate period after we leave the EU with no deal and will be reviewed after exit.
We will remove general systems as a route to registration—noble Lords will recall that this is the currently the second route for qualification, but only four or five people pursue it in any one year—as it is a long and costly process which is not utilised often. It places a significant unnecessary burden on individuals and the Architects Registration Board. Therefore applicants without an approved qualification, including applicants who would have previously qualified for acquired rights, will now be able to pursue the prescribed exam route and undertake further examinations and periods of study to allow registration. This is the route currently utilised by third-country nationals.
We will encourage the regulator, the Architects Registration Board, to maintain its existing effective relationships with other EEA competent authorities. The instrument provides a legal basis for the ARB to continue communicating with other EEA competent authorities to facilitate recognition decisions, ensuring that it can verify that the applicant meets the UK’s high standard of competence.
This instrument places a requirement on the applicant to obtain the relevant information from their home competent authority, should the Architects Registration Board not be able to secure it. This is because currently the Architects Registration Board facilitates information sharing through the EU internal market information system. Without a deal we cannot be confident that the Architects Registration Board will continue to have access to this important information-sharing system. The instrument will remove the right of temporary and occasional provision of services as without guaranteed access to information systems and an agreed process for reciprocation, this route becomes unwieldy and of less value. This will have minimal impact on the sector as only 12 people are currently practising on that basis. Historically, fewer than 20 people have practised as an architect in the UK on a temporary and occasional basis at any one time.
Our overall approach to these amendments is in line with the policy and legal intent of the withdrawal Act and enacts the policy that the Government set out in a guidance document in January 2019. These regulations serve a very specific purpose: to prioritise stability and certainty if the United Kingdom leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. The regulations will ensure that the UK continues to have access to top European talent after we have left the EU, thereby helping to maintain the UK’s reputation as a global leader in architectural services. Thereafter, they provide a stable basis for Parliament to change the law where it is in the UK’s best interests to do so.
This instrument is necessary to ensure that the Architects Act continues to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal and an implementation period. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. At present, one in six architects in the UK IS from the EU 27. Indeed, the Royal Institute of British Architects estimates that in London and the south-east the proportion is as high as a quarter. Many are employed by large firms with international portfolios of work, particularly on big infrastructure and construction projects such as airports. The contribution of EU 27 architects is not just numerical; it also relates to cultural, language and specialist skills, such as interior design or acoustics, which give high added value to the UK’s capacity to export its architectural services worldwide. Retaining access to EU 27 architects will therefore be very important to the continued prosperity of the architectural services export sector, which depends on having cosmopolitan skills available to deploy in designing schemes that will be built right across the world. One estimate is that this generates around £2 billion of export earnings a year. In addition, there are EU 27 architects resident abroad who are employed on UK building projects. Without them, work would be delayed and the industry’s capacity severely reduced.
This statutory instrument at least recognises that there is a looming problem. It could be said to be making the best of a bad job by attempting to continue ready access for qualified architects from the rest of Europe to the UK. However, paragraph 2.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum relates to individuals’ ability to come to the UK because they will be subject to Her Majesty’s Government’s immigration policy. In other words, first, there will be an income limit; secondly, there will be access only via an employer’s application and payment of an annual fee; and, thirdly, there will be no right to move from job to job. That last point is particularly relevant in this sector, where particular expertise may be needed only for a short time on any one project and it would be routine to move on to another firm with a similar project at the right stage for the exercise of a specialism. There is serious concern within the construction industry that the Government do not acknowledge the importance of the sector in delivering every other policy objective of homes, capital investment in the NHS and capital investment in education, nor do they seem to understand the key role that migrants at every skill level of the industry play in delivering the key outcomes that the Government want.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, does he recognise that no deal puts at risk not just the delivery of key government policy objectives in many fields but will undermine the export potential of a flourishing architectural services sector? Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the median salary paid to EU 27 architects in the UK, and what is his department’s estimate of the reduction in numbers of architects coming to the UK as a consequence of this imposition of the universal immigration salary cap on this group?
Thirdly, will he look again at why the Government have decided to end the right to an individualised skills assessment for those coming from the EU 27 who may not have fully completed their accreditation? That is known as general systems, as set out in paragraph 2.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. This has the appearance of pettiness, cutting out a route for a minority of potential employees for no good reason and simply souring the atmosphere further. I hope the Government understand that what may appear to be a short and simple statutory instrument in relation to architects could actually have profound implications for the international status and competitiveness of the architectural industry.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA.
I agree very much with what has just been said. Obviously my noble friend is presenting this as a necessary statutory instrument were we to leave the European Union without a deal, and in that sense no doubt we will have to pass it. However, we have also to say that it is an interesting example of the Government’s amazing ability to recognise that there is a need and produce a way of making sure that everyone who is an architect can come here, so we are not going to shoot ourselves in the foot, without saying the key thing, which is that our architects cannot go there. We are becoming an island that wants all the advantages but wants to carry none of the responsibility.
I know my noble friend will not like this, but I say to him that I am sorry that he, of all people, should be asked to present a measure that is another indication of the sense of decline that this nation now has. Instead of recognising that in so many things co-operation, common views, common standards and common deals are necessary, we are busy trying to pretend that there is an alternative route—a kind of 19th-century protectionist route—keeping the opportunity to gain advantages from other people but not expecting to play our part in common standards and the like. I am sorry he has to do it—I am sure that he finds it as difficult as I would were I in his position—but I remind noble Lords of the seriousness of what this actually means. It means becoming a different kind of country, one which is much less worthy than the country that first entered the European Union.
Lord Deben
Well, if it were consulted, why is it not listed in the Explanatory Memorandum, as far as I can see? Perhaps I have misread it—I apologise to my noble friend if I have—but I think it says that the ARB was consulted, or that officials
“have been in regular contact with ARB”.
The ARB is constantly referred to, not the RIBA. I have declared my interest, but it happens to be true that the RIBA is the body to which most architects would look for advice and to which they have given their concerns.
As this is not going to be a both-ways arrangement and because the Government do not want a no-deal exit from the European Union—although what the blazes they do want is increasingly difficult to understand, and I suspect that the negotiations would have gone much better if people had known in the first place what they wanted, because clearly not until very recently did anybody know anything about what we wanted—can the Minister give me an assurance that one of the things we will be seeking immediately in negotiations for some sort of reasonable exit—which of course would leave us in a worse position than we are in at the moment—but even if that was so, would be to make this a reciprocal arrangement and that that reciprocity would be at least as good as the present reciprocity?
That leads me to my last point, which is on the Immigration Rules. The architectural profession is remarkably badly paid. If you look at the average wage of an architect, it is remarkably low for a member of a professional body. So I am concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we should not allow the Immigration Rules to interfere with our ability to recruit from the rest of Europe. It seems to me that this is a serious double jeopardy system. Why do we have to have these rules? Surely we could have had, in these regulations, a very simple system which said that if you got a job with a British architect registered with the ARB you would be able to have that job. Why do we have to double-do it? Is there not a much more sensible way, which is merely to do exactly what we do at the moment and say publicly that we would like this to continue to be reciprocal, although we do not have the ability to make it reciprocal ourselves?
I remind my noble friend of the figures that have been quoted: it is likely that one in four of architects in the London area come from the rest of Europe, so this is no minor matter. Therefore, I hope that we can have assurances that the Government will seek, under any agreement, to have reciprocity and, secondly, that the Minister will look again at the idea that we have to insist upon going through our immigration arrangements, when we could have a perfectly simple system, like the one we have at the moment. We should look very carefully at any income limit in any case because it is likely to affect newly-qualified architects from the rest of Europe in a way that would do our profession no good. It would interfere with, and indeed endanger, the very large amount of money that Britain earns through the primacy of our architectural profession. When you are talking about what may be £2 billion, you are talking about a very serious amount of money. If we cannot recruit newly-qualified experts from the rest of Europe to a shockingly underpaid profession, that would do us a great deal of harm.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time, Newcastle is united in this Grand Committee. I think we would both welcome the noble Lord, who has characteristically analysed the Government’s proposals in a very effective way.
This instrument will freeze the list of architectural qualifications that are recognised immediately before exit day in the event of a no-deal Brexit. As a result, an individual holding one of those qualifications will be eligible to join the UK register of architects if they have access to the profession of architect in their home state. This will allow access to the workforce of EU-qualified and EEA-qualified architects. The register of qualified architects of the UK held by the Architects Registration Board currently includes 40,650 members, 17% of whom were admitted under EU directive procedures. Given that significant number, it is astonishing that no impact assessment appears to have been prepared for this SI. The UK must of course continue to attract the best talent after Brexit and have an immigration system that responds to the needs of industry, especially in the context of the architectural sector. The London’s Architectural Sector report states that the city’s architecture industry is worth £1.7 billion and is growing at 7% every year. That figure is set against the industry’s total value nationally of £4.8 billion, a significant contribution to the economy nationally.
The SI makes little attempt to make up for the damage that the industry has faced since the referendum, which has caused an alarming amount of uncertainty for businesses in the last two and half years. Since the referendum, projects up and down the country have been postponed as this period of chaos has badly damaged the investment market. An article on Consultancy.uk referred to Global by Design, published in 2018 by the RIBA, which said that 68% of architects have already seen Brexit impact their revenue stream as they have had projects put on hold and moreover, crucially, that 74% of architects regard access to the EU single market as necessary if the industry’s international workload is to grow. Already 40% of practices have had projects in the EU cancelled since the referendum.
The regulations fail to protect the recognition of UK-qualified architects’ qualifications in the EEA in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Those architects will have to rely on the individual registration policies of the 27 member states. The Government must look to establish a new mutual recognition agreement with the EU as soon as possible in order to provide reciprocity, and a date for that would be very welcome. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that issue.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The applicant’s ability to establish in the UK will be dependent on Government immigration policies”.
However, the Government’s immigration Bill has stalled and a £30,000 salary requirement for skilled migrants has been suggested. How many architects from EU or EEA countries living in the UK earn more than £30,000 now? How many architects have already registered with the Government’s settled-status scheme? Being a tier 2 sponsor for those earning more than £30,000 is difficult for many architecture firms because the process is lengthy and expensive. Have the Government done any work with the sector and the RIBA to assess exactly how much it will cost and whether the sector can bear the cost? According to the RIBA, the number of EU architects registering to practise in the UK has dropped by 42% since 2016, and 60% of them here at the moment say that they would consider leaving. That would damage architecture as a service both in this country and abroad; it would clearly suffer.
Architectural qualification requirements are frozen during the review period. How long does the Minister expect that period to last? How will architects come and work in the UK with new qualifications during this period? Paragraph 2.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“After EU exit, the ARB may lose access to the Internal Market Information (IMI) system. This facilitates communication between competent authorities. As a result, this instrument places the requirement to provide written verification from their home competent authority on the applicant should ARB be unable to secure it directly from the relevant competent authority”.
What assessment have the Government carried out to determine the ease of getting this written verification? Does it differ between authorities? Paragraph 2.12 states:
“This instrument removes the registration route of General Systems, which enables EU and EEA applicants who do not meet the automatic recognition criteria to work with the ARB to map what experience they do have against the UK criteria, and gain the experience necessary”.
Will the ARB offer any additional help to get candidates to work in the UK?
Finally, what estimate have the Government made of Brexit’s impact on UK practices and individuals currently, or potentially, working in Europe? What steps, if any, are they taking to create a new system including a reciprocal system of accepted professional qualifications?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who responded to the SI. I will seek to deal with the various points they have made.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly emphasised the importance of qualified architects from the EU 27. Of course, this measure goes a bit beyond that because it covers EEA-qualified architects from Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland too. Switzerland is in a similar position but the EU 27 countries make up the most significant part of the regulations. I do not deny that the regulations are important for the United Kingdom—indeed, I would affirm it—because of the impact they would otherwise have on individuals practising here or seeking to do so in future, and because of the importance of this sector to the UK economy. The regulations are therefore important for those positions.
Like other noble Lords, the noble Lord referred to the general immigration position, rather than anything specific to architects as such. Reference has been made to the £30,000 threshold. I should say that as things stand, it is not the defined and final position of the Home Office. Rather, it is a recommendation of the Migration Advisory Committee so we will feed in information regarding different sectors. We are working with our professional business service colleagues in BEIS to collect information from architecture firms around the country on what the threshold should be. I agree with my noble friend about the position of architects as a profession: on the whole—with exceptions, of course—their earnings tend to be on the low side. That will certainly be a relevant factor and one we would wish to pursue.
The noble Lord went on to discuss the recognition of the general systems in a no-deal scenario. He could not understand why we were not pursuing that. I am not sure whether this was grasped, and it may be my fault, but I emphasise that we are seeking to freeze the qualifications that are recognised. This does not mean that those who go on to get those qualifications later on cannot then practise in this country. They can while this remains the legal position, so after this is passed it would not debar anyone with these qualifications from practising in the UK. Indeed, while this remains the law it seeks to facilitate that. It is not those people who already have the qualifications; it is recognising those qualifications. Anyone getting that qualification later on will certainly be able to practise in the United Kingdom. I remind noble Lords that the number of people using the general systems qualification is four or five a year. Of those who make inquiries about it, 96% do not pursue this route because it is very cumbersome and difficult, so it is viewed as better that they qualify in the way we are setting out.
Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the Grand Committee do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this instrument is to remove the legal requirement for Northern Ireland government buildings and court buildings to observe Europe Day—9 May—as a designated flag-flying day after the UK has left the European Union.
Flag-flying from government buildings and court buildings in Northern Ireland is regulated by the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. These regulations provide that on certain designated days the union flag—and, in certain circumstances, other flags—may be flown on government buildings. For the purposes of these regulations, a Northern Ireland government building is defined as a building that is wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. In 2002, the flag-flying requirements in the 2000 regulations were extended to court buildings in Northern Ireland.
The instrument is being made under Section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which makes provisions to deal with arrangements no longer appropriate after the UK leaves the EU. It is worth noting that Europe Day will cease to be a designated flag-flying day across England, Scotland and Wales following the UK’s exit from the EU. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already amended its guidance to that effect.
When this instrument was first laid, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that it should be upgraded to the “made affirmative” procedure so that it could be debated carefully. This is why we are here this evening. I also stress that the power to make these amending regulations under the EU withdrawal Act does not come into force until after exit day. Therefore, subject to the will of Parliament, these regulations will not be made until after exit day has passed. There is every possibility that Europe Day will be marked this year. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may be disappointed and surprised to learn that we do not support this statutory instrument. We think it undesirable and unnecessary. None of us can deny that flags in Northern Ireland are a very sensitive issue. Our sister party in Northern Ireland suffered the consequences of the dispute in Belfast in 2012 when its offices were burned out.
This is about a specific flag—the Europe flag—and a specific day. I am very concerned that DCMS has issued guidance—which I presume is not legally enforceable—that, if we leave the European Union, we should no longer fly the Europe flag on Europe Day. This seems a total denial of where this flag came from and what it is supposed to celebrate, which is not the European Union. The flag is in fact much older than the European Union, or even the Common Market: it was, in fact, created in 1955 as the flag of the Council of Europe. It remains the flag of the Council of Europe and the UK will continue to be a member of the Council—for ever, I hope—although the Prime Minister gives the impression that she would like to leave that organisation as well. I would absolutely deplore, as that was one organisation of which we were a founder member.
It is also interesting to note, as a matter of design, that the design of the flag—12 stars against a sky background —represents symbols of perfection. It represents the 12 apostles, the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 labours of Hercules and the 12 months of the year. It is a symbol of peace in Europe and Europe Day represents peace in Europe, originally foreshadowed by the Schuman declaration. I am pleased that the Minister said that, at least this year, the European flag may continue to fly; at least I think that is what he said, because this year is the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the Council of Europe and it would seem very regrettable then to remove the flag from public buildings in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
I put two questions to the Minister. There is no need whatever for this to be passed, is there not? I am minded—indeed, I intend—to table a Motion to the effect that this statutory instrument should be abandoned and that any such decision as to which flags are flown should be left to the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland as and when they are able to do so. I would also like clarification of what the DCMS guidance means for public buildings in the rest of the United Kingdom where, it seems to me, the Europe flag should fly on Europe Day and other organisations should be allowed to make their own decisions. The only minor detail is whether you fly it on 5 May or 9 May. The European Union chooses to fly it on 9 May, while the Council of Europe flies it on 5 May because that was the date of the foundation of the Council in 1949.
I speak with some passion on this, having been privileged to have been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for six years. I am a passionate believer that the Council of Europe has contributed hugely to the development of, and the sustaining of peace and democracy in, Europe and that the United Kingdom, which Ministers have consistently said may be leaving the European Union—I say may be—is not leaving Europe. I suggest to the Minister that this is a completely inappropriate statutory instrument, that the DCMS guidelines are also completely inappropriate and that the United Kingdom should continue proudly to fly the flag of Europe, not the European Union, on Europe Day.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I was present in the debate when we discussed the flags issue in the first place. In the House of Commons at that time, we sought to ensure that the union flag was not used as a badge of sectarian difference. I was not only present but spoke in favour of the Government’s move, against the united opposition of the Ulster Unionists at that time: they did not want those restrictions. The purpose was to promote peace and harmony and to recognise the union flag as the flag of all who lived in the north of Ireland and not just of one part. Therefore, this is a very important issue and nothing that I say is meant to suggest that we should not have this rather different regulation for the north of Ireland, because this is about the history of the misuse of the union flag for sectarian purposes.
I take that very seriously, but I also take very seriously what seems to me to be a cheap and nasty statutory instrument. We have had to put up with all sorts of statutory instruments that we would have to have if we were to leave the European Union without a deal, but this one is not necessary. There is no reason for it at all, except a nasty little smack at the European Union and at Europe as a whole.
If the Government were trying to be helpful and to include people who are so deeply upset by all the Brexit shenanigans, they would merely have changed the date from 9 May to 5 May. We would merely have flown this flag on the day of the Council of Europe; that is the day when the council flies it. So there was a perfectly reasonable way in which the Government could have done that and in which DCMS could have provided its guidance. The truth is that this is unnecessary in any case. It is just mean to treat people in this way, particularly in the north of Ireland where there was a significant vote in favour of remaining within the European Union, and among those voters were large numbers of unionists.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Murphy will speak shortly from these Benches. I am reminded as I listen to this debate of the words of his predecessor, Leo Abse, MP for Pontypool and then Torfaen for 30 years and responsible for more social legislation than any individual MP. When he announced his retirement, he said: “I do not know who will succeed me. My only advice is: tolerate everyone, tolerate everything, but never ever tolerate the intolerant”.
This provision is a crass act of intolerance. It is not just silly. Those of us who have served in both Houses—a number of us in the Committee today have served in the Commons and in this House—know that at times Parliament has done some silly things, but this is a stupid and offensive thing. I have the honour to serve on the Council of Europe. Together with parliamentarians from both Houses, I will be going there on 7 April for the next full session of its parliamentary assembly.
This is the 70th anniversary of the Council of Europe —we were its co-founders—which predates the European Union. We have heard Ministers and members of the Government saying time and again, “We are leaving the EU, not leaving Europe”. That point was made earlier in the debate. This is a symbol of us all in Europe. The Council of Europe is larger, older and more united than the European Union. This is the barmiest thing to do, and it is offensive. A leading Conservative, Sir Roger Gale, leads Britain’s representatives in the Council of Europe. He does it with pride and does a good job. Please do not think this is blowing our own trumpet, but I can tell the Committee that the British delegation to the Council of Europe makes a huge contribution. We take part in most of the debates; some very powerful arguments and good ideas are put forward. We are listened to and benefit from being part of this greater, wider assembly.
The symbol of the Council of Europe, of us all within Europe, should be retained. We should use it, we should fly it and—as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said—if we have an issue about the date we should move it to 5 May, the date on which the Council of Europe was set up. The Government really ought to think again. As I say, this is not just silly; it is stupid and offensive.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where under the current legislation there are 18 designated days for flying the flag on government buildings. Usually these discussions are highly contentious back in Northern Ireland; as we have heard, in extreme cases—I am thinking of Belfast City Hall—unfortunately they can lead to civil unrest. This is a delicate matter and has to be discussed in a reasonable fashion.
I take a different point of view. I think it would no longer be appropriate to fly the flag, especially if we leave Europe through Brexit, so I support the instrument before us. On a slightly wider issue, as part of the fresh start agreement negotiated by the Stormont parties in November 2015, a 15-person commission was set up to study a range of long-standing, complex and challenging areas in relation to the expression of mutual and cultural identity in Northern Ireland. One of the issues which was to be addressed in that was the unofficial flying of flags in outdoor spaces such as on lamp-posts and so on. Has that draft report been completed? If so, can its findings be published in the absence of a sitting Executive? Maybe this committee, if it is still sitting, could take up the issue. I support the flag not being flown if indeed we leave Europe.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I think I support the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, on the situation in Northern Ireland itself. I assume the Government consulted on this issue with the Northern Ireland parties—at least, I hope so. If they did not, or indeed if they did, it has to be seen in the context of a very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, as the Minister and others will know.
Today we have a specific issue in front of us about the European flag. I suspect that this instrument is both spiteful and flawed. The noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Touhig have given powerful reasons why it is spiteful, but I do not think the Government have actually thought of the implications of the flag also being the flag of the Council of Europe. There is no indication in the literature we have or in the debate held in the other place. It seems to me that the Government believed this was entirely about the European Union and completely forgot the issue of the Council of Europe and the fact that there are in Europe two separate days to celebrate Europe. Clearly 9 May, the European Union day, will no longer be celebrated in the way it has in the past, but 5 May still would be. Both Ireland and the United Kingdom remain strong members of the Council of Europe.
The other issue affecting the position of Northern Ireland in Europe is equally sensitive Some 56% of the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain. I was European Minister for two years in Northern Ireland. I actually went to the Council of Europe to explain the Good Friday agreement to all the members and they played a big role, as indeed did the EU itself, not just with the peace money; the support that came to Northern Ireland during that period was immense.
We cannot go back over the issues affecting why it is that we are leaving Europe and the effect on Northern Ireland save to say that while our being members of the EU meant that the border on the island of Ireland was blurred and there was constant contact between Irish and British officials and Ministers because of our joint membership of the same club. Europe has played an enormous part in changing the way that Northern Ireland has operated over the past 20 years, and indeed in the Good Friday agreement. We cannot suddenly wipe away all that history in a few seconds, but this particular instrument seems to be trying to do precisely that. Symbolically, it is trying to say: “The European Union, the Council of Europe and indeed everything European had nothing at all to do with the development of Northern Ireland over the last 20 or 30 years”, when the contrary is the case. That is why it is spiteful.
It seems to me that it is up to the local authorities and the other public bodies in Northern Ireland if they wish to fly the Council of Europe flag on Council of Europe Day. What is wrong with that? No, this is a nasty little statutory instrument. It ignores the past, it forgets about the Council of Europe, and it should really be consigned to a dustbin.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this is a more controversial issue than might have been anticipated by those who do not know Northern Ireland well or indeed the passions of noble Lords here gathered; I think that is important to recognise. I shall try to explain why we are where we are, and then the Committee must reflect upon whether that is adequate to address the issues I have raised.
The first issue to stress relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie about the notion of what the flag represents—indeed, being the shared flag of the Council of Europe. This is primarily about flying the union flag in Northern Ireland. If there are two flagpoles then the second flagpole may fly the additional EU flag at a lower level, but if there is only one then it will fly the union flag. It is important to stress again, and the noble Lord many wish to inquire further into this, how many government buildings in Northern Ireland have two flagpoles. The answer is precious few. We are talking here about the flying of the union flag in almost every case.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Would that therefore mean that the union flag could not be flown on 5 May, which is Council of Europe Day, as opposed to 9 May, which is European Union Day?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord has pre-empted the question that I was about to answer, so I shall come straight on to that. Under this particular legislation, which of course follows on from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we are able to adjust the legislation to remove 9 May from being a flag-flying day. If we wish to switch the day to 5 May, though, we are precluded from doing so under this legislation. That is not available to us under this legislation. Therefore, in order for us to move forward, we have to go back to the original regulation, the Act dating back to the year 2000. In order for us to make any changes to that Act, noble Lords will be aware that there is a three-part process that wholly involves the Assembly in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly is consulted, it reports to the Secretary of State and, on that basis, changes can be made. In the absence of an Assembly there can be no adjustment from 9 May to 5 May, or to any other day, in that regard.
Lord Deben
I am wondering why we do not just leave it on 9 May. If you cannot change it—which I understand—we should leave it on 9 May and announce that this is a reference to our membership of the Council of Europe. If it is the union flag, or the two flags, then that is perfectly all right. Why do we have to take it away? It is much better to leave it. Otherwise, it says something different.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord makes a point which he has made on many occasions—I do not doubt it. Earlier in his remarks, he said that we could do it on 9 May, but it would be better to do it on 5 May because the Council of Europe has a day that we could celebrate as well. He is now reverting back to 9 May, thereby reversing the points that he made in his earlier speech, and I will therefore set them aisde.
Importantly, we are recognising that in Northern Ireland—as anywhere else in the UK—flags are a sensitive issue. They are heavily regulated. Failure to do so has led not only to mistrust but to civil unrest. We must treat the reality in Northern Ireland with caution. This is why the adjustment to flying the flags on different days, or recognising—as we have not been able to do in Northern Ireland—the additional members of the Royal Family who are entitled to certain flag flying days, cannot happen without the express involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is absolutely appropriate, given how sensitive this matter is.
We are conflating two issues: Europe and Northern Ireland. When we look back to the period 1998 to 2000 in Northern Ireland, we begin to recognise that the flags issue was not only live, but dangerous. Therefore, we have always tried to move this forward inside Northern Ireland with permission. In this instance, we are making a correction and ensuring that the whole United Kingdom is treated in the same manner.
This brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. Guidance issued by one of the Whitehall departments is different because it is not bound by regulation, as these regulations apply to Northern Ireland. They are not needed here because they are not as controversial. There will be no restriction on the flying of the flag of Europe in many places at council level, wherever they wish to do so. The actual designation of official flag flying days is heavily regulated in Northern Ireland. We are only correcting for the reality that Europe Day will not be celebrated in Northern Ireland because it is the flag of membership of the EU and that will not be true thereafter.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I am not clear from the Minister’s initial remarks whether he is saying that the flag may be flown this year. First of all, if the longer departure date occurs, we will still be a member of the European Union on 5 or 9 May. I had the impression he said that, in any case, they could fly this year. If that is true, we can forget about this for another year anyway, by which time we can address all the other issues.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I fear that the noble Lord has misunderstood my points. If I may, I will restate and re-emphasise them. I said that this regulation will come in only after we have exited the European Union. As the noble Lord will be aware, the point at which we exit the European Union is not yet clear. If that date is after 9 May, then the flag will fly this year because that regulation will not be amendable. This order amends it only after the point of exit. That is why for this year—I am being very frank—it is unclear whether the flag will fly as per the regulations within the amended 2000 order. Up until that point, I cannot give any greater clarity. We are doing this now because we are able to do it under the existing legislation in order to correct the situation following the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
There may come a time when those in Northern Ireland wish to reflect on which flags they fly and when they wish to fly them—I have little doubt about that—but until the Assembly comes together to determine that, it will be unable to that matter forward. I note how important this matter has been and I state again, as carefully as I can, that Northern Ireland is the only part of this kingdom in which we have had to regulate the flying of flags. Nowhere else have we had to do so. Nowhere else at council level would we anticipate anything other than the flying of flags which people wish to fly, whether they be a union flag, a European Union flag or flags for other particular purposes. This will no doubt continue. Here we are talking about a very strict and specific piece of legislation which affects only Northern Ireland.
Lord Deben
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. If we changed this, we would have to go through a whole system. I understand that. It was a little unfair of him to complain that I was prepared to say that if he found that difficult, we might do it in a different way. It seems very odd that that we are removing this without going through that system. We have not asked all the people who have to be asked if we going to put something else in but we are unilaterally deciding to take this day out. I find that difficult.
I started off by saying that I have been through those debates and I know them perfectly well. I got into a lot of trouble with my unionist friends because I fought for what the Government wanted. I am perfectly aware of the difficulty in the north of Ireland, but is it acceptable to remove something without that process, when it is not acceptable to add or change something about that process? It seems unacceptable to do this unilaterally.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord, sitting as he does in a legislature, will appreciate the difference between making law and interpreting how you fly flags. At present, the difficulty he speaks of is not just a difficulty but an illegality: that we would not be able to move forward by adjusting the dates in Northern Ireland because of the restrictions of the law. What we might wish to do beyond that may be described as a difficulty, but what we seek to do here is to be legally correct in this instance. I am aware that the noble Lord has been passionate in his defence of the union flag and the union flag in Northern Ireland. I am also aware of how controversial that flag has been in Northern Ireland, for many different reasons.
The European Union flag we have flown on the ninth, which is flown across Europe, is primarily a flag of membership of the EU. We do not fly it in recognition of our membership of the Council of Europe because, most of the time—if I am being frank as a former Member of the European Parliament—people were rarely aware of the distinction between the Council of Europe and the European Council and the fact that one preceded the other by several decades. Even today, very few people marching on these streets will necessarily draw that distinction.
One of the great sins, I suspect, of this country—indeed, perhaps of our media—is how often we have been unable to explain in clear terms how the EU works, how our responsibilities within the Council of Europe work and the difference between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. We conflate these things constantly and I am fully aware that people right now will probably be unaware that the Council of Europe and in the EU, one heavily predating the other, have the same flag and, indeed, a shared anthem—and have had for some time, albeit that in the EU it is an unofficial anthem. All these things become conflated. The reality we face is simple: under the EU withdrawal agreement that we moved forward last year, this piece of legislation is uncontentious. It is important to stress that the European statutory instruments committee of this House said that, as a matter of policy, there is nothing contentious in the amendments proposed by this instrument.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It may be, and the noble Lord may wish to bring that up with that committee. It may well be that he wishes, on this occasion, to determine what flags shall be flown in Northern Ireland, to take that decision and move this in a particular direction. I would counsel against that for many different reasons, not least that, as we have said before, this issue is much more sensitive in Northern Ireland and we must be careful as we look at it in Northern Ireland, particularly as it primarily concerns the union flag. I stress again that it affects the union flag more than the flag nobly described by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.
The challenges we face are straightforward. We may take this order and move it forward. The noble Lord may decide that is not something he wishes to do and he may wish to debate it further. If we are to debate this further, I suggest that we make sure that there are a number of Members in that debate who hail from Northern Ireland and are able to give their experience on the issue of flags because this is not primarily an issue about European flags but an issue about what flags represent in Northern Ireland. I suspect that he is not liking what I am saying but I fear I am going to have to move forward on that basis.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I seek guidance from the Chair. I have indicated that I am not happy and I do not wish this to be accepted. I know we cannot vote but I think it should be debated in the Chamber. We have a problem with the Chamber: I am sure that the Irish Members will turn up but we do not have a balanced representation in the Chamber. The second point I want to make is that Europe Day is about peace in Europe, not the European Union.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am very clear about what Europe Day represents, having been a Member of the European Parliament. I have spent a great deal of my life—10 years—in Europe representing the Scottish Parliament in Europe. I am fully aware of what Europe Day represents. I am also a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, so I know what flags mean in Northern Ireland and I do not think we should be conflating the two in the manner the noble Lord suggests, but if he is minded to do so that is his prerogative and his right. I remind him only that this is a matter primarily about the union flag, not the European flag.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I clarify for the noble Lord that although we do not vote in Grand Committee, I will take the voices. The Question is that the Grand Committee do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I must remind the Grand Committee that a single call of “Not content” has the effect of negativing the Motion. With that in mind, I put the Question again.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to improve children’s and young people’s access to mental health care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the NHS is on track to meet the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health commitment that 70,000 more children and young people will access treatment each year by 2020-21. Under the NHS Long Term Plan, a further 345,000 children and young people will receive support by 2023-24. Our recent Green Paper sets out our plans to pilot a four-week waiting time for specialist NHS mental health services for children and young people.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and welcome the commitment to prioritising investment in mental health care for children and young people. However, data published by the NHS in November showed that only one in four young people with a mental health disorder accessed specialist mental health services in the previous year. I welcome plans from the Government to increase this figure to 100% within the decade, but given that three-quarters of children with a diagnosable mental health condition do not currently get access to the support they need, how will the Government act to help this generation of children who will have moved on to adult services before this rollout is complete?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the right reverend Prelate for her very important question. We are coming from a low base in children’s and young people’s mental health services, and successive Governments have failed to prioritise these services as they should have. That is exactly why the long-term plan sets out our determination to address this—to ensure that all children get the care they need. With more money, more staff and more beds, there will be £2.3 billion a year more for this area by 2023-24, a figure that is growing faster than the rest of the NHS budget. It is why the NHS and HEE are targeting to recruit 8,000 more children’s and young people’s mental health staff, and why we are bringing in the first ever access and waiting services. I accept, however, that the pace at which this is going is frustrating, but it is important to understand the base from which we are coming.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on pace, will the Minister acknowledge that this Government and their predecessor, the coalition Government, have made any number of promises about investment in and prioritisation of mental health services, particularly for children and young adults, but that when it comes to the decisions made by clinical commissioning groups, the reality is that they have not brought them to fruition? What guarantees do we have that this time clinical commissioning groups will do what they have been asked?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is very experienced in this area and has been involved with local clinical commissioning groups. The NHS has already opened 117 additional new mental health beds, and we have introduced new waiting standards for psychosis and eating disorders among children. Progress is already being made, but we should not dismiss the frustrations of those trying to access services. That is why we have put in place ambitious new targets with the long-term plan: we want to see 100% of children able to access the care they need.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, about two-thirds of children with autism and two-fifths of children with special educational needs experience mental health problems. But the provision of specialist clinical community child learning disabilities services is sparse. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that the needs of those vulnerable young people are planned for in the new funding allocation?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is right: those with particular needs, where autism or learning disabilities cross over into mental illness, must be taken into account. Some distressing figures show that those with learning disabilities do not get the physical health assessments that they need either. This must be taken into account and is in part why the children and young people’s Green Paper puts in place designated senior leads for mental health in schools and mental health support teams in and around schools, so that those needs can be identified as early as possible, and we can prioritise prevention and early identification of mental health needs when they arise.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, the first mental health support teams will be set up in 25 trailblazer areas, of which 12 will also trial a four-week waiting time. Will those teams be in partnership with local authorities and the relevant CCGs, and who will monitor and evaluate the outcomes?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The outcomes will be monitored by NHS England, but also by the CCGs. Of course, they will be taken into account by local authorities as well.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, given the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination on the ground between local mental health services, what assessment have the Government made of the potential benefits of establishing local offers for mental health, mirroring the approach to local offers for special educational needs introduced by the Children and Families Act, to improve access?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is very expert in this area, and I thank her for that interesting proposal. I should like to take it back to the teams in the department and write to her on that point, if that would be okay.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I have been told that the Government expect every health body to provide a seven-day specialist multidisciplinary service to prevent people with autism needing in-patient care. That has been government policy since 2015. In the last four years, there has been a 24% increase in autistic people without a learning disability being placed in mental health hospitals. What are the Government doing about this policy failure?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord raises an extremely important and difficult area of service. This is exactly why the Government have just launched a review of autism services, which is currently open for consultation. We are trying to improve these services as we speak.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, as a trustee of a mental health service for adolescents—the Brent Centre for Young People—I welcome the additional funding the Government are bringing forward. Is the Minister aware, however, that one of the most effective ways of preventing children having to access mental health care is supporting, for instance, groups of adoptive parents, foster carers or head teachers, with a senior clinician? However, there is concern that many senior experienced clinicians have been lost because of the shortage of funding. Will the Minister look at what she can do to stem that loss, find out what the issue is, and do what she can to invest in that area as well?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Earl for his question. Obviously, recruitment aims in the mental health service are essential, and the workforce plan sets out an aim for 600 full-time posts in mental health. We have already discussed the Government’s plan in the Green Paper to set up 8,000 new children’s and young people’s posts in mental health. But that is no good if we are not also retaining those staff. NHS Improvement and NHS Employers are now working to ensure that all mental health trusts are given the tools to drive improvements in retention. This is a programme that has seen improved turnover, and we shall keep monitoring it to ensure that we retain the staff we work so hard to recruit.
Devolved Administrations
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what new proposals they are considering to facilitate co-decision making on United Kingdom matters between the Government and the devolved administrations.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government and devolved Administrations are working together to develop common frameworks in policy areas where powers returning from the EU intersect with devolved competence and where we need to continue working together following EU exit. We are also carrying out a joint review of intergovernmental relations with the devolved Administrations, considering both the principles and machinery that underpin relations and how they can facilitate the best relationships possible for the future.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I hope that that will have a positive outcome, but will the Minister take note of a publication today by the Institute for Government entitled Ministers Reflect on Devolution? If so, he will note the frustration expressed by Ministers of all parties about the relationship between devolved and UK Ministers. Given that the UK is now in effect a quasi-federal state, is it not time for a more fundamental review of how the devolved Administrations can genuinely be part of UK decision-making, even considering a royal commission and the possible role of qualified majority voting?
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand the frustration to which the noble Lord refers: that was reflected in our debate earlier this year initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. After that, I undertook to communicate with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who wrote back to try to allay those concerns, and a copy has been placed in the Library. The review to which I referred is a joint review and can make progress only if it is agreed by all four parties. The noble Lord suggested the heavy guns of a royal commission; I think some nimble light artillery might be better focused to address the issue.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, when did UK Ministers last meet Welsh Assembly Ministers, and when do the Government intend to reply to the severe criticism made by our Delegated Powers Committee last October of the Agriculture Bill now before Parliament, which sought to bypass the devolved legislatures—or are the Government blind to the fact that the devolved Administrations are now part of our constitution?
Lord Young of Cookham
A top priority for the Government is the constitutional integrity of the UK, and that is secured by a good working relationship between all four Governments. I accept that the intergovernmental architecture underpinning that relationship needs buttressing, and that is why we are undertaking the review that I mentioned. As for meetings, as the noble and learned Lord will know, there is a plenary JMC, a European one, a EU negotiations one and a ministerial forum. They are meeting regularly. The ministerial forum last met in February. The JMC on EU negotiations also met in February. Perhaps I could write to him on the specific issue that he raised about the DPRRC.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that in the context of the current European negotiations, there was considerable dismay in Cardiff—and, I think, in Edinburgh as well—when there were reports that Northern Ireland may be given a special seat at the table when discussions are going on? Will he assure us that all the devolved Governments will be treated on an even-handed basis in such matters?
Lord Young of Cookham
The Prime Minister has made it clear that she wants all the devolved Administrations to have an enhanced role in the next stage of the negotiations with the EU as we move forward, I hope, after exit. I know of no plans to give preferential treatment to one devolved Administration over another.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the devolved Administrations are consulted on both rolled-over and new trade agreements before they are initialled?
Lord Young of Cookham
I refer my noble friend to the answer I gave when she asked me about future trade agreements. The Prime Minister has promised an enhanced role. Official discussions are taking place to bring some definition to that, but I shall certainly take on board my noble friend’s request that they should be involved in trade negotiations, which of course include many of their vital interests—particularly, say, fisheries in Scotland.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned a case for intergovernmental negotiations, but does he see a case for inter-parliamentary negotiations so that parliaments and assemblies get a role, and to find a way of feeding the regions of England into this?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Baroness raises a good point. The review I referred to is about intergovernmental relationships, not inter-parliamentary ones. If the parliaments want to take action independently of government to build up closer relationships, I see no reason why they should not.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend and Her Majesty’s Government take particular care in drafting the necessary secondary legislation for the Brexit process, while having particular regard to the Welsh Assembly, which made some complaints on this?
Lord Young of Cookham
I recognise the particular role my noble friend has when it comes to statutory instruments, and I can give him that assurance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has already been asked about what has happened to the English regions. Now that we have a rather privileged relationship for the three national assemblies, is devolution to the English regions stuck? In Yorkshire we have made very detailed proposals for a One Yorkshire scheme. The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse suggested that we had to accept four city regions for Yorkshire or nothing, in spite of the fact that there is no city in one of those four proposed regions.
Lord Young of Cookham
Devolution is England is not stuck. I spend many hours in the Moses Room dealing with statutory instruments, either setting up combined authorities, where local authorities wish to combine, or local mayors, who will shortly be elected, so we are making good progress in devolving power from Westminster to the local authorities.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, is the notion that Northern Ireland is a special case somehow inevitable as there is no devolved Administration in operation? Is that the rationale that the Minister is pointing to?
Lord Young of Cookham
A priority for the UK Government is to restore the devolved institutions in Stormont. In the absence of Executive Ministers, there is a limit to the decisions which the civil servants in Northern Ireland can take. That is why last November the Secretary of State issued guidance on decision-making for Northern Ireland during the period for Northern Ireland Executive formation. In the meantime, we are taking such steps as we can to develop a common framework, but there does come a point where you cannot make much more progress without prejudicing the freedom of Northern Ireland to do what it wants.
Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to meet representatives of Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (Fair) to discuss the operation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse; and when they plan for any such meeting to be held.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to meet representatives of Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform to discuss the operation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The inquiry operates independently of government and its independence is crucial to its effectiveness.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, Sir Cliff Richard, Sir Edward Heath, Lords Brittan, Bramall and Janner, Paul Gambaccini and former MP Harvey Proctor were all prominent, all accused, and all treated by the media as guilty. They were never tried, but their reputations were trashed. They were never convicted, and therefore innocent in law. Those who are alive received damages; for the dead, there was not even an apology. Do Ministers really believe, in their heart of hearts, that the police invasion of their homes, with worldwide coverage through a lack of anonymity, and IICSA once again dragging their names through the mud of an inquiry—again, being transmitted around the world—is fair and just? Is it not fair to ask that these and many other cases are on an agenda between government and Fair?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I reiterate that the inquiry is not looking into whether Lord Janner or anyone else—the noble Lord mentioned a number of people—was guilty of any crimes, but at how institutions such as the police, which the noble Lord mentioned, responded to the allegations made against these people. The inquiry’s focus is deliberately on the conduct of institutions and how the allegations were dealt with. As noble Lords will know, the police guidance has been updated to make it clear that people should not be named before they are charged unless there is a public interest reason to do so.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Has not enough unfair damage been done to the reputations of the distinguished people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred? Should it not be our overriding duty to expunge it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally understand my noble friend’s point, and I know the feelings there are in this House about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has a Private Member’s Bill going through the House; on some of its substance, HMICFRS will undertake a review, and the Government want to wait until the outcome of that before taking any further action.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is clear from the Gatwick Airport drone incident in December that current guidelines—even the updated guidelines that the noble Baroness talked about—are not sufficient to protect those falsely accused of any offence from adverse publicity. How many more innocent people are going to have their lives ruined before the Government legislate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord comes back to his Private Member’s Bill, in the sense that he is talking about the media. His Bill deals with media reporting before charge and after arrest. Again, I say to him that DCMS is minded to wait until HMICFRS has reviewed police guidance on media relations before considering whether further action should be taken.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords does the noble Baroness agree that we should always remember the victims, those who are raped and abused; recognise that these crimes are underreported; and make every effort to ensure that victims come forward and the perpetrators are brought to justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am very glad the noble Lord has asked that question. Quite often in these situations the victims can be overlooked, and thousands of accounts of sexual abuse have now been shared with the Truth Project, which noble Lords and others will have seen on the television. We must not overlook the victims. We must ensure that all the processes are in place in order that perpetrators will be brought to justice. Victims are, therefore, at the heart of what we do.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, am I correct in inferring from what my noble friend said that the Government will give their support to my noble friend Lord Lexden’s Bill?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will have to consider it in due course.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
Will the Minister advise the House whether victims are getting full therapeutic support to recover from their trauma? What steps are being taken to ensure that all victims get the excellent support they need to recover from their past trauma?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Earl raises a very important question, because of course some victims will never recover from the abuse and trauma they have suffered. The whole approach now of early intervention and putting a package of support around those who are utterly traumatised, and may be for the rest of their life, is absolutely key to any recovery that might be possible.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, the Minister has just told the House that this inquiry will not make findings of fact. Why then are the accusers to be heard in public session, transmitted all around the world, to make their accusations without even a proper interrogation of them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is clear that there will be a mechanism for witnesses’ accounts to be examined and questioned. It will not be a one-sided process at all.
Health: HIV
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to bring an end to new transmission of HIV infection by 2030.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Bloomsbury Network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, due to increased access to testing and other measures, there has been a welcome 28% decline in new HIV diagnoses since 2015. We are also one of the first countries in the world to meet the UNAIDS 90-90-90 HIV targets. To build on this progress, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has announced the Government’s commitment to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. Work is under way to take this forward.
Lord Black of Brentwood
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I know that noble Lords across the House who have long campaigned for this moment—I am hazarding a guess that I might include the Lord Speaker in view of his exceptional leadership in this area—will applaud the Secretary of State’s commitment to eliminating new HIV transmissions by 2030. In the certain knowledge that those with HIV on effective treatment cannot pass it on, it is now in our power to bring an end to this cruel illness. Does my noble friend agree that what is needed now is a comprehensive national HIV strategy, which brings together all of the steps that we need to take: prevention through both sustainable access to PrEP and effective treatment for those diagnosed; more testing to stop late diagnosis; greater investment in sexual health services; education about HIV in schools; an end to the fragmentation of HIV services; and a commitment to tackle stigma?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for that Question and pay tribute to the work of the Lord Speaker. I agree with the premise of his Question. Public Health England has attributed the success that we have had, with 92% of people with HIV now diagnosed, 98% of patients receiving treatment and 97% virally suppressed to a combination of HIV prevention, including expanded HIV testing, prompt initiation of antiretroviral therapy after diagnosis, condom provision and PrEP, all of which we will need to build on as we develop plans to achieve zero infections by 2030. He is absolutely right that these will all need to go into development of that plan.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is greatly to be welcomed that science is now leading us to end new transmissions by 2030. But is the Minister aware that women who are HIV-positive are four to five times more likely to develop cervical cancer? I agree with the noble Lord that there is a need for a new strategy. Will the forward plan and investment in public health recognise the need for investment in prevention and early intervention and a package of care for all women living with HIV, which includes going for regular smear tests?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is absolutely right that the key to us making progress is prevention and early intervention and also understanding about any crossover consequences with other illnesses. She is also right that the key is closing the gaps now. In 2017, 43% of diagnoses were made at a late stage of HIV and, although there has been a decline, the largest group diagnosed at late stage were black African heterosexual men and women. It is important that we close those gaps. Some key projects have been working on that through the HIV Innovation Fund so when we bring forward plans for HIV 2030 it is important that we find out how we can close those gaps if we are indeed to get to zero by 2030.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in order to end HIV by 2030 all children need to understand their own risks through comprehensive relationship and sex education and that schools that refuse to teach it are jeopardising the health of all pupils? Does she agree that that should not happen?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
Knowledge about safer sex and sexual health is essential for young people. They must be equipped to understand and to make safe, informed and healthy choices. That is why we have brought in compulsory SRE for the first time, which all schools should be required to teach.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, as well as the very welcome national strategy that the Minister described, will she accept that this is a global problem? In other parts of the world, progress has not been as great as it has been here. We need to see that progress. In that respect, does she recognise the work that the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has had on reducing incidence worldwide of these killer diseases? Will she commit for the Government to be active in their leadership in the replenishment of the Global Fund this year?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We can be incredibly proud that the UK is a world leader in efforts to end the AIDS epidemic, including through our huge investment in the Global Fund, which has provided 17.5 million people with treatment since 2017, and of course through DfID’s research on HIV prevention. That is exactly why DfID has committed to continuing its focus on HIV prevention technologies and I am happy to share that commitment with the noble Baroness.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, may I echo my noble friend Lord Black’s praise for the Secretary of State’s ambition and associate myself with his policy suggestions? My noble friend will be aware that there is a similarly infectious, life-limiting disease that affects similar people, called Hepatitis C. We now have a cure for that disease: we are able not just to eliminate it as a public health risk but actually to cure people. In drawing up any strategy, will the Minister ensure that the department also makes sure that curing Hep C and making that cure available to those people is as big a priority as eliminating HIV?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for his question and also for his leadership on this issue while he was in the department. He knows that the Government are committed to being a world leader in domestic eradication of Hepatitis C. He will know also that a legal challenge by AbbVie delayed the start of contracts on this issue by six months. I am pleased to be able to inform the House, however, that in January the High Court found in NHS England’s favour on all grounds in this matter. We can now go forward with those innovative contracts, which are worth about £1 billion over five years. That will be rapidly put in place over the coming months, which will allow us to make progress on this matter.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, although I congratulate the Government on the progress they have made in the diagnosis and treatment of HIV, does the Minister realise that women in this country have an ever-decreasing service for cervical cytology and, indeed, for having those smear tests read in laboratories, given that the number of laboratories is being decreased? Does she realise also that, because of cuts in local government funding, there are very few family planning clinics now, either for women or young girls? That means that the provision of contraception is very limited, because they have to go to their GPs.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for that probing question. The Government have mandated local authorities to commission comprehensive open access sexual services. We have continued the ring-fence around public health services in local authorities at £3 billion a year and they have maintained 3 million attendances in 2017, which is an increase since 2016. What is important is that the long-term plan has also identified sexual health services as an area for review going forward, which is one of the findings from PHE. This is therefore a cause for encouragement, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, it might be useful to the House if I make a brief statement about today’s business.
As the House will be aware, the House of Commons will hear a Statement from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister beginning at 3.30 pm. Following usual channel discussions this morning, I suggest that it will be for the convenience of those taking part in today’s debate in the House if we adjourn during pleasure to await the opening exchanges on the Prime Minister’s Statement. My noble friend the Leader will then repeat the Statement and, following 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions and answers, we will move immediately to the debate. We will seek to ensure that those who are not signed up to speak are given priority when intervening on the repeated Statement. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure and, in moving this Motion, I suggest that we do not reconvene before 4.30 pm.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I just want to be sure that the House will adjourn until 4.30 pm, because the Government Chief Whip did not quite say that. The Lord Speaker did but, if it is not to be exactly 4.30 pm, we will need some alert.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I said not before 4.30 pm. I hope that that is clear. It means that if the exchanges in the House of Commons go on for longer, we will not reconvene until the initial exchanges are over.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, that is not at all satisfactory. If the exchanges drag on—the Speaker has a tendency to allow them to go on and on—we will not know exactly when to reconvene and will be hanging around. Will there be an alert about when we are to reconvene, or will we reconvene at 4.30 pm? We need to know precisely when we have to be back.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If it helps the noble Lord, I will make sure that we are here at 4.30 pm.
European Council
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council.
Before the Council, I wrote to President Tusk to seek formal approval for the legally binding assurances on the Northern Ireland backstop and alternative arrangements agreed in Strasbourg on 11 March. I reported your Statement, Mr Speaker, which made it clear that, for a further meaningful vote to take place, the deal would have to be,
‘fundamentally different—not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance’.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/19; col. 781.]
I explained that, as a result, some honourable and right honourable Members were seeking further changes to the withdrawal agreement, and I requested a short extension to the Article 50 process to 30 June. I regret having to do so. I wanted to deliver Brexit on 29 March, but I am conscious of my duties as Prime Minister to all parts of our United Kingdom and of the damage to that union that leaving without a deal could do when one part of it is without devolved government and unable therefore to prepare properly.
The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement and the joint statement supplementing the political declaration. This should increase the confidence of the House that the backstop is unlikely ever to be used and will be only temporary if it is. But the Council also reiterated, once again, its longstanding position that there could be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement. So, however the House decides to proceed this week, everyone should be absolutely clear that changing the withdrawal agreement is simply not an option.
Turning to extending Article 50, this has always required the unanimous agreement of the other 27 member states. As I have made clear before, it was never guaranteed that the EU would agree to an extension or the terms on which we requested it, and it did not. Instead, the Council agreed that, if the House approves the withdrawal agreement this week, our departure will be extended to 11 pm on 22 May. This will allow time for Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is legally necessary for the deal to be ratified. But if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, our departure will instead be extended only to 11 pm on 12 April. At this point, we would either leave with no deal or we would,
‘indicate a way forward before this date for consideration by the European Council’.
If this involved a further extension, it would certainly mean participation in the European parliamentary elections.
The Council’s conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday. So, while the Government have today laid a statutory instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law. Were the House not to pass the statutory instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit.
I continue to believe that the right path forward is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU as soon as possible with a deal—now, on 22 May—but it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that, as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote. I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to build support so that we can bring the vote forward this week and guarantee Brexit. If we cannot, the Government made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way forward.
The amendment in the name of my right honourable friend the Member for West Dorset seeks to provide for this process by taking control of the Order Paper. I continue to believe that doing so would be an unwelcome precedent to set, which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions. So the Government will oppose this amendment this evening but, in order to fulfil our commitments to this House, would seek to provide government time in order for this process to proceed. It would be for this House to put forward options for consideration, and to determine the procedure by which they wished to do so.
But I must confess that I am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes. When we have tried this kind of thing in the past, it has produced contradictory outcomes or no outcome at all. There is a further risk when it comes to Brexit, as the UK is only one half of the equation and the votes could lead to an outcome that is unnegotiable with the EU. No Government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is. So I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House, but I do commit to engaging constructively with this process.
There are many different views on the way forward, but I want to explain the options as I understand them. The default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal. But this House has previously expressed its opposition to that path, and may very well do so again this week. The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum. But the bottom line remains: if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal, we will have to seek a longer extension. This would entail the UK having to hold European elections, and it would mean that we will not have been able to guarantee Brexit. These are now choices that the House will have the opportunity to express its view on.
Mr Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to address the House since my remarks last Wednesday evening. I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision, but I know that many Members across this House are frustrated too. We all have difficult jobs to do. People on all sides of the debate hold passionate views and I respect those differences. I would also like to thank all those colleagues who have supported the deal so far, and those who have taken the time to meet with me to discuss their concerns.
I hope we can all agree that we are now at the moment of decision. In doing so, we must confront the reality of the hard choices before us. Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen. No Brexit must not happen. And a slow Brexit that extends Article 50 beyond 22 May, forces the British people to take part in European elections and gives up control of any of our borders, laws, money or trade is not a Brexit that will bring the British people together.
I know that the deal I have put forward is a compromise. It seeks to deliver on the referendum and retain trust in our democracy, while also respecting the concerns of those who voted to remain. But if this House can back it, we would be out of the European Union in less than two months. There would no further extensions, no threat to Brexit and no risk of a no deal. I believe it is the way to deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as we are about to have a debate, I think it would be useful for me to keep my comments for when I speak in that debate.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the European Council says in its conclusions—I have a copy in front of me—that it,
“expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward”,
before 12 April 2019. This cannot simply mean that there is a contradiction with the sentence that follows, which says:
“The European Council reiterates that there can be no re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement that was agreed … in November 2018”.
Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the European Council would be ready to look at an alternative set of proposals that could be put forward by this Parliament?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is right that there are two elements to the extension that has been agreed. If the deal is passed this week, there will be an extension to 22 May to get the legislation through. If the deal is not passed this week, the extension is to 12 April, at which point we will either leave with no deal, because that remains the legal default even post the SI, or a plan will be put forward for alternative arrangements. Those are the two options that we have in front of us, which is why we are hoping to be able to bring the vote forward again.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Perhaps I am being a bit slow, but could my noble friend explain something to me? She said that the Council’s decision, accepted by this Government, trumps the withdrawal Act which this Parliament passed. Will she confirm that? Therefore, whatever happens, there is no question that the departure date of 29 March has been put back, because it has been overruled by the European Council’s decision. Is that correct?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The agreement of the UK Government and the European Union for this extension is now international law, which takes precedence. We have laid the SI to extend Article 50 in those two ways and, indeed, that now trumps domestic law.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, there is one point I would like to clarify. The noble Baroness and the Prime Minister referred to taking a decision on the agreement this week. My understanding was that we had until 12 April to take that decision. Is the reference to “this week” part of the European Council’s decision?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Yes, it is. Conclusions 9 and 10 from the European Council make it clear that approval of the deal this week will lead to the 22 May extension for the Bill. If there is no agreement on the deal this week, we have until 12 April. Under those circumstances, we either have to put another plan forward or we leave with no deal on 12 April. Therefore, there is a link between having a vote on the deal this week and the 22 May extension.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
In her Statement, the Prime Minister clearly said that we would leave with no deal only if that was supported by the other House. Is that now the Government’s position?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Government’s position is that we will work towards a deal which is in the best interests of the UK and the EU. That is why we will continue to try to ensure that we get that vote, and get the deal through, so that we can leave in an orderly fashion.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Would the noble Baroness help me here, with a process of elimination? I am slightly confused. Since the Prime Minister says that there is no chance of any change to the withdrawal deal, and since the Speaker in the other place says that there is no chance of a Motion being brought back without fundamental changes to its substance, and therefore the deal, that would seem to preclude bringing the same Motion back for the third time. First, could the noble Baroness explain why the Prime Minister thinks she can bring that Motion back without the substantial changes which, as she says, would be utterly opposed by the European Union? Secondly, irrespective of what the House of Commons votes for this or next week, since there is no chance of substantial changes to the deal, that is not a substantial platform for moving forward between now and April. Does everything not point to the conclusion that there either has to be a revocation or a very long extension of the present timeframe, to allow for something substantial, such as a general election or another referendum?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement and the joint statement supplementing the political declaration. There was further movement at the Council with this formal approval, so that is a change to the withdrawal agreement since the last vote.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
Given the ever deepening Brexit crisis, why do the Government not stand well back, take a deep breath and a clean sheet of paper, and make the most obvious of offers to Brussels? I ask again why the Government do not offer EU citizens continuing reciprocal residence for, say, a couple of years, and offer continuing free trade, but under the WTO, which gets rid of the Irish problem. We could talk about how much money we may give the EU when that has been accepted. Are the Government making such a mess of Brexit because they do not want us to leave the EU? Is that the underlying truth?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No, over the past two-and-a-half years, the Government have worked extremely hard to get a deal that is in the best interests of the UK and the EU and to deliver on the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister has been categorically clear on that. That remains our position, and that is why we will be working very hard to try to bring a vote back this week so that we can leave in an orderly way and in a way that we believe is best for the British people.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, if the duty of the Government is to keep their people secure, does this includes health security? The noble Baroness has just said that we might have to leave without a deal. There is strong opposition to this, partly because we have not prepared in the long term for no deal. I am absolutely convinced that the health and social care services are not ready for no deal, in terms of both the supply of medicine and staff. Can you assure the House that we will not leave with a no deal and put health security at risk?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I think I and a number of Front-Bench colleagues have said, we have been preparing for no deal. We have contingency plans in place, particularly in relation to healthcare. Noble Lords have rightly raised this issue on a number of occasions. We have consistently said that we do not believe that no deal is the best outcome. That is why we have a deal on the table and that is what we continue to work for. I entirely agree that leaving with the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated is a far, far better outcome.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, now that the Government have abandoned the conventions of confidentiality and collective Cabinet responsibility, can the Leader of the House tell us whether any of the proposals under consideration carry majority support in the Cabinet?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I think the noble Lord will recognise that I have never breached that convention, and I will not be doing it now.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify the constitutional issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan? Is it not the case that, under the terms of the EU withdrawal Act, if Parliament does not approve the statutory instrument, we leave on 29 March? Is she none the less saying to us that EU law does not permit the Parliament of the United Kingdom even to determine the date of Brexit? If that is so, does it not illustrate powerfully why a majority of voters in the referendum who cherish our parliamentary democracy believe passionately that it is right for us to leave the EU?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid I can only restate that 29 March is no longer a date on which we can leave the EU. The agreement made is a matter of international law. It has always been the case that agreements at an international level take precedence. The House of Commons voted to seek an extension to Article 50, which is what has been done. Rejecting the SI would not stop the extension being agreed or coming into force because it is a matter of international law.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House answer this question? From the Statement that she read out, it seems that the Prime Minister has accepted that, this evening, she will not succeed in persuading the House of Commons not to have the indicative vote. The indicative votes will go ahead, and the Prime Minister has said that the Government will facilitate that. Has she given any thought to giving this House a say on indicative votes? When will she programme that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Obviously, the House of Commons has not yet voted, so it is somewhat difficult for us to plan business on a hypothetical. I hope, however, noble Lords will also recognise that, through the usual channels, we have given this House ample opportunities to express its view and will. Obviously, we will have to see what happens in the House of Commons tonight, and we will then have discussions in the usual way to see what we can facilitate for the House. We will certainly attempt to do that.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, could the noble Baroness explain her statement that international law trumps domestic law? The received wisdom of the past 50 years, as far as I am aware, is that international law does not apply here unless it is specifically adopted by domestic law. If she cannot answer that one, maybe noble and learned Lords in the House can, but it is news to me that international law which has not been enacted trumps our own law.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
It is because this is an international agreement. It has always been the case that agreements at an international level take precedence.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that many people outside will be amazed that the Prime Minister paid no attention to the events in London on Saturday, or to the unprecedented numbers signing a petition to Parliament about revocation. The Prime Minister acknowledges in the Statement that she needs to compromise. She has a compromise on the table: enough people will back her deal if she agrees to a confirmatory vote following a vote in Parliament. This would get all of us through the impasse, embarrassment and humiliation we are now in. Will the noble Baroness the Leader please put this position to the Prime Minister in Cabinet?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Prime Minister has been very clear. Her priority is delivering the result of the referendum that we have. That is why she has worked so hard to negotiate a deal and that is why we believe this deal is the best option. But, as we have said, if the amendment in the other place passes, there will be the opportunity for indicative votes to happen, but we remain of the view that we should respect the result of the first referendum, and indeed the result of the election, during which both major parties said that they would respect the referendum result.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Have we got things quite straight about this week and next week? The Prime Minister has concluded that as things stand there is still insufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote, but she has also said that,
“if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week”—
that is, the meaningful vote again—
“our departure will instead be extended only to 11 pm on 12 April”.
So 12 April it is. Is that right?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Statement makes it clear that at this point the Prime Minister does not believe that she has support for the deal, but we still have several days of this week left. Anything can happen, as noble Lords know.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Irish Republic’s Prime Minister is reported to have said that, in the event of no deal, he does not anticipate checks at the border. If there is substance to that report and it is accurate, will somebody please explain what on earth we have been at war for in this country over the past few months?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
A press release has indeed been put out about the EU completing preparations for a possible no-deal scenario, but it states:
“The EU will be required to immediately apply its rules and tariffs at its borders with the UK. This includes checks and controls”.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has now told us more than once in the context of the Statement that the Government’s priority has been the delivery of a deal. Is it not the case that in yesterday’s Sunday Times the political editor revealed, with the help of one of the noble Baroness’s Cabinet colleagues, the content of a Cabinet minute that showed that the discussion in the Cabinet was about the preservation of the unity of the Conservative Party? This is recorded in a Cabinet minute. Was not something else exercising the mind of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet when they were discussing what to do about Brexit?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have been entirely clear: we want to deliver what is best for the country. That is why we have been working so hard to get a deal that does.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement said that the EU was not prepared to reopen the agreement, but surely it could have been possible, if there had been agreement within the EU 27, to have a codicil to the agreement that would have given us a guarantee on the Irish backstop. Is it not true that the EU 27 were split on this issue and thought that the risk of no deal had been removed, so they could face the Government down?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. Three new legally binding commitments were agreed, but the Council reiterated—it is in its conclusions—that there could be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that while many of us who voted to remain have accepted that we must accept the result of the referendum and work towards an orderly exit from the European Union, the Government have now had three years in which to do that, but have not shown themselves capable of resolving this issue? Does that not mean—as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and others—that we should now also think about whether the mandate that the referendum and the election represented is wearing rather thin, and that the time is coming to consider whether the million people who marched and the four million who signed the petition have a point?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, if the amendment for a series of indicative votes passes, we will fulfil our commitment to the House of Commons to provide government time for the process to proceed. It will be for the Commons to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which it wishes to do so.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness might clarify one point for me. She has told us that the Prime Minister does not believe it is worth putting the current deal to the House of Commons this week.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The implication is that she does not think it will be passed. However, she has also told us that only if it is passed this week will the extension to 22 May apply. Presumably, the Prime Minister is optimistic that at some point this deal will pass, but what happens if the deal is passed next week or the week after? On which date would we leave the EU in those circumstances?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, we hope to work towards bringing the deal back this week. Under the terms of the EU conclusions, the agreement was that the deal had to pass this week for us to get the extension to 22 May. Our hope is that we get the deal through this week. Obviously, if we do not, the next crunch point will be 12 April. I suppose we could ask the EU if we could bring the deal back next week but, under the current terms, we need to bring it back this week. That is why we will be working hard to ensure that we can get a majority for it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, may I clarify the business for this week? I have spent my career in international relations, although I am not a lawyer. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is entirely correct in saying that we need to carry an international agreement into domestic law for it to happen; this House and the other House will be doing so this week. Then, at some very urgent point within the next 10 days at the latest, the withdrawal agreement, however modified, again must be put before both Houses. If it is not, we will still be stuck with the date of 12 April.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have laid the statutory instrument to which the noble Lord refers, and our intention is to debate it on Wednesday.
Brexit
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, takes note of the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”, made on 15 March 2019.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, in repeating my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s Statement, I have already given the Government’s position on next steps. Therefore, to avoid repetition and detaining the House further, I propose that we move straight on to the speakers’ list for the Motion standing in my name. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. My guess is that it was through gritted teeth, given that we are not leaving this Friday. However, that Statement leaves us no wiser, no more confident and no less ashamed to be led by a Government and a Cabinet unable to lead, to unite, to listen or to put the national interest first.
But first, a confession: 10 days ago, when we were debating the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend Lord Grocott to end by-elections for hereditary Peers, I noted that I was not here by virtue of the achievements or wisdom of my father. Perhaps I misled the House, because I learned from my much-loved father—and maybe it was his wisdom that, in one way or another, got me here—a tale he told me when I was eight or nine, which has stayed with me. It was about a passing-out parade—he was in the military—where one proud mother, viewing the march, sighed, “What a shame that my son is the only one in step, and all the others have got it wrong”. It does not take much imagination to hear the remaining supporters of our Prime Minister echoing the same: “What a shame that only she is right and all the others have got it wrong”.
Who are the others? They are the Church, business, the CBI, the TUC, the Government of Wales, the people of Northern Ireland, your Lordships’ House and, significantly, the EU, its Commission and 27 leaders of member states. That is quite a roll call to dismiss. The 27 Prime Ministers or Presidents from across the continent are experienced in governing, politics, negotiating and consensus-building. The Archbishop of Canterbury—whose task of uniting 85 million Christians worldwide the Prime Minister has made look like a walk in the park—has launched five days of prayer as we approach Brexit. Business—the people importing and exporting—knows the cold reality of tariffs, non-tariff barriers, checks, delays, transport and handling costs, and also the need for legal, banking and contract certainty. The TUC and the CBI, which we normally call two sides of industry, have quite exceptionally joined together in the light of the “national emergency”, in their words, to warn that a no-deal,
“shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come”.
The First Minister of Wales is imploring the Prime Minister to work on a cross-party basis to amend the political declaration, not the withdrawal agreement, and then to negotiate with the EU to adapt the framework. Gibraltar and UK citizens abroad will feel the reality of a no-deal exit in hours or weeks of departure. Your Lordships’ House is staunchly against no deal and repeatedly in favour of a customs union. The Opposition have spelled out our alternative approach and are open to continued EU trade via a customs union and single market alignment. The Commons—the elected Members steeped in their own communities, their businesses, people, trading and academia—are knowledgeable about the realities of a chaotic or ill-designed Brexit. The Prime Minister’s senior colleague Philip Hammond says that a no-deal Brexit,
“would cause catastrophic economic dislocation in the short term and in the longer term it would leave us with a smaller economy, poorer as a nation relative to our neighbours in the European Union”.
But the Prime Minister ignores all these. She continues to threaten no deal and, instead of talking to them, invites to Chequers Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, Dominic Raab, David Davis and Iain Duncan Smith—the very people who have been writing her script for two years and now will not support her deal. Oh, and I forgot Boris Johnson, who seems to think we have an implementation period without a deal. No, ex-Foreign Secretary, no deal means no transition period. He does not even understand that—and these are the people who our Prime Minister heeds.
Now, to avoid no deal, we need the Prime Minister to listen to those she has ignored and to amend the future framework, even at this late stage. The FT’s Jim Pickard commented today:
“It’s March 25, 2019 and MPs are about to have multiple votes on what kind of Brexit we might have. If you’d told people this two years ago they’d have thought you were out of your mind”.
We do, however, have a breathing space, the Prime Minister having been thrown a lifeline—albeit just 14 days—by the European Council. It will be only a breathing space, and not a suffocating pause, if we open a fresh approach to our future relationships with the EU, an approach shorn of the Prime Minister’s disastrous red lines. We know that this is possible: Michel Barnier said that the political declaration that sets out the framework for our future relations could be made more ambitious in the coming days, if a majority in the House of Commons so wishes.
The Prime Minister, however, appears bent—we have heard it again just now—on trying to flog her very dead horse. For some of us her deal, which has been overwhelmingly rejected twice by MPs, is the Monty Python parrot. Here we are, however, in the last chance saloon, so our MPs must be heard and their preferences set out. This is in the national interest and is the democratic way forward. Despite the most extraordinary view of the ERG’s Steve Baker, who claimed that “national humiliation is imminent” through these indicative votes—his way of listening to elected politicians—
Lord Dykes (CB)
I am very grateful to the Front Bench, particularly as the noble Baroness forwent her speech in the earlier business. Does she not also very strongly commend the extremely important utterance, promise and suggestion by the Labour deputy leader, Tom Watson, at Saturday’s huge march, that no deal, or Mrs May’s deal, should be linked to a people’s vote later on, which would meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and other noble Lords who want that to happen?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The noble Lord used the words “later on”, so perhaps he could wait until I am later on in what I am going to say.
It is extraordinary that a former Minister could use the words “national humiliation” about listening to elected politicians, and Mr Fox said today that the Government could ignore MPs’ indicative votes if Parliament’s stated choice went against the Conservative manifesto. So there we have it: the Conservative manifesto—that of a Government who failed to win an outright majority—is more important than anything else. Furthermore, the Statement that has just been repeated uses the excuse that, “Well, perhaps the EU will not accept it”, to fail to promise to heed the decisions and the views of MPs. Of course, the Prime Minister may not be able to deliver on what is asked, but surely she should have committed to making that her new objective—either her negotiating aim, or, if it was something else, to do that. It is shameful that the Government refuse to heed the elected House.
We know the dangers of no deal, and so do the Government: that is why that nuclear bunker under the MoD has been reopened, so that the Armed Forces are prepared, while the Cabinet Office is readying itself by working with local authorities, airports and businesses for what will be a calamity, and briefing privy counsellors accordingly. The Government know the risk of that.
I had been about to say that today’s political chaos is completely unprecedented. However, as I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—our national treasure of a historian—is here and about to speak, I will leave it to him to judge whether this is really the worst political mess that this country has found itself in.
We hear about this best from the people—up to 1 million of them on Saturday’s magnificent march. When I last looked, there were 5.5 million signatures to a petition to revoke, and dissatisfaction with the Government is at an all-time high: just 11% “satisfied”, and 86% “dissatisfied”, a net minus 75% dissatisfaction with this rudderless Government, headed by a Prime Minister with no authority.
We have to find a way forward. There are probably five ways out of this. The Prime Minister could try to get her own party behind the deal—I wish her well with that, because it does not look as if she has succeeded so far. She could get the deal changed in the way that I have outlined. It could be that Parliament takes over. It could be that the people take over with a new referendum—or perhaps the people could take over with a general election. However, the Prime Minister’s Statement gave me no confidence that she was willing to rise to this challenge, that she is in charge, that she is willing at all costs to avoid no deal or that she is willing to move to encompass the national interest. We have to wish our colleagues in the other place strength and determination, because it is they who must now grasp the situation and act accordingly.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this is now the 13th opportunity that we have had to debate the Government’s withdrawal agreement. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House hope, like me, that it will be the last.
Since we had our previous debate on the subject, some things at least have changed. The first is that the EU has agreed to an extension of Article 50, which will be widely supported across the House. The way in which this happened, though, is a telling foretaste of how life would be were we to leave the EU. The Prime Minister was allowed into the Council to petition other member states and was subject to lengthy and sceptical questioning. Then, like a prisoner in the dock, she was led from the room to a windowless cell, where she was kept until the verdict on her proposals had been reached. A modest meal was brought in. After a number of hours, the verdict was read out to her and she was allowed to leave. This is the reality of “taking back control”; this is what it would be like, week in, week out, were we ever to leave the EU.
Before leaving for Brussels, the Prime Minister had made her petulant and ill-judged address to the nation. Many in the Commons were angered by her attack on them. What really rankled with me was the statement:
“I am on your side”—
by which she meant the side of the people. But this weekend has demonstrated that she is not on the side of the people.
Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will no doubt argue that a million people from across the UK on the streets of London, and 5.5 million people signing a petition, are only a fraction of the people. They are technically right. But how many people could the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, summon on to streets in support of the Government’s deal? How many people could the extreme Brexiteers summon up in support of crashing out? We know that Nigel Farage can summon up 200 in a pub car park—hardly the will of the people. We also know that every poll shows a large majority in favour of a people’s vote, and a large majority of them now want to remain rather than supporting either the Government’s deal or leaving without a deal. So when the Prime Minister says that she is on the people’s side, she is, as with so many other things, completely at odds with reality.
Until today, however improbable this may seem, the Prime Minister seemed to be a disciple of Samuel Beckett. When it came to her deal, she was following his injunction:
“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better”.
Today’s Statement signals the end of that strategy, and the end of any attempt by the Government to stay in charge of the Brexit process.
The Prime Minister says that she is no longer willing to fail better, and will not bring forward her deal again until it succeeds. If—as she tacitly accepts—this is unlikely ever to happen, she has said that she will provide government time for other options to be considered. But what is unclear is when she will conclude that her deal is dead. Will it be this week? Will it be next week? Will it perhaps be 11 April? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
It is therefore hardly surprising that Members of another place will vote on an amendment later today that would give them early votes on other options. The Government say that if this amendment succeeds it will upset the balance between the Government and the Commons. But surely her proposal does the same. The Prime Minister accepts that it is for the House of Commons, not the Government, to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which it wishes to do so. The only difference between the Government’s position and that of Sir Oliver Letwin is one of timing, not substance. The truth is that the Government have thrown up their hands in despair and effectively said to the Commons, “Over to you”. It is the most humiliating abrogation of leadership and government in our lifetimes—but it is long overdue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the phrase in the Prime Minister’s Statement that,
“I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House”.
In response to a question from the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister—if I heard her correctly—said that the Government would not feel obliged to follow any decision of the House of Commons that would cut across the commitments made in the Conservative Party manifesto. This seemed to me an extraordinary, dangerous and wholly unacceptable statement, and it is quite possible that I misheard it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he also heard the phrase in the Statement:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.
Does he share my view that that means the Prime Minister is saying that, in the absence of an affirmative decision by the Commons, no deal is now impossible?
Lord Newby
That appears to be what the Prime Minister is saying, but it is quite difficult to be certain on that because she does not always—as in this case—speak with absolute clarity, assurance and consistency.
To revert to my previous point, could the Minister in his winding-up statement commit the Government to aim in good faith to implement any decision taken by the Commons? I accept that the Government cannot guarantee the success of every proposal, because some at least would involve negotiations with the EU—but the House would be very grateful to get that assurance.
Your Lordships’ House knows that we on these Benches believe that the only way forward is for a referendum to give the people the chance to decide their future. This is not the cry of a metropolitan elite. It is now the cry of the country. The teenager who got up at 2 am on Saturday morning to travel to London by car and bus from Berwick on the Scottish Borders was marching next to me to protect his life chances from the consequences of a squabble in the Tory party. He spoke for his generation and we must not let him down.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have tried in previous debates to introduce some element of light-heartedness at this stage of proceedings, but it has not been easy, and I am afraid I have rather given up on Aylesbury. I feel rather like the unfortunate passengers who, on a flight today from London Heathrow to Dusseldorf, found themselves in Edinburgh instead. The lack of direction and uncertainty with which we are proceeding makes it extremely difficult for me to feel light-hearted—or, indeed, to say anything useful in this speech.
I am at least in the happy position of speaking in this debate only for myself. I represent no party; I do not speak on behalf of the members of the Cross-Bench group; and to preserve my independence, I do not discuss my views with any of them, and do not try to form any alliances. I am of course aware from previous debates that the views I shall express are not shared across the group. That will certainly become clear as others, much more qualified than I am to speak on this subject, follow me from these Benches. But I know that I am not entirely alone in the view that I have expressed several times in this prolonged series of debates. That is, that the least unsatisfactory way out of the predicament in which we find ourselves is—however hopeless it may seem now—to approve the deal. I believe that the benefits that it offers, in security and so many other fields, far outweigh the disadvantages of that agreement, which are mainly the inevitable consequences of leaving the EU. The political declaration is a different matter. But, unlike the withdrawal agreement, it is a declaration only. It is not intended to be binding, as an agreement is. It is there for discussion, and—with some change of mind, some greater flexibility—perhaps for manipulation, as we move forward.
As of this moment, awaiting what happens in the other place, the position, as I see it, is—looking at the alternatives—quite simple. With the greatest respect to all those many people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred, who came to London and marched through the city last Saturday—some of them came from as far away as the Western Isles, I believe—I really do not want us to have to undergo another referendum, whatever the question might be, thinking of the delay and the ill feeling that would inevitably be generated. Any meaningful renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement could not be achieved without a long delay. The EU has made it quite clear that it is not open for quick negotiation any more. The alternative would be to have what I think the Prime Minister referred to today as a slow Brexit, which would result in our having to hold elections for the European Parliament. I think the public would find that very difficult to accept, in view of the result of the referendum.
There is also the option of a no-deal Brexit. I agree entirely with all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about that. It is simply not acceptable, as has been made clear by the other place, and by us too, in a series of votes. Everything must be done to avoid that. The risk is still there. However, the EU, which to our eternal shame has been ahead of us at every stage through this misguided process, has injected some discipline into the shambles at our end. It has thrown us a lifeline. We have been given extra time—but there are conditions attached. Surely everything must be done to ensure that we meet the deadlines that have, in one way or another, been left for us. We must not miss the new deadline, or we will indeed have a no-deal Brexit.
As one looks back, it is remarkable how, every so often in moments of crisis, somebody on the world stage says something that captures our imagination. We can all remember Donald Rumsfeld, shortly before the start of the second Gulf War, and the puzzling images he conjured up with his reference to “unknown unknowns”—things that we do not know that we do not know. Noble Lords may remember Saddam Hussein’s absurdly comical Minister of Information, always in military uniform, who, as the Americans were on the point of entering Baghdad, assured us that it was they who were running away, and that the Iraqi forces had won a famous victory.
Now, surely the prize must go to Donald Tusk. There was his clever reply when asked by an enterprising Irish journalist at the end of last Thursday’s press conference whether that special place should be enlarged to accommodate Members of the other place. Your Lordships will recall his words:
“According to our Pope, hell is still empty—
that must have surprised some people—
“it means that there is a lot of space”.
He ended by saying that, as we know, hope is the last to die. Those words reveal what he is really thinking. Your Lordships may remember that that is a chilling reminder of how people fought off despair during the Holocaust. He might perhaps have chosen another phrase, which your Lordships can find on Google:
“Hope is a dangerous thing”.
Those are the opening words of a lyric by an American songwriter Lana Del Rey. She said,
“Hope is a dangerous thing for … me”,
but let us leave that aside. It is a dangerous thing for us too.
Donald Tusk was right, of course. It seems that all we can do now is hope for the best, as the Prime Minister seems to be doing, but the danger is that if that is all we do as we thrash about searching for something that will command a majority, we will fail to meet the next deadline. His words should act as a warning that this really is our last chance.
My hope is that the other place will back the only deal that is on offer in sufficient time, so that we can leave in an orderly manner on 22 May. If that is not possible, one has to look for the next best alternative, and I am driven to the conclusion that it would have to be to ask for a long extension—with all the consequences. Sadly, that would, in the end, be my position.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, following the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place this afternoon, it is clear that we remain in a place of deep uncertainty. We are still asked to note the two dates of 12 April and 22 May, signifying that there are at least two, probably more, very different directions we might still take as a country.
I shall not focus on the choices before us, but I note that, whether by intention or default, we will make a choice—a choice will be made—and, beyond that choice, we have to live together. We are experiencing a time of extraordinary turbulence and toxicity in our political life, and it is how we navigate and respond to that turbulence and toxicity now and in future that I shall address in the remainder of the time available to me this afternoon.
Since taking up the office of the Bishop of Newcastle, I have had many conversations with MPs from the diocese, who range right across the political spectrum. Without exception, I have been encouraged and moved by their sense of public service and their compassion for those whom they serve. They work extraordinarily hard, and they care.
It is deeply disturbing, then, to see that a routine part of the daily working life of an MP is that they and their staff endure verbal assaults, attacks and threats. It cannot be right that carrying a panic alarm is now a necessity for some MPs and that constituency offices and homes are considered as places of risk for them.
It is just under three years since June 2016, when Jo Cox was murdered. As a nation, we were horrified and united in believing that this must never happen again. Yet over the past few months, intimidation and death threats against Members of Parliament, including MPs from my diocese, have become so commonplace that they struggle to secure space in newspapers and on news websites. MPs on both sides of the conversation have been labelled as traitors, as being engaged in acts of betrayal. Anyone coming in or out of this building will have seen the placards and heard the shouting, and often it is women parliamentarians who receive the worst of it.
Whatever the outcome of this week’s events, and whatever choice we make about our future relationship with the European Union, the even more important question is: what kind of democracy and society will we be left with? The former Archbishop of Canterbury —my right reverend friend Lord Williams of Oystermouth —reflected on this with characteristic thoughtfulness in a recent article in the New Statesman. He wrote that,
“two salient aspects of a consistent democracy are that we go on arguing, and that our freedom to do so is protected. The law defends us from coercion and forcible silencing. Without these, we have naked populism, a reversion to the situation where the powerful (in numbers, wealth or status) determine what is ‘right’. Genuine politics gives way to suppressed or threatened violence”.
This is the chasm into which we are staring. Whatever happens next, approximately half of us will be unhappy and angry. We will need the kind of democracy that protects our freedoms and the values we hold dear. For democracy to be exercised, the space where it is practised—whether in the real world or online—must be kept safe, and those who are called to serve must be protected. This is not someone else’s job: it falls to all of us to call out hatred, abuse, intimidation and threat wherever we see it happening.
The Church is in all communities and has learned how important it is to work across divides with others, of all faiths and none. We understand that reconciliation must be placed at the centre of our life together. Across the diocese of Newcastle we will gather to share our hopes and fears for the coming months, and to pray together. I am encouraging people to light three candles: “One for me, one for my neighbour, and one for our shared future together”.
My friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has challenged the Church to ponder how our actions will look a century from now. Will we have stoked tension and hostility, or worked to defuse it? Will we have demonised others with whom we deeply disagree, or called for civility and respect in how we speak about and treat each other? The challenge is to the Church, but all of us could do worse than to ponder these words. Three years ago, it was our privilege, at the request of our local MPs, to open Newcastle Cathedral for a time of prayer for Jo Cox immediately following her death. The huge response from members of the general public was deeply moving, but let that be both the first and the last such occasion.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, here we go again, debating the same arguments for the umpteenth time—I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said the thirteenth—for some very simple reasons, which we may be able to all agree on. But they may be worth repeating, simply because they may shed some light on where we go from here.
Brexit, as we now know all too well, is the biggest political and social challenge that this country has faced since the Second World War. The complexity of the issues and the enormity of what leaving the EU entails means that Brexit is a process that will take much longer than many envisaged and some promised. It has divided our nation from top to toe: the Cabinet, the two main political parties, communities, families. To leave the EU smoothly, we needed to be honest about the scale of that challenge from day one and build a consensus as to the way ahead. The Government needed to negotiate knowing they had the support of Parliament and that they could deliver on what is agreed in the negotiations. Obviously, since the referendum none of this has happened. In part, that is because the UK’s relationship with the European Union has been poisoning the well of Conservative Party politics for decades, and it has fallen to this Prime Minister to make that fateful choice: what matters more to the United Kingdom—trade and access to EU markets, or control and parliamentary sovereignty? Fear of splitting the Conservative Party totally asunder has meant that, years after the referendum, we still do not know the answer to that basic question.
On Brexit, the biggest issue of the day, we do not have a Government to speak of. Instead, we have a collection of individuals grouped into factions; there is no collective responsibility. To say that we have a Prime Minister would, sadly, bestow on Mrs May a level of authority she clearly does not have. I have been saying for months that the Prime Minister is in office, not in power—the last week has proven that beyond doubt—so once again I wearily ask: where do we go from here? Sadly, the options are exactly the same as those we faced 1,006 days ago: we leave with a deal, we leave without a deal or we do not leave. The final option, revoking Article 50, is what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—I am sorry he is not in his place—is calling for in his Motion. Although I totally disagree with him on this point, I respect and pay tribute to his tenacity and principled stand. Parliament voted to hold the referendum; the public voted to leave; Parliament voted to trigger Article 50; the public voted for Labour and Conservative MPs who promised to honour the result of the referendum. We need to fulfil that pledge.
Putting that to one side, I cannot see how a Conservative Government could possibly revoke Article 50. To do that we would need a general election; or it would require a referendum, which, as things stand, is also impossible to deliver without a general election. The next option is leaving without a deal, which the Prime Minister said continues to be the default outcome. Ever since the last general election, it has been obvious that Parliament opposes no deal. The Government may try to ignore Parliament, but if they do Parliament would surely vote “no confidence” in the Government on an issue such as this. Therefore, no deal likewise requires a general election. The final option is leaving with a deal. The only deal on offer is the withdrawal agreement. That agreement will not now change. The EU’s position is clear: take it or leave it.
In the days ahead, Parliament might agree, via indicative votes, that it wishes to join a customs union or the EEA. But even if Parliament reaches a consensus, I sense the very best that might happen is for this to be reflected in the political declaration, which, unlike the withdrawal agreement, is not legally binding. Parliament will still have to vote for the withdrawal agreement and put it into law. Furthermore, if the other place votes in favour of a Motion that the United Kingdom should join a customs union, and possibly the single market as well, to implement it would break Conservative manifesto commitments and would appear to require the support of Labour MPs. Is the Prime Minister willing to do that? Are she and her Cabinet willing, as I have urged before, to bridge the party divide to deliver Brexit?
Such a prospect may seem fanciful, until one remembers the point I began with: Brexit poses the biggest political and social challenge this country has faced since it fought a world war. Put like that, is it so peculiar to consider that we should come together, put party interests to one side and work together to leave the EU? At what point does the need to end the uncertainty and to leave the EU with a common approach trump party allegiance and manifesto commitments? To me, it is clear that, after 1,006 days, if we are to leave the European Union, we cannot and must not go on as we are.
If this withdrawal agreement is rejected again, and if, like me, you believe we should leave the EU—as 17.4 million people voted to do—then the Government and Parliament must build a consensus regarding what we want to achieve. If we cannot do that, we need a new Parliament. We cannot continue to debate these issues with extension after extension to the negotiations.
Let me end by saying this. Even if the withdrawal agreement is passed this week, we will still need to build that consensus as to our future relationship; otherwise, we will spend the foreseeable future trapped in the agony of this interminable debate, which is corroding trust in Parliament and undermining confidence in the economy. On an issue of such enormity as our leaving the European Union—an issue which will shape our nation’s future for generations to come—a House divided cannot stand.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, whose views I have known for some time; I agree with very many of them, and he gives this matter great thought. I agree with him absolutely that this is a real political and economic crisis for the United Kingdom.
I ask Members to bear in mind that those of us on the European Union Select Committees meet representatives of European countries on this issue. A few weeks ago, I was in Bucharest, Romania, which currently holds the presidency of the European Union, to talk about Europol and the future of the security relationship; that includes, of course, the relationship between the EU and the UK. The general feeling there is one of wanting the British to stay but recognising that it has gone beyond that, for many of the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. What they want now is for us to make a decision and move on, and to start building a relationship between the EU and the UK, which we all know will be necessary.
This Sunday, I am going again to Bucharest, together with my noble friend Lord Whitty, where we will be speaking about the future of the European Union. Interestingly, we will be there not just as observers but as participants. But I ask Members to bear in mind that, when I go to such meetings, for the first time in my political career it is very difficult for me to answer questions about what is happening in the British political system—a system they have always assumed was among the best and most stable in the world. I can only reply, as I do at times, that we have not quite cracked it yet; I then like to tell them that that is a classic example of British understatement. It is terribly difficult to talk to Europeans about where we are in this country.
The reality is that the country is divided, the political parties are divided and organisations are divided, but we have to follow the referendum—a referendum which should never have been held, frankly. Britain works best when it has representative democracy; it has worked really well for this country for several hundred years and we forgo it at our peril. Tragically, what one never does is hold a referendum without knowing what you will do if you do not get the result you want. That is why we are in the mess we are in today.
It is with some sadness I say that the other issue to be addressed is this: as a number of noble Lords have said, we are debating this partly because of the state of the Tory party. I do not normally go around calling on Ministers or Prime Ministers to resign for the hell of it—there is not much future in that. But the present Prime Minister has lost control. I was brought up politically on the idea of Cabinet responsibility and unity. There is no Cabinet unity—arguably, there is no Cabinet. That is a terrible state for Parliament and Britain to be in. We have to crack that problem.
Over time, I have come to the conclusion that we need to accept this withdrawal agreement and to do so fairly soon. But there are caveats to that. It has always been my view—not just in recent years but for a long time—that the British public were supportive of a European common market but never very supportive of the European state. In other words, the British public tended to see it as a supermarket, not a superstate. That has been the problem that runs through the core of British thinking. It explains the power of the Brexiteers’ strapline, “Take back control”. It was about not just immigration but a variety of things: making our own laws, being able to sack the Government and so on. That difference has never been resolved among the British public in the way it was in Europe, which had a far greater need for political unity because of the horror of two world wars, defeat, occupation and having borders changed by force.
Where do we go from here? I urge—as far as I am able to these days, which is not so much in the other place—that the withdrawal agreement must go through. Probably the best way of doing it is that put forward by Tom Watson MP, my colleague in the House of Commons. We have the withdrawal agreement and we must get it through soon, and then—I say this very reluctantly and regretfully—we probably have to have some sort of referendum at the end of it. I do not want that—as I have said, I do not like referendums—but I am not sure how you avoid the trap otherwise.
We need to face the fact that the British public are so deeply divided. The divisions are not just between parties and organisations, or business and trade unions; there is division within families. Young people in particular are arguing to stay in, and the older generation is arguing to get out. This is of such importance and we cannot go on like this much longer.
I suggest there is a case for the Prime Minister to step aside so that we can have a more conciliatory approach from a new Prime Minister. I would love to see a Government of national unity for a time, to get us out of the hole we are in. Believe me, if you talk to people abroad about this, they cannot understand what has happened to Britain. It is tragic.
I end with a plug for the report we have just produced in the European Union Select Committee, called Beyond Brexit; noble Lords might find its subtitle slightly facetious: How to Win Friends and Influence People. We will certainly need to do that. We had so many friends and supporters throughout the European Union until this business happened. Now, we have very few. They want us to go but they want a good relationship, and they wish we had not decided to go in the first place.
In both Houses, we have a duty to try to get this moving. We must accept the withdrawal agreement and then start working on the political declaration. Had we started on that two years ago, it would have formed the basis of a realistic and proper relationship between the UK and the EU. That is still a possibility but we are coming to it very late. However, we need to do it and we need to do it fast.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, the part of the United Kingdom that I come from is still geographically peripheral, but it is not politically peripheral at the moment, because of the backstop and border questions.
When we were living through difficult and much more dangerous times, we looked for places where we could find encouragement and inspiration. The European project was one of those places. We could see that those who had been at war, twice in a generation, had been able to find a new way of engaging with each other—a way of moving forward with different arrangements, with creativity and flexibility, to make something new and different and rather unprecedented. For me, that was tremendously encouraging. The ideas in many of the practical arrangements of the European project were incorporated into our negotiations and our way of thinking about things.
I was also encouraged and inspired by your Lordships’ House. I came here in 1996 and found a preparedness to engage reflectively, thoughtfully and creatively with difficult problems. Subsequent to 1998, as Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I found myself coming backwards and forwards to your Lordships’ House and finding it a restorative experience. I could return to the Northern Ireland Assembly with ways of working and engaging that were thoughtful, creative and reflective, and brought people together to find new ways of resolving problems.
So for me it is a personally painful business to see what has happened to the European Union and both Houses of Parliament here. A deep division has opened up in the European Union itself, not just between people in this country but between Governments and people and different sections of the community in almost every country in Europe. Some come out on to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with government and Europe. Europe has for some people remained a model, but for others it has become the cause of division rather than a healing project.
Even in your Lordships’ House, my sense of the past couple of years has been that people have held to positions and tried to defend and promote them rather than understand that the deep divisions that have opened up in our country and our continent are extremely dangerous and that we must find a way of resolving them. That is why I identify strongly with a number of the comments that have been made but perhaps most particularly with the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle.
I remember when John Hume was trying to engage with the IRA and he asked it what it wanted. The IRA said, “A united Ireland”. He said, “Look at the map. It is one island”. It said, “There’s a border”. He said, “That’s because the people of Ireland are divided about how to share the island”. I well remember Dr Ian Paisley, known to us in latter days as Lord Bannside before he passed away. He would speak about the fact that he represented the people of Northern Ireland, because he clearly had the largest vote in repeated elections. But nationalists and republicans said that they represented the majority of the people of the island of Ireland.
I hear the same kind of thing going on. People speak about how they represent the majority and the views of the people, but the people are deeply divided. Neither side seems prepared to recognise that the job of political leaders is to find a way for our people can live together, not agreeing on everything all the time—of course not. There are different perspectives and that is not only legitimate but healthy. Whatever happens, we will all have to continue to live together in Britain and Ireland, within Britain itself, and in Europe. We have to find a way of living together. One difficulty is that if one is so convinced of the rectitude of one’s own position and policy, one spends all the time attacking the other and promoting one’s own approach. We would not have been able to deliver the Good Friday agreement if there had not been serious efforts by all those negotiating, in advance of reaching an agreement, to indicate to people that there would have to be compromise, a coming together and a giving up of some cherished aspects so that we could find not an agreement but a way of living together.
The time for us to do this is short. No vote, referendum or election will bring our people together to find a way of agreeing a compromise. That requires political leadership. The truth is that all our parties have contributed to the division, either by themselves being divided or by taking one side or the other of the argument. That is the road to no town and a disaster. I appeal to Members of your Lordships’ House to return to what has been our tradition, our strength and our contribution to the country. By not having to be elected, we can afford to be more thoughtful, creative and reflective and engage with each other across party boundaries to find an accommodation that our people can live with so that we can not only live together on this island and in relation to the other island but in this continent of Europe. Without that, the future is gloomy for all of us, whichever side wins the argument in a referendum or an election. We have to find a way of living together.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I warmly applaud what was just said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
I shall shock the Government Front Bench by saying that I rather like the Prime Minister’s Statement. I found three things in it that seem to be the beginning of wisdom. The Prime Minister says that,
“as things stand, there is still not sufficient support … for a third meaningful vote”.
She said that the House has “expressed its opposition” to no deal and,
“may very well do so again”,
and she said that,
“the bottom line remains, if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal we will have to seek a longer extension”.
Those three propositions are all true and one should welcome this dose of reality.
If I were going to be pompous, I would say that what has gone wrong in the past three years—I hope everybody has rejected the idea of my being pompous—is that we have forgotten that the Executive are responsible to Parliament. It has been the rule down the years that a Government who cannot sell their principal policies to Parliament change the policies or make way for another Government. Since Walpole’s time, the principle of Cabinet solidarity has been that if you do not agree with the policy of the majority in the Cabinet, you leave the Cabinet and you shut up. The third principle is that at times of national crisis, the national interest overrides the party interest. A Narvik brings out a Churchill, a Churchill brings in an Attlee and a national consensus is sought. We come together. None of those three principles has been applied in full in the past three years. Indeed, they seem to have been flouted.
It is a pity that there was no national debate, or at least a debate with Parliament or within the Cabinet, about what Brexit meant—and what form of Brexit one should be aiming for and how. To set out those red lines at a party conference with no prior discussion in this House or the other place was a mistake. Keeping Parliament in the dark during the negotiations was a mistake. The Minister had to tell us again and again that he was not allowed to give us a running commentary. I am sure he found that painful; I found it painful to hear it. It would have been better to have a discussion about the process; the product might not then have come as such a surprise. It was then a mistake to pull the product out of the House of Commons for two months, not allowing the meaningful vote, and it was probably a mistake to go on pressing it after the massive failure of the first meaningful vote.
On Cabinet solidarity, it was a mistake to make the deal the Prime Minister’s deal and not the Cabinet’s deal or the Government’s deal. That was not wise. Letting the principle of collective responsibility lapse has proved self-defeating. Threatening hard leavers with no Brexit and soft leavers or remainers with no deal has produced the effect of isolating the Prime Minister in a very worrying way.
What about country before party and reaching out? I was on the march. We marched past Downing Street and we called on the Prime Minister to think again. How did she react? As has been said, she summoned the ERG to Chequers. I do not know why she always moves right at a moment of decision. This morning, we see what I suppose must be the ERG manifesto, in Mr Johnson’s column in the Telegraph, which has some rather odd aspects to it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. Mr Johnson says two things. First, we must,
“come out of the EU now—without the backstop”.
So it is no deal: a customs frontier across Ireland, forget about the Belfast agreement and forget about the peace process. I think that is irresponsible.
Secondly, he says:
“Extend the implementation period to the end of 2021 if necessary; use it to negotiate a free-trade deal”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, no agreement —no deal—means no implementation period. It means also that our trade with our biggest market is instantly no longer free, and rollovers of existing EU trade deals with third countries become hugely more difficult and rather unlikely. This is instant economic disruption. This is what the Chancellor calls catastrophic. Avoiding this is now paramount, as the CBI and the TUC rightly said, last week. They believe that an Article 50 extension and a new approach are required. No more “my way or the highway”. Some 85% of CBI member companies apparently think that an Article 50 extension is better than no deal. I am not surprised, given the Government’s own economic analysis of no deal.
Those views of the CBI and the TUC were pretty well represented at the European Council by President Tusk and Chancellor Merkel. They do not want no deal; they know how damaging no deal would be to them and how much more damaging such an outcome would be to us. It seems that our Prime Minister was still arguing then—though today’s Statement is a little different—that there was only a binary choice for the United Kingdom: her deal or no deal. It seems that she was evasive when pressed on the chances of her deal being approved. She seems to me to be honest today in her Statement. She refused to countenance any plan B, and I think the European Council concluded that she did not have one. It was her counterparts in the European Council who ensured that the conclusions mean that, as President Tusk said afterwards,
“anything is possible: a deal, a long extension if the United Kingdom decided to rethink its strategy, or revoking Article 50, which is a prerogative of the UK government”.
The ball is now in our court and we have, at last, to rise to the level of events. What we need is time to stop and think. I do not believe that the European Council would have difficulty agreeing to a substantial Article 50 extension, provided we satisfy the Council’s only condition, which was that we should be able to “indicate a way forward”. I do not believe that that way forward need be very detailed or specific—indeed, it would not be. After 1,000 days of no national debate, it would be crazy suddenly to try to produce a new answer in a fortnight. What we need to indicate—I think this would be sufficient—is that, at long last, a process to decide the future is being set in train. Here, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Bridges: if Brexit is to go ahead, we need a process to decide the best balance of autarkic sovereignty and common purpose, and of independent action and identifying mutual interest. I think the noble Lord put it better than I have, but that is the dilemma: finding that balance, and a process to determine whether, after at long last a genuine, and genuinely informed, national debate, Brexit should go ahead or whether our Article 50 notification should be withdrawn—in either case, with full democratic authorisation. The broken, blindfold Brexit that we have blundered into results from a flawed process, which broke with our basic constitutional principles—but it is not too late to put that right.
The spectacle of the European Council last week was shaming. We saw a Prime Minister lurking in an empty room while 27 colleagues tried to help her find a way out of the corner she had painted herself into; we saw a haggard Prime Minister, unable to stay on to participate in the Council’s debate on probably the most significant issue of our time: western democracy’s relationship with China. For Britain to be silent—for Britain to be absent from such a debate—is shocking. A good test, at moments of difficult decisions, is to ask oneself what Peter Carrington would have thought and done, supposing he were in the Cabinet today. When, on the last day of January, we remembered him in the Abbey— with the help of the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Carrington; with the Grenadiers’ “Slow March” and “Nimrod”; with memories of Nijmegen; with memories of Carrington alongside Kissinger and Schmidt; and memories of Carrington as Secretary-General of NATO—we remembered someone who deeply believed in the European Union, for precisely the reasons so brilliantly explained in Parliament Square on Saturday by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He believed deeply that this country mattered, that we had a vocation and that we should make sure our voice was heard. He was someone whose voice certainly was heard, who understood parliamentary democracy and the need to put country before party and honour before ambition, and who knew what to do when something went wrong.
Our friends in 27 countries have thrown us a lifeline, provided that we can “indicate a way forward”—the phrase in the Commission’s text—which could, and I hope will, mean ourselves by 12 April to a process to seek a national consensus on a negotiable outcome. I hope we will: better late than never.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. There are very few in your Lordships’ House who have greater experience in these matters than the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is one other, if I may say so. I say to my noble friends that I associate myself very strongly with what the noble Lord said. I say, too, that I hope the Government have heeded his advice. In anticipation, given that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is to follow after my few remarks, I will say that it is not insignificant that he and I, who have been in the Chamber on opposite sides for over 30 years, on this matter happen to agree. On this issue there is tremendous cross-party consensus.
The decision of last week’s European Council obliges Parliament and the country to make a decisive decision, and we must do so. We have three choices: to approve the Prime Minister’s deal; to leave without a deal; or to seek a lengthy extension, during which the country and Parliament can reconsider their options. Without hesitation, I support the latter option. I am not a Europhile and never have been, but believe strongly and on pragmatic grounds that staying in the European Union offers by far the best future for the United Kingdom, Europe and the wider world. I believe that Brexit defies both reason and all credible evidence.
Contrary to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley, with whom I almost always agree—he is a very old friend—I do not think the 2016 referendum is an authority for leaving the European Union, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. I believe it was an instruction to the Government to negotiate the best terms that could be achieved, leaving over the issue of who decides whether the terms are acceptable. In my view, that final decision is one to be made by Parliament, and perhaps by the country in a further referendum. I agree with the view oft expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others that there can be no objection in principle to holding a further referendum, although personally I would prefer it to be held on the ultimate agreement rather than on Mrs May’s deal, which, by its nature, is interim and transitional.
As regards participating in the coming European elections, I acknowledge that there are practical difficulties to be confronted, but I do not believe that it is respectable to argue that participation in a democratic process is offensive in principle. Indeed, I can see great advantages in having a vigorous election debate and seeing the United Kingdom represented—I hope sensibly—in the European Parliament in what I also hope will be for an extended period. I support participation in those elections to secure a lengthy extension.
I turn directly to the choices that now have to be made. In my view, to crash out of the European Union without any deal would be a national calamity. I do not believe that there is or ever was a national desire for such an outcome. Last Saturday’s march and the petition now signed by over 5 million people speak to this. Moreover, no deal was decisively rejected in the House of Commons by 413 votes to 202. For government or parliamentarians to disregard such a vote would be to display a contempt for Parliament of the grossest kind. I hope I can gain some reassurance from today’s Statement, where I see that the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.
The proper interpretation of that is that, unless there is an affirmative vote in the House of Commons, no deal will not happen. It means nothing else, and I very much hope that when my noble friend Lord Callanan winds up this debate, he will confirm that interpretation.
As to Mrs May’s deal, I would support it only if nothing else were on offer. However, I do not accept Mrs May’s oft-repeated statement that her deal is the only deal available. That is simply not true. It is clear that the European Council has given us an opportunity to think again—to discard the red lines which the Prime Minister so unwisely drew. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the House of Commons will support the Prime Minister’s deal. I therefore hope that the Commons will vote to secure a lengthy extension to the deadline. If—I hope, when—that occurs, Britain should reconsider whether it wishes to leave the European Union. It may be that, as a result of those discussions, modified terms of membership will become available. In any event, the red lines should be discarded. If they are discarded, a variety of alternatives will become available, and, if the Commons thinks it appropriate, a further referendum will become part of the deliberative process.
I doubt that Mrs May can or should preside over those discussions. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, implied and as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, whoever is the Prime Minister must be a person who commands respect in the House of Commons, across the political divide and in the country as a whole. He or she must also be credible in Europe and on the international stage. In the conduct of the talks, in the formulation of policy and in taking the consequential legislation through Parliament, the Prime Minister will have to seek support from all sides of the House.
Although such considerations might not definitively identify who should be the next Prime Minister, they most certainly will identify the unsuitable. Now is not the time and No. 10 is not the place for clowns or for those who indulge in fantasies. In the wake of their policies would come economic damage, international isolation and considerable humiliation. I hope that in the coming votes the House of Commons will take full advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded to it. Parliament and the country can and must think again.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is indeed a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—an old adversary of mine in the other place. As noble Lords have heard, he is a very powerful advocate, and it is much better to be on the same side as him. I agree with almost everything that he has said today but I want to make it clear that I totally support the Motion to revoke Article 50 in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis.
I need to explain why I have adjusted my view since the last time I spoke, which was some time ago. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I have not spoken in all 13 of the debates—mind you, he gets better as he goes along. When I last spoke, I said that, although revoking was my preferred option, I reluctantly agreed that we needed a referendum to finish the job because it started with a referendum. However, that brings me back to June 2016, when I was against having a referendum. I have always been against that. Indeed, the nicest thing that Gisela Stuart ever said about me was that I was against a referendum. In fact, that is the only nice thing she has ever said about me.
One reason I was against it was that in referenda people vote for reasons other than the question on the ballot paper. I remember that in 1979 we did not get a Scottish Assembly because the Callaghan Government were unpopular after the winter of discontent, and there has been no less popular Government than the Cameron Government when we went into the referendum in 2016. My view is that that is why a lot of people voted in the way that they did.
This referendum was corrupted and there was cheating in it. There was overspending, as the Electoral Commission has said. Indeed, as I understand it, the High Court has said that, if it had been a mandatory referendum, it would have been illegal. However, it was only an advisory referendum, so it did not matter that all those mistakes were made. However, that reminds us that it was an advisory referendum, so it should not be taken by the Government as an instruction.
One might challenge me that the same applied the last time I spoke about the referendum, and indeed I said much the same about it then. What has changed? What has tipped the balance? Above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, rightly said, there has been a sea change in public opinion since then. Now, all the implications of Brexit are known—people are made aware of the reality. It may be okay for Farage with his wealth, or for Rees-Mogg with his trust in Ireland, but ordinary people are beginning to realise that it is a disaster. This is being shown, first, in opinion polls. An analysis of 200 opinion polls showed that a majority of between 6% and 12% are now in favour of remain, whereas in June 2016 it was a majority of about 3% or 4% for leave. A second indication is the march on Saturday of over a million people from every part of the United Kingdom—not the metropolitan elite, as some say. They came from every corner of the United Kingdom and tramped through London to express their view. That shows strength; coming to London to express that view takes a lot more than just going to the ballot box.
Thirdly, the petition is astonishing, the biggest there has ever been: to date, over five and a half million people and rising at the rate of a few hundred thousand every hour. The petition is not for a referendum: it is to revoke and stay. I am glad to say that it was started by a 77 year-old lady, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell and I—I declare an interest as chair of Age Scotland—do a lot to promote the advantages of older people taking initiative. The fact that Margaret Anne Georgiadou took this initiative is very encouraging and the fact that five and a half million people have already followed her is even more so.
It is still possible to argue that we should nevertheless have a people’s vote—a second referendum—to prove the case. Leavers are not keen on a second referendum; does this indicate that they are not confident they would win again? Perhaps it does. However, one of the strong arguments against having a second referendum now, and for asking Parliament—urging the other place, in particular—to agree to revoke Article 50, is that the period of time needed for a referendum would continue the uncertainty; we might also end up with more lies and cheating unless we tightened up the rules. For a variety of reasons, I am not in favour, as I have said. There would be more jobs lost, just as we are losing jobs in every part of the United Kingdom at the moment, because of the threat and uncertainty.
Parliament now needs to step in, take up responsibility and accept that no Brexit is good for Britain. The best option is for us to remain part of the European Union—but remain and reform. Not just in Britain but in other countries of Europe, people think that the European Union needs reform. Every institution needs reform, including even—some people think—the institution that we are in now. Britain could be leading in Europe, not leaving Europe; that should be our slogan. So I hope we can send a message to the other place to revoke withdrawal.
Finally, having followed my old adversary, the noble Viscount, it is a great pleasure for me to hand the baton over to the person described by my noble friend on the Front Bench—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I hand the baton to the person described by my noble friend Lady Hayter as a national treasure: that is, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I am rendered almost speechless, but I shall try. I have no desire to add to the reservoir of recrimination into which so many words have been poured because of Brexit. But, despite the kind words of my noble friend Lord Foulkes and my cherished former research student, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I must confess that I am still struggling to absorb quite how a formidably resourceful country with a deeply mature parliamentary system, and which nurtures a real pride in its gift for international statecraft, could have come to such a pass as a destabiliser among the constellation of nations in Europe and the wider world—a nation that other countries can no longer read. What have we done to ourselves? What will become of us?
In that context, it dawned on me earlier this month that the number one target for British intelligence surely now is us. Since, nearly three years ago, we moved temporarily into a strange new country—let us call it “Brexitland”—we have become a mystery even unto ourselves; so much so that in a column in last Friday’s Tablet, I respectfully suggested to the chairman of the Cabinet Office’s Joint Intelligence Committee that he commission a special assessment under the heading, “Brexitland: Questions Facing the UK”.
Such an assessment might touch on a range of themes that are in play: future relationships with the EU, obviously; Britain’s wider place in the world after withdrawal; the sustainability of the very union of the UK and the prospects for a Scottish separation in the early 2020s; the social, economic and regional inequalities within the UK; the stress testing of UK institutions, including Parliament, the party-political structure and the Civil Service; the durability of the UK’s international alliances, including the special nuclear and intelligence relationships with the United States; prospects for the UK economy, research, innovation and technical education; and the enhancement of UK soft power, the transmission of values abroad and the restoration of a relatively rancour-free national political conversation at home. Perhaps the Minister, when he gets back to the department, could get on the phone to the Cabinet Office’s joint intelligence people and tell them what I have just said.
When it comes to my own future assessment—as a remainer but not a second referendum man—I carry an optimism about the longer-term prospects for the UK, provided that the cumulative effects of living in Brexitland do not leave us wallowing in a resentful torpor blighted by mutual scapegoating. Every generation needs a flag to which it can rally, a banner upon which it embroiders its shared aspirations. The banner under which my own, early post-war generation lived, for example, was particularly lustrous, very much woven by the great collective experience of the Second World War. What went into its embroidery? The answer is: the Beveridge report on welfare of 1942; the Education Act 1944; the full employment White Paper of 1944; the formation of the National Health Service in 1948; the placing of a collective security roof over all of this with the creation of NATO in 1949; and, from the late 1940s onwards, the transition from Empire to Commonwealth.
What we need now, especially in these highly polarised times, is another shared banner. We would all have our individual aspirations, but there are three I would embroider as a priority, for which I think there might—just might—be a new consensus once we are through Brexit. These would be: to do for social care what 1948 did for health; a very substantial building programme of social housing based on a public/private mix; and to get technical education right for the first time—after all, we have been trying to do this since the late 19th century.
If we can rally to a new banner, we might take not only ourselves pleasantly by surprise but our European neighbours and the rest of the world, in our ability to bounce back and cohere once more. In the meantime, I hope that the Prime Minister gets her deal through the House of Commons and that Friday 12 April does not go down as one of the bleakest days in our history. We have most definitely not been living through a finest hour, but a finest hour just might be there for the living if only we can get across the Brexit barrier and plant that shining flag on the other side. My Lords, I live in hope.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggested that now is not the time for clowns. But one thing I was musing about over the weekend was how both David Cameron and the current Prime Minister, Theresa May, seem to have had problems with timings. David Cameron thought that he had worked out the perfect timing for his referendum—May 2017—to give himself two years to negotiate the reforms that he wanted in order to have his 60:40 vote to remain in the European Union. But then he decided to bring the referendum forward, boxed himself into a corner, got a damp little squib of a deal, and the referendum, as we all know, went the wrong way for him.
Theresa May has spent the last two years telling us that exit day is 29 March 2019. I thought I would check the lyrics of the song that includes the words:
“Isn’t it rich?
Isn’t it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career”.
It goes on to say:
“But where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns
Well, maybe next year”.
We are in very difficult times. The Prime Minister has led us to a point where we now do not even know whether we will leave the European Union, with or without a deal, on 12 April. We spent 15 to 20 minutes earlier trying to work out whether international law trumps domestic law on the date of possibly leaving the European Union. Many of us believe that, unless we change our domestic law, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 still means we are due to leave on 29 March—this Friday. We are in a position that nobody sought to be in and to which I do not believe the Prime Minister intended to lead us.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Newby, I have not spoken in all 13 debates. This is the first time I have spoken in a Brexit debate since 5 December, on the very first day of the very first debate ahead of the first meaningful vote, which was pulled and did not happen. I have not felt the need to speak on the grounds that absolutely nothing changed between the Prime Minister proposing her withdrawal agreement in the autumn and last week. Even with the negotiations in Brussels last week, I might not have felt the need to speak this afternoon. I might have felt that the deal the Prime Minister had agreed in November was not adequate then and remains inadequate. It is a sign of how far the Prime Minister has managed to divide her own party, Parliament and the country that, whereas sh thinks that her deal is the will of the people, Parliament has defeated it comprehensively on every possible occasion.
I did not need to stand up and say that, but I wanted to stand up and speak after listening to the Prime Minister’s speech to the United Kingdom last Wednesday evening. It was a disgrace that she felt she should say to the people, “I’ve understood you. Take no notice of Parliament, I know what you all want. I am speaking for you, but those other politicians aren’t”. There is nobody in your Lordships’ House or the other place who is not trying to do their best for this country, whether we agree or disagree with her deal, and whether we are remainers, leavers, remoaners or born-again leavers. We are all trying to do our best and most of us are trying to work in the national interest. The idea that the Prime Minister should try to pit herself and the people against Parliament is not helpful to our democracy. It will not help us come together as a country. It will not lead to the sort of United Kingdom that we should all be seeking, whether or not we leave the European Union on Friday.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out earlier that a referendum is, in many ways, an alien device, which is not the norm in this country. Certainly, when we entered the Common Market, Edward Heath, the then Prime Minister, was very clear that a referendum was not appropriate. Both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher used the idea that referendums were the devices of dictators and demagogues. That language of referendums as dangerous devices is often used in the literature. However, I am speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches. My former leader, Mr Clegg, came out in favour of a referendum ahead of the Lisbon treaty, so my party has form in supporting referendums.
In the 1970s, Edward Heath was very clear that the people’s view should be listened to, and that it would be, through a parliamentary vote. That was how we entered the Common Market. However, times have changed. The 1975 referendum on whether to stay in the Common Market set a precedent, which caused opinion to change fundamentally. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am editing a handbook on European referendums—possibly as some sort of sadomasochistic activity—in my spare time. At a workshop for the book which I hosted in Cambridge last year, John Curtice pointed out that referendums are now in the British DNA. The 1975 referendum was the first, but the referendum in 2016 will almost certainly not be the last.
I was very clear that I did not support a referendum but, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench at the time of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, it was pointed out to me that I had jolly well better get behind my party’s position to support it. We did; we all campaigned in the referendum. However, I was very clear throughout, on every platform that I spoke on, that if the vote was to leave, that was not an opportunity to simply keep rerunning referendums. I said that before 23 June 2016 and I have said it from these Benches since.
Referendums are dangerous devices, but there is one thing that is potentially more dangerous than having another referendum, and that is Parliament saying it will revoke Article 50 without any further reference to the citizens of the United Kingdom. More than 5 million people may have signed a petition and 1 million people may have demonstrated on Saturday, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that there is a sense that the 2016 mandate is becoming dated. There may well be a case for asking the people, “Theresa May is sure her deal represents your will. Does it really?”. If the Prime Minister is so sure that she understands the will of the people then surely there is no difficulty in asking them again.
I did not march on Saturday because I had a pre-existing commitment to speak in a debate in Cambridge, which your Lordships might expect to be the metropolitan heart of remain. However, the debate was in fact full of leavers, who were saying, “Democracy is about us. We made our views very clear”. That even included former remainers who said they respected the result of the referendum. In a democracy, people have the right to change their mind. I fundamentally believe, as I always have, that Britain is better in the European Union. I ought to declare an interest that, in my capacity as reader in European Politics at Cambridge, I receive European funding. That might not come as a surprise to anyone who has read any of my writing. However, I am also a democrat and I fundamentally believe that if we change the outcome of the referendum and end up in a different place, it has to be because the citizens of the United Kingdom say that that is what they want.
We need this country to come together. At the moment, Parliament is deeply divided, which is a perfect reflection of the country. A general election will not get around that. Maybe, just maybe, another referendum would. However, the idea of taking part in European Parliament elections should not be used as a weapon to try to stifle debate. Whatever people think about the European Parliament, it is directly elected and a form of democracy, and it should not be used as a way to try to silence opposition to the Prime Minister.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I feel in a very lonely position this evening. I have tried hard to be persuaded by the arguments of the remainers, but my head and my heart will not go that way.
What has been the role of this House in the Brexit process for the past two years? I think the history books will not look upon us favourably. It is true that we have played our traditional constructive part in amending legislation, but our collective wisdom should have offered more inclusive solutions than has been the case. Instead, the great majority of our members have tried to belittle the sentiments of those who voted leave. Repeatedly, we have been told that people did not vote to make themselves poorer. That sentiment reveals nothing about the leavers, but it does show that remainers see the issues through an economic perspective only, and that retaining and protecting one’s investments are the only possible values. This should not be so.
It is not only in this country that voters have seen the profound failings of the EU, and are trying to stem the flow of those failures into their own lives. Right across Europe the populist and nationalist movements are on the rise. Southern states are left to stagnate, with recession and youth unemployment. The former Communist states are rejecting the orders from Brussels about borders, environment and migrants. Minorities are in fear for their lives. Germany alone benefits economically, although even that is stalling.
The wealthier EU states do not help the poorer: they leave them to flounder. There are no shared values anymore. On the contrary, human rights are being devalued as never before since the end of the Second World War. The central Government in Brussels grow ever more distant from those they purport to govern. France is in the grip of riots. The German AfD has representatives in the Reichstag. Hungary, Italy, Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Sweden, the Netherlands and Poland now have the far right well represented in government. No wonder the EU is fearful for the elections in May, which are likely to increase the representation of extremists.
Leavers have rejected, in a once-in-a-generation opportunity, the failings of past empires, whether Austro-Hungarian, British, Roman, the Soviet Union’s, Yugoslavian, American, French or Ottoman. Starting with the best of intentions of bringing security and peace to disparate peoples, they inevitably brought repression and diktats as soon as local preferences were expressed. The EU is simply a return to Europe’s imperial past, and it is not even able to defend itself but is reliant on NATO and in thrall to Russia.
This top-down governance lacks the elements of loyalty and shared burdens that characterise national states. Over the decades since 1945, these states have spent more and more of their budgets on helping their own citizens in times of hardship, and yet somehow those who benefit from the EU have managed to create a mindset that sees the union of European states as the only legitimate liberal opinion that one may hold. Voting leave was described as an unforgivable act of dissent. It had to be described as a protest vote, a vote by the uneducated and aged and a vote that has to be repressed.
What is going on now to stop leave is another manifestation of the intolerance that faces political and religious speech regarded as deviating from the acceptable view. This is where the hatred and bigotry arise again, against those who do not accept the universalist ideologies, or as a reaction to legitimate national expression being put down. Individual freedom throughout history has been better protected in independent states than in conglomerations. In short, as the EU undermines national loyalty, it creates a fertile soil for extremism and hatred. Democracy cannot flourish eventually in a superstate, as history has shown. It is therefore legitimate and far sighted to seek to retain our independent democracy and not risk further exposure to the forces that may yet bring an end to the latest dream of empire.
What advice can we give our colleagues in the other place? Certainly not to take control themselves. Not only is that a constitutional outrage and a very dangerous precedent for future majority governments, but there is no clear majority in the Commons for any particular path. It is not possible for the EU 27 to deal with the Commons—or will they be represented by Speaker Bercow? One begins to see why there is sense in the royal prerogative in dealing with foreign affairs, as was almost universally understood until the Supreme Court judgment in Miller concerning Article 50. Moreover, one can be sure that were MPs to come up with one solution commanding a majority and present it to Brussels, it would be turned down, for the clear aim of the EU has been from the outset to prevent our leaving, or make it so unpleasant that no other state will ever dare to rebel against the centralised powers. We did not vote to be humiliated, but that is what has happened, and we should never again entrust our sovereignty to other states. That is the lesson.
We are left with three outcomes: revoking Article 50 and/or a second referendum, no deal and the May deal. Revocation would have no democratic basis. On the contrary, it would be a betrayal of the universal franchise and especially the democratic rights of the public. It would be a disfranchisement by those who consider themselves best able to govern of those for whom they are expressing contempt, an attitude that should have ended more than 100 years ago. A second referendum would quite likely, in my view, be won by leave again, on the basis of not wanting to be bullied. Moreover, given the accusations of ignorance last time, are we certain that all the electorate are on top of the backstop and all the other provisions of the agreement? If leave won again, we would have the same practical problems. If remain won, that result would be rejected with the same strength as leave is rejected now.
What about no deal? Despite the Prime Minister’s statement, I maintain that legally it is still on the table. Unless Parliament changes primary legislation, it is still there. None the less, despite the allegations of chaos, I believe we are more prepared for the logic of no deal than is generally put about. No deal—that is, trading under WTO terms—is what we may well get on 29 March. It has advantages, it has disadvantages. It is not popular, but it is feasible and logical. It would jump-start the EU 27 into proper negotiation.
What, then, of the Prime Minister’s deal? The withdrawal agreement is not a treaty for all time. The weight of legal opinion, which is at least sufficient to defend a legal challenge, is that Articles 60 and 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allow termination of a treaty for a material breach by one side of its obligations or a fundamental change of circumstances. For once, I have my pupil, more brilliant than I, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on my side. Should the UK come to the conclusion that the EU was keeping it locked in a backstop unreasonably, it could claim a material breach of the withdrawal agreement. Both parties will be obliged to work towards a specific result— namely, to conclude an agreement that supersedes the protocol by the end of 2020. Unreasonable delays by the EU, or negotiating in a manner that does not take account of the objectives of the UK would be a breach of the principle of good faith.
A permanent backstop would undermine the Good Friday agreement. If the EU threatened that, it would be inconsistent with its best endeavours and good-faith duties. If the backstop became permanent by default, without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, this would amount to a fundamental change of circumstances under Article 62. Article 1(4) of the protocol expressly states that the withdrawal agreement is meant to be temporary. If it became permanent, this would be a fundamental change, and the longer it continues, and the worse the consequences for Northern Ireland, the stronger the legal argument that Article 62 would apply. The UK has withdrawn unilaterally from 52 treaties since 1988. All these were multilateral treaties. We cannot, therefore, be bound permanently in international law by an agreement if one of its terms is that it does not establish a permanent relationship and is meant to be temporary. The fears surrounding this are ill founded.
Bad though the May agreement is, if I were an MP I would probably hold my nose and vote for it. I urge the other House to pass this deal. If it does not, the plans of the venal and the apparatchiks in Brussels are to delay Brexit for year after year until it vanishes, and there will be no escape from the downward spiral of the EU. Brexit is within our grasp—just a few more votes, and we have it. Otherwise, it is gone for ever, with our sovereignty and our respect for individual freedoms.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who speaks with such clarity and authority. Although I do not agree with everything she said, I agree with much of it.
These occasions have begun to acquire a sort of ritualistic quality. Time after time, there is always the noble Lord, Lord Newby, pronouncing the obituary of the withdrawal treaty, although somehow it goes on. Its death is somewhat exaggerated. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, tries to cheer us all up with his attempt at light-heartedness. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, puts it all in a wonderful historical perspective. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, tells us that everything on offer is unacceptable, although in this case I think her lovely story about everyone being out of step did not quite add up, because all the people she mentioned, or most of them, want to be in step with the Prime Minister in agreeing the withdrawal treaty. It seemed she drew the wrong conclusion from her story, but never mind. We have to say these things and no doubt they will all be said again by all parties.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I have considerable sympathy for the Prime Minister and her frustration about the membership of the House of Commons. Of course, there are many hard-working MPs of great integrity. Some of us spent decades in the House of Commons and we did our best, but of course there are also some—and there always were—who really do try anybody’s patience, like Disraeli’s flies in amber. One wonders how the devil some of them got there.
I have been astonished at the cavalier disregard of some MPs for the facts or the truth, especially in commenting on the so-called Prime Minister’s deal. Actually, of course, it is a carefully worked out 585-page treaty, drawn up painstakingly between EU and British representatives over a long period. Thus from certain MPs, journalists, academics and lawyers who should know better come statements that, “The withdrawal agreement binds us permanently into subjugation”. That is nonsense. Another one says that we “remain for ever under ECJ rules”. That is not true. Another says that we pay billions “for nothing”, which is nonsense again, or that we remain trapped, et cetera. Others have talked idiotically about penal servitude, the EU torture chamber, putting us at the mercy of our competitors, or being plunged by the Treasury into a spiral downwards into oblivion. These views have come from both sides, from the hard-line Brexiteers and the hard-line Europhiles.
Others keep insisting that the referendum is being undermined, when in obvious fact the treaty reflects the referendum result. What it undermines is the totally antidemocratic view that the majority takes all and the minority can be ignored. That is the deadly straight road not to democracy, but to majoritarianism and demagoguery. It is the point—I am afraid we are getting quite near it—where populism hijacks democracy.
As to the backstop mentioned by so many, the doom-mongers and our dear lawyers again keep saying—here is their latest—that there is,
“a long-term risk to … the integrity of the United Kingdom”.
This is nonsense. All sides insist that it should be only temporary. There it is again in the Prime Minister’s latest letter, as in her Statement, that,
“the backstop is unlikely ever to be used, and would only be temporary if it is”.
That cannot be reconciled with the statements that some prominent MPs and columnists consistently make, ignoring the facts, referring to bondage and eternal entrapment. Such statements are utterly twisted and distorted. The withdrawal agreement does none of these things. It is a transition document—a necessary first step on a long journey. It is an exit, as ordained by the referendum, but an orderly one. It takes us decisively out of the European Union and opens the way decisively to new trade relations in a changed world and to catching up with Asia, which is rapidly moving ahead of the western world in almost every respect. After transition we are free of the EU’s worst overcentralising and outdated features, but we remain good and close neighbours—possibly even closer neighbours than we have been—and not all that far, ironically, from what the rest of Europe is increasingly arguing for and what the prospective next German Chancellor is arguing for herself. Portraying the treaty otherwise is malign and mischievous, or the product of narrow legalistic contortions by the lawyers. I should not say this, but I sometimes agree with what Shakespeare had to say about lawyers.
As for all the talk about Mrs May going, this really is a mad time to be suggesting such a thing. The chairman of the 1922 committee has apparently been to see her about resigning. The late Lord Whitelaw, with whom I worked very closely, had a wise adage about parliamentary life at Westminster: never take any notice at all of the 1922 committee’s view. It was always wrong. That is what he said, more than once.
I have urged the Prime Minister, and I urge her again, to make the next meaningful vote on the withdrawal treaty a matter of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. I am convinced that that is possible under the 2011 Act. Of course, it is a gamble and a risk, but no greater than the risk she is taking at present. It would have a powerful effect on all but the most myopic hardliners, as well as on a good many sensible social democrats in the Labour Party—not, of course, the leadership, but that is a different story. If she won we could move on to the task of working out modern commercial arrangements with the EU and the rest the world. If she lost—and that is the gamble—under the 2011 Act there would be a fortnight of limbo and then a general election, for which the European Union would certainly grant any further time necessary. In fact, it has indicated as much. It would take about seven weeks to get a general election under way and organised. It could therefore take place in mid-May. It is certainly not what I want and it would be really messy, with the vote split in every direction in various constituencies between official party candidates and breakaways, between Conservatives and independent Tories, between Corbynite Labourites and more sensible social democrats. But a new Parliament would have a good chance—a better chance than the present one—of being less paralysed. It could well have an ad-hoc majority for the withdrawal treaty and for meeting the overwhelming wish of the British people for settling withdrawal and moving on.
But, of course, none of this needs to happen. Why? Because a confidence vote would be a smack of firm government and would bring over further sensible ERG doubters, and there are quite a few of those. Of course, the deepest diehards in my party will remain outside because, sadly, they are now beyond reason, beyond conservatism and, when one examines their pronouncements, beyond truth. Calling a linked confidence vote—the bold, high-risk course—could now deliver the majority needed and the great issues of our times would be decided in Parliament, in line with our model of democracy, and not in the streets, where democracy does not belong and never did.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, “I’m 16 … Your Vote, My Future”. That was a placard photographed on the front of the Evening Standard and published on Friday. One headline said that 1 million people “marched to stop” the Brexit “madness”; another one said that over 5.5 million people had signed the petition to revoke Article 50. I do not imagine that Mrs May even noticed these headlines, or looked out of the window. So caught up is she in saving her position and her deal for her party that she ignores any other opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, joked at the start of the last debate about the need to find something fresh to say—but he is only partially correct. Most of what noble Lords have suggested in these debates has been ignored or rejected in the Prime Minister’s single-minded pursuit of her deal—a deal unacceptable to right or left, remain or leave; a deal that leaves us in chaos; and a deal compromised by premature, unachievable red lines and a determination not to yield to any other point of view. Even now, days before our scheduled exit, it appears that she would prefer to plunge the country over the cliff in a no deal, if and when her plan is rejected.
The fate of the Prime Minister is irrelevant to most of the public. They crave a statesman, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, alluded to; a leader to take control and acknowledge that most voters in the referendum, whether they voted leave or remain, did not know the cost or the implications of leaving. They certainly did not vote to become poorer. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—the economy is most important to them. Nor did they vote to make this country a laughing stock—which it is rapidly becoming in the foreign press—to devalue the pound, to see the Treasury spend millions on stockpiling essentials or to turn Kent into a huge lorry park.
The Prime Minister has not done much to bring the country together, but has instead alienated Members of Parliament in an attempt to blame them, rather than herself, for this chaos. We need a statesman to put country before party, to explain to voters why the Brexit promises of 2016 are not on offer or available, and to show that it is impossible to leave without damaging the UK economically and culturally. I refer again to the wonderful Erasmus programme, which has provided so many of our young university students with invaluable experience of studying abroad.
It is, above all, our young people who are going to be most damaged by a hard Brexit—hence the placard that the young boy was carrying, to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks. They are the ones, mostly disenfranchised in 2016, who see their prospects and horizons narrowed by this insane desire to stop our citizens moving around and working throughout Europe. Indeed, the inward migration pressure from eastern European countries is diminishing, as wages rise rapidly in those countries and their people see the “Not Welcome Here” signs illuminated at Dover and Heathrow.
We have rehearsed endlessly the threat to our businesses and industries, and the incipient dearth of labour to service our agriculture, our hospitality and health industries, to name a few—but to no avail. It is that mantra again: the will of the people. Somehow it is democratic to ask the House of Commons to vote three times on the same Motion, but undemocratic to ask the nation to reconfirm its opinion of three years ago. However the next vote goes this week—if it happens at all—we have generously been given some extra time by the EU to make up our minds, to stand on the edge of the cliff, to come to our senses and to realise that this agony, this disruption, this cost and this division are not worth it.
One of the main failures of Mrs May’s deal is the lack of detail over our future trading arrangements with the bloc in the political declaration paper. This is a vital part on which our prosperity will depend. It leaves our economy at the mercy of negotiations over the next few years. I agree with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Let us revoke Article 50 and admit that we were wrong, perhaps confirming it by a people’s vote. Too much to hope for, perhaps, but then history will judge those who get it wrong.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, the most precious commodity in political life is trust, and trust depends on keeping your promises. We saw what happened to what was once a major party in our country when it broke its solemn pledge on tuition fees: it was reduced to a rump, and even now, nine years later, with both major parties in disarray, it is unable to regain its position. Both major parties were elected in 2017 on a pledge to implement the referendum decision, and the Conservative Party was specific: that meant leaving the customs union and the single market. If we do not keep those pledges, we do not just put our party fortunes at risk. We undermine trust in our whole political system.
When, on 7 March last year and again on 4 October, President Tusk offered the United Kingdom a Canada-style free trade deal, he correctly stated that it was the only type of trading arrangement between the United Kingdom and the EU compatible with our promises to leave the customs union and the single market. That is why I greatly regret that the Government did not take up that offer. If I were in the other House, I might, with extreme reluctance, vote for the withdrawal agreement, since the alternatives being offered are even worse. However, if it is defeated, I hope the Government, Parliament and our political system will look again at President Tusk’s offer. Most certainly, in the time available, we will not be able to secure it before we leave, in which case we must be prepared to leave on WTO terms.
A year ago, it was quite reasonable to be worried about what leaving on WTO terms, with no withdrawal agreement, would mean. People had specific and concrete concerns. The planes were not going to fly. There were not enough licences for drivers and hauliers to operate on the continent. Trains would not be able to find a platform in Paris, apparently. Problems with the electricity supply in Ireland were threatened. Derivatives would cease to be valid, which would lead to the collapse of the whole banking system. I could go on. There were worries, too, about shortages and congestion at Dover. Now nearly all those concrete and specific concerns have been resolved by a series of mini-deals, reciprocal arrangements and pragmatic measures taken by us, by the European Union and by individual countries such as France, Belgium and Holland.
The opposition spokesperson began her speech in December by raising that concrete threat that planes would not fly. Planes will fly, however, because—although news of it did not reach this House—on 13 November last year, the EU said that it would introduce legislation to allow our planes to fly over, land in and return from the EU, if the UK reciprocated. We have: deal done.
There were concerns that if we became a third country to the EU and it to us, there would be only 1,638 licences available for all our lorries. The EU has said that it will create licences for our lorries to operate over the next year. It has also backed British membership of the common transit convention, to which we now belong, and has promised to work with us in the European Transport Ministers’ committee, which covers 48 states and will provide licences for our lorries to operate throughout all 48 states in and around Europe. Trains will run. Electricity will operate in Ireland, because of the measures and changes the Irish Government have made. Derivatives have been sorted. Visas will be available to our citizens to travel on the continent, as long as we make reciprocal arrangements for continentals to come here, which we will: another deal done. All these mini-deals have been done, and it is to the Government’s credit that they have made them, although they are rather coy about it, because they are still trying to frighten my colleagues in my former House into voting for their deal.
Most of the concerns about shortages, of everything from food and medicines to Mars bars and water, were due to fear of congestion at Dover and Calais, because additional checks might be needed. But Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has said it will not need to carry out any additional checks at Dover in the event of no deal or a free trade agreement because, even if there are tariffs, they will not be collected at the border. As the chairman of HMRC said, they are paid computer to computer, not by someone handing over a cheque through the window of a lorry as they pass through Dover. That is true of duties at present. The checks made are based on intelligence, where there is reason to believe that there is tobacco or alcohol—dutiable goods—or drugs or illegal immigrants, and officers therefore have to stop vehicles to look for those things. But they are few and most are carried out away from the port. Their frequency is not expected to change, because those risks will not change after Brexit, so traffic will flow freely through Dover.
Concerns were then raised and focused on what would happen in Calais. Most of the problems that caused us to operate Operation Stack for 211 days over the last 20 years—10 days a year on average—arose from problems in Calais, when there were strikes, immigrants blocked access to ports or trains, and so on. People feared that, if the French were not ready, it would create congestion at Calais, backing up across the channel and leading to congestion in Dover. But the French have moved with commendable speed and efficiency. I recommend that colleagues and noble Lords who have not already done so look at the website of Douane Française. They will see the smart border arrangements that will be put in place in Calais, which it is believed will ensure that trade flows freely through that port. The French are worried, and make it explicit, that if they do not enable trade to continue uninterrupted through Calais, they will lose that trade to Zeebrugge, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, which are well-prepared and eager to take the trade from them. So there will be no congestion at Calais either.
All these scares about shortages of food and so on are absurd. One that really worries people is the idea that there will be a shortage of medicines. I hear it repeated all the time, even though, on 25 February, the Government put out a Statement listing everything they have done to ensure that medicines get through. Even if there are hold-ups somewhere, there are stockpiles in this country and the Government said that,
“the supply of medicines and medical products should be uninterrupted in the event of exiting the EU without a deal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/19; col. 3WS.]
They urge people not to stockpile, because the one thing that could create a shortage is panic buying, as it could of any commodity at any time.
The result of all this has shown up in the debate today, where noble Lord after noble Lord has threatened us with calamity, catastrophe and disaster if there is no deal, but none has mentioned any specific calamities, catastrophes and disasters, because they know, in their heart of hearts, that they have been resolved and prepared for. Problems you prepare for do not happen, as we discovered with the millennium bug. If you have additional capacity for ferries as back-up in the event that something goes wrong, it means you have resolved the risk and we should recognise that.
It is essential, however, for those who want us to prolong the whole process to demonise the possibility of our leaving without a withdrawal agreement, hence the resort to this lexicon of lurid adjectives about calamity, catastrophe and disaster, previously used by the same people in reference only to the calamity that faced us if we did not go into the ERM, the catastrophe that faced us if we left the ERM, the disaster that faced us if we did not join the euro and the appalling situation that would result, according to 365 economists, if Geoffrey Howe’s Budget went ahead in 1981. That was followed by eight years’ growth, just as our departure from the ERM was followed by eight years’ continuing growth. We should not believe these abstract concerns that people have now that the concrete worries have largely been resolved.
The remaining fears are much more concrete and concern the certain application of tariffs if we leave and there is no free trade deal. Then, our exporters would face EU tariffs. They average 3% or 4% on our goods. Our exporters have gained 15% in competitiveness through the movement of the pound since 2016, so most are better placed now than they would have been, even with those tariffs. Some will face higher tariffs, but we will be in a position to help them. The total bill for this tariff of 3% or 4% on our exports will be £5 billion to £6 billion, but we will be saving £10 billion to £12 billion every year in our net annual contribution to the EU. So we will be well placed to help farmers and the car industry—those facing the highest tariffs—to cope with those tariffs and adjust to them.
We should not just look at the negatives. There are positives, too, if we leave without a withdrawal agreement. First, we will not have conceded £39 billion with nothing in return, which we would under the withdrawal agreement. We should be prepared to go to international arbitration confident in the advice that this House gave, concluding:
“Article 50 allows the UK to leave the EU without being liable for outstanding financial obligations”.
The second advantage is that it will truncate uncertainty, which, under the withdrawal agreement or a prolonged extension of Article 50, will continue for between 21 and 45 months. We will put that to bed, not necessarily to everybody’s liking, but it is better to end uncertainty and enable business to plan and get on with life.
Finally, it will force a resolution of the Irish border issue. As recently as last month, Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, said that, in the event of no deal:
“There is an obligation on the Irish and British governments, and the EU to try and work together to find a way of avoiding physical border infrastructure on this island”.
It can be done. It will be done if we leave with no withdrawal agreement, and that will open the way for us to have a free trade arrangement between Britain and Europe, covering the whole UK, which I hope will enable us to trade profitably and amicably in the future.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, if there is one thing I agree with the noble Lord about, in his interesting speech, it is the importance of trust in our political system. We are in a major crisis. Historically, that will be true for many years to come. What worries me is that the public have lost confidence in our political institutions and the way they work in the context of the Brexit debate, and that confidence will take a very long time to rebuild, because it goes beyond the Brexit debate itself.
The paradox of our situation is that just as the young—look at the schoolchildren who are showing us how they see their priorities—are discovering that the world is totally interdependent, and that we have to stand together in the interest of humanity, so many people in Britain want to march in the opposite direction. I find that—not to overuse the word—a tragedy. If political leadership, at a juncture like this, is about anything, it is about enabling people and helping them to understand the realities of the world in which we live, to meet the challenges inherent in that and to rise to the values that are essential if we are to meet those challenges.
When we talk of values, one other thing that has come out clearly from the Brexit story is that we talk about British values but it is not at all clear what British values are. There are people in Britain—as was demonstrated by the million people marching on Saturday, and the petition with five and a half million names—who want to belong to the world and want us to be an embracing, inclusive society. But there is also a political trend in our society—we are not alone in Europe in this respect—that positively rejects that concept and sees a xenophobic, exclusive future for our nation. If I am allowed to use a word not often used in our debates, love is absent and hate prevails.
We have a tremendous challenge to leadership here—I was very struck by how well that was spelled out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle earlier in our debate. But there are other issues. For example, in the age of globalisation there is a distinct sense of insecurity among many ordinary people; they yearn for a sense of identity in society. What may come out of the Brexit saga, therefore, is a realisation that we have to re-examine our political institutions pretty fundamentally if we are to face the future.
This comes in the context of devolution and related issues. It is a shame that we have not had the political vision to go for a federal, or at least confederal, United Kingdom, in which the Scots could feel Scottish, the Irish could feel Irish, the Welsh could feel Welsh—and even the English could come to feel that it is good to be English. People would also see, however, that to meet the world’s challenges it is essential—not just an option—to co-operate. If that is true of the United Kingdom, it is true of worldwide society as a whole.
Having said all that, I have just one other fundamental point to make. There is a deep anxiety—we all encounter it in our relationships and so on—about the adequacy of the body politic. How capable are we of facing up to, grasping and beginning to handle the fundamental challenges? That makes it absolutely unthinkable that, in whatever way we decide to move forward on Brexit, we do it without seeking the approval and endorsement of the people as a whole. Otherwise, we will be making the decisions on behalf of people who have no confidence in us. That is not a sound basis for the future.
We have an unwritten constitutional tradition in which consensus is very important; we may not talk about consensus but there is an underlying sense that you have to carry the nation as a whole with you in whatever you are doing. From that standpoint, it may well be that we have to face further changes in our own constitutional arrangements, not just in those with Europe. We cannot, however, arrogantly assume that, having almost set out to bewilder and disturb the population about our own capabilities, we can then make the strategic decision on our own. Whatever is recommended—whatever comes out of this—must be put to the British people.
I also believe that—to be true to what I have been talking about—leadership, in its best sense, becomes indispensable. It is not a matter of fixing, or concocting, arrangements and deals; it is a matter of vision, of standing up for what you really believe in and having the vision to portray the challenges, what is necessary to meet them, and the destiny we seek for our country. We do not have that anywhere in our political system at the moment. We must all take that to heart—and until we get that right, our democracy will be in deep trouble. We must rediscover leadership, vision, purpose and principle. We must know what is good and what is wrong.
Compromise of course will be involved. That is not a bad thing: I often reflect that compromise is the moral centre of politics. But we must distinguish the good compromise from the bad compromise—the good one that enables the nation to move forward and the bad one that will set you further back, on the slippery slope to some kind of hellish, nationalistic, myopic, hateful society. We seem to be in danger of making the wrong choice in that context. It is time for leadership, and I hope that we rediscover that leadership before it is too late.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, Brexit debates in this House have become a bit like buses—the buses in London at least—if you miss one, there is no great concern because another will be along shortly. I think, however, that in today’s debate we are finally reaching a critical point: there is literally no more road to kick the can down.
When I last spoke on Brexit in this House—on 9 January, just before the first meaningful vote—four things were clear to me. First, the Government’s deal would be defeated heavily in the Commons and deserved to be. Particularly with this deal, it is not the end of Brexit; it does not bring closure on Brexit; it would continue for years to come. It is like the film “Groundhog Day”, but without the laughs. Secondly, despite the preparations that have been referred to, we were not adequately prepared for a no-deal Brexit. The risks if it happened were simply too great to be contemplated. Thirdly, the only way out of the parliamentary impasse was to hold a second referendum. Fourthly, extension of Article 50 beyond 29 March was inevitable. Those were my views on 9 January. On the first three, nothing has happened to change them. On the final one, we have, belatedly, an extension, albeit too short.
Like others in this House, I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon. Even with the extension, we are in the extraordinary position of potentially being just weeks away from leaving the EU without having an agreed basis on which to leave. This week, we face the possibility, not the certainty, of a third meaningful vote if the Prime Minister thinks she can win it, and then a series of indicative votes by the Commons on the options were she not to succeed. I laud the intention of those promoting a vote on the options, but I have some doubts that it will secure a clear path ahead in the time available. In these exceptional circumstances, I think that the Civil Service has a duty to the Crown and the country as well as to the Government. It must be allowed to give us its full and unvarnished assessment of the impact of leaving on 12 April without a deal. From what I understand, it would not make pretty reading.
The Government were wrong to seek a short extension and the EU has not given us the time necessary to do justice to the debate on the fundamental options that we need. We need a proper pause to the process to allow the country to reflect on its future choices. This means either securing a long extension or, as I would now favour, revoking Article 50, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his Motion. Having to hold elections to the European Parliament would be an inconvenient but small price to pay given the scale of the choices that we are now faced with.
Three words have characterised the recent Brexit debate: humiliation, betrayal and patriotism. There is no doubt in my mind—and, indeed, among the vast majority of the British public—that the Brexit process has been an utter humiliation. The EU has been as united and clear-minded as we have been divided and muddled. When and if the dust settles on all this, we will certainly need a full public inquiry to learn the lessons from this most unhappy period.
Those favouring Brexit have spoken long and loud recently about its betrayal—by the establishment, by Parliament and by the Civil Service. If you started out with the belief, as many Brexiteers appeared to do, that Brexit was going to be an easy and painless process, it is just possible to see how you might come to this view. But it was never going to be easy and hard choices were always going to have to be made—choices that have been consistently ducked rather than debated and decided. It is worth remembering that Ministers strongly supporting Brexit held the key positions in the Government during the period. The Brexit process has their name on it. If the Brexiteers want to find out who is responsible for the current state of affairs, they need only look in the mirror.
For the rest of us, we have lost nearly three years: 1,000 days of our lives that we will never get back. In the circumstances, the public are entitled to have the final say on the way out of this mess. That is why I was glad to go on the march on Saturday.
Finally, I will say a word on patriotism. It is just over 75 years since my father’s Avro Lancaster was shot down over Germany. He was just 18 at the time and spent the rest of the war in a prisoner of war camp. He suffered a back injury that stayed with him for the rest of his life. He was, though, one of the lucky ones. Four of his crew, of similar ages, failed to get out of that plane and were burned alive as it came down. After the war, my father came to understand the damage done to German cities by the Bomber Command raids and dedicated a good part of his life to building links with Germany through town twinning. This is the kind of patriotism that I understand—not the blustering nonsense of some of the ERG—Britain and Europe together, national and international.
Europe is becoming a dangerous place with the rise of militant nationalism. Britain can be part of challenging this or it can contribute to it through its actions. When the debate about borders and backstops has gone, the key test of whether we have got this right is whether those four crew members did not give up their lives too early, for no good reason.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It is also a matter of deep regret that we are here yet again debating the same issue, but we are where we are.
We have heard a lot this evening about democracy. Democracy, however, is not fixed in stone. When people vote, they rely on what they are led to believe at the time by politicians making promises and giving reassurances. Election manifestos are never normally sacrosanct. Indeed, much of past manifestos has never materialised.
We have respected and honoured the result of the referendum. Some suggest that we have not; I find that difficult to comprehend. To quote George Orwell,
“all political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome”.
The facts are that the red lines set in the beginning, dictated by the ERG, were and are impossible. The promises of the leave campaign are undeliverable. One million people marched on Saturday for a chance to vote now—now that they know more about what Brexit means—and 5.5 million people have in a matter of days signed a petition asking to cancel Brexit. Our democracy must be able to adapt to these changes.
The Prime Minister, cajoled by the ERG, refuses to consider that the course that we are pursuing may not be the will of the majority now. How can we possibly know that? How can it be anti-democratic to ask people’s view? If the Prime Minister’s deal is what people want, why not prove it? If 17.4 million people wanted a hard Brexit, let us prove it. I find it difficult to understand how the Government can insist that the British people cannot change their mind after two or three years but Parliament can be asked to change its mind in two or three weeks, as the Prime Minister puts her deal to MPs again and again. It is time to face reality. Government and Parliament have not been able to find a way forward to implement the referendum result, and no deal must not be allowed to happen by default. However, sadly, I struggle to see that this threat has actually gone, notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s welcome words at the Dispatch Box earlier today.
On 12 April the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration will most likely not have passed. She will have a choice: she can stick to her sacred duty to deliver Brexit and be consistent with her statements that “no deal is better than a bad deal”; she can ask for a further extension, and thus have to fight EU elections; or she can revoke Article 50. I cannot be confident she will choose the latter course. Parliament may not even be sitting, so what would stop us leaving with no deal?
I cannot share the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Lilley, whose reassurances are of no more comfort to me than those about the easiest trade deal in history we were going to enjoy; about the rolling over of the 40 deals we already have with other countries, ready to go by 28 March—or about the ability to have our cake and eat it. All the reassurances so far given by the Brexiteers have proven false. It is simply not safe to ignore the TUC, the CBI and businesses large and small across the country—or indeed our obligations under the Good Friday agreement—and suggest that leaving without a deal is somehow okay.
We need to find another way forward, and, as my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley has said, this is not the time for party politics. To quote John F Kennedy:
“Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past—let us accept our own responsibility for the future”.
We do not want a Tory or Labour answer. We want a better answer than we have had so far. That, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham and other noble Lords have wisely said, would suggest to us that we need some kind of Government of national unity to see us through this Brexit situation.
The Prime Minister has even said that she has tried to work across the House to find an alternative way forward. That has simply not happened. There have been no free tests of the opinion of the country’s elected representatives. The assertions that other options have been rejected are not right. Whipped votes are not an indication of parliamentary views.
Time is short, but Back-Benchers across Parliament ideally need to work together in the national interest to unscramble the Brexit mess. Indeed, Brexit is rather like trying to get an egg out of an omelette: you may get some egg back, but it will be broken. We must rise to the challenge that the current crisis is causing. I respect the fact that many noble Lords are extremely reticent about the idea of going back to the people—I am myself—but this started with the people. Maybe we need to let it end with the people.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has said.
While I sympathise with the Prime Minister, like others I was angry at her broadcast from Downing Street on Thursday evening. From the outset she has faced Parliament with a choice between two irreconcilable courses: freedom to make our own trade deals and set our own tariffs on the one hand, and the absence of border controls between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic on the other. At the end of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dismissed this problem by saying it would have to be solved and would be. But it has not been solved; hence the need for the backstop, which has been the principal obstacle in the way of the House of Commons agreeing the departure agreement.
Your Lordships’ House has now offered the other place a way of resolving that dilemma through our amendment to the Trade Bill calling for a customs union in a free trade agreement with the European Union. I will not rehearse here the advantages of that course, but I hope that there may be an indicative vote pointing in that direction in the House of Commons this week. In any case, it is a matter for the negotiations on our future relationship. The issue for today is how we escape from the impasse the country is in.
The European Union has now given us a clear choice. One option is for the other place to accept the departure deal, and we are told it must be agreed this week. In that case, the way ahead is straightforward. We have until 22 May to pass the necessary legislation to bring the deal into force. But the Prime Minister has said that she is not in a position to put the deal to the other place this week with any hope of success. She clearly hopes that that position might change, but given the shortage of time ahead of us that prospect must be remote. The alternative, if we are not to leave without a deal on 12 April, is to ask for more time. We could revoke Article 50. That is in our power. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I think that unlikely and also wrong in the absence of a further decision by the people.
If the departure agreement is not passed and the UK is granted more time, possibly at the cost of running candidates in the EU parliamentary elections, what would that extra time be for? The EU has ruled out renegotiation of the legal aspects of the departure agreement, and I believe it. It is willing to change the political declaration but will not get down to negotiating the new relationship until the departure agreement is in force. A further delay could not be used for renegotiating the legal aspects of the departure agreement or for starting the negotiations on the new relationship. It could be used for more attempts to win Parliament round to the departure deal, but if that is to be achieved it would be better to do it now than to prolong the uncertainty.
Another purpose for a longer delay would be a further referendum. I have argued the case many times in this House that democracy, properly understood, would give the people the final say on the terms of our departure from the European Union. I do not resile from those arguments today, when that outcome may just possibly be coming into sight.
I have come to think, like others, that the least worst course is for the House of Commons to pass the Prime Minister’s deal this week, for Parliament to pass the necessary legislation by 22 May and for the Government to turn their attention to negotiating the future relationship with the EU under a leadership with fewer red lines than the present one. So, to my surprise, I found myself in a position similar to that of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Howard of Lympne—although I reached that conclusion by a very different route.
However, if that is not to be achieved and a longer period is to be obtained, I agree that it should be used for the purposes so eloquently described by my noble friend Lord Kerr, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. We should recognise, however, that the outcome of further discussions between the parties can be validated only by a further vote of the people—and it must be clear that if that is the course on which we are to embark, that will be the outcome.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always somewhat daunting to follow a Cabinet Secretary in this House. May I begin by reminding noble Lords of my interests as chairman of the voluntary pension fund of the European Parliament and a number of other jobs in Brussels? The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has disappeared, but I assure him that I do not subscribe to the calamity and catastrophe scenario. I think that we should stay in the European Union because it is the right thing to do. If we left we would, of course, survive. We are the seventh biggest—or eighth biggest, depending on how you count—economy in the world. There would certainly be difficulties, but they could certainly be overcome. The argument for Europe is not an argument about whether we can get bananas through ports; it is an argument about what is the right place for Britain in the European world.
The right place for Britain is at the heart of Europe, and in the European Union—something, incidentally, that we have never been. I have lived through 25 years in the European Parliament and a subsequent 15 years doing jobs in Brussels. This is my 40th year in Brussels in one capacity or another, and I have never known a full-hearted endorsement of the European Union, save by two people. One was Edward Heath and the second was John Smith. They were the only two party leaders whom I met who were really committed to building the sort of Europe that I want to see. Sadly, John Smith never got the opportunity to do it. I think he would have turned into one of our great Prime Ministers—but let me move on.
I am appalled by the people on the Brexit side who talk about us renouncing our bills. These are debts that we incurred sitting around a table and voting for them. We incurred them by sending some of our brightest and best civil servants to international organisations. Are we seriously suggesting that we are going to say to the British staff in the UN, the WHO, NATO and all the other international institutions that a British Government can turn round and abandon them? Is the Government going to renege on all the promises they made and leave them without a pension? Is this the modern face of Conservatism?
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not here to hear that, because he needs to hear it. I read in Hansard that Dominic Grieve said:
“I have never felt more ashamed to be a Member of the Conservative party”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/19; col. 1123.]
When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I feel that way. This is not the party I joined. The party I joined is one that behaves honourably—as, in fairness, does the Labour Party. The Labour Party also behaves honourably: we honour the commitments that we make.
The European Council has not changed its position very much. Its statement says that it,
“agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons next week”—
in other words, by departure day, 29 March. The Council says that, as long as we approve the agreement by the date we set to leave, it will give us an extension—which it has little option but to do—to tidy up the legislative framework. Otherwise, if that does not happen, the European Council,
“expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward before”,
12 April.
Not voting on the deal is not going to end the matter. The European Council expects us to indicate a way forward. It does not say, “The House of Commons can have indicative votes and people can say that they do not really count”. We—our Government—have to come to a conclusion and put it forward to Brussels. I suggest to this House that the only logical proposal would be an indefinite extension of Article 50. I do not think that there is a mood to revoke it, but it is no good extending it for a matter of weeks; Europe is about to go into its five-yearly cycle of reconstitution.
There will be no European Parliament after 15 April, until 2 July. Immediately after the European elections in May, the European Council will select a new president to replace Donald Tusk—or perhaps his term will be extended. There will be a new foreign affairs supremo to replace Federica Mogherini—or perhaps she will continue in office. Then every country will be asked to put forward a candidate for commissionership, and all through the autumn the European Parliament will hold hearings on the candidates, asking them what their policies are—probably confirming most of them but, as it likes to do, rejecting a couple of them, because it will want to demonstrate that it has the power to do that.
So do not imagine that we in the United Kingdom can come up with a plan and people will then say, “Oh, that’s good, we’ll drop everything and do that”. Nothing worthwhile will happen in the European Union between roughly 12 April and 31 December. The new Commission will take office on 1 January, so there will be a long interregnum. I suggest that the only way of dealing with that is to have a long extension of Article 50—and the only long extension worth having is, as some of my European colleagues in Brussels have suggested, an indefinite extension, which would take all the pressure off the different dates.
We in the United Kingdom have been very self-indulgent. Our European colleagues are fed up to the back teeth with the Brits. At the last Council meeting, Mrs May did not, shall we say, distinguish herself. There was a feeling at the end of it that people still did not know what exactly Britain wanted. That is why they have offered this little package, which adds up to virtually nothing. So we need a period of reflection, and we probably need a good period to work out exactly what we want. At the end of that period, Article 50 may well be revoked. Many people would like it to be—although, incidentally, some people in Europe would not.
Do not think that the French Government are necessarily unhappy at the prospect of being the only one of the P5 in New York. Do not think that the French diplomatic service is necessarily unhappy at the thought of being able to lead political co-operation, as it did before we joined. There is not unalloyed joy at the idea of keeping Britain in. But our traditional friends—in Scandinavia and the rest of northern Europe, the Dutch and the Danes—badly want us to stay, because we provide a balance. This is all too often forgotten.
Decisions in Europe are made by qualified majority voting, and if Britain and the northern European countries take a position, we can normally form a blocking minority. If we are absent, that can be done only with the assistance of Germany. A German Cabinet Minister once said to me: “When you object to something, you are just a nuisance. When we object to something, our Chancellor’s picture is on the front of every paper with a moustache drawn on her face—so we need Britain there because you are the common-sense country that helps to drive this project forward and keep it on an even and sensible keel”.
For all those reasons, I hope that the other place will come to the conclusion that it wishes an indefinite extension to Article 50. I think that is probably the most sensible option for this country and the best way forward, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who of course was a very experienced Member of the European Parliament.
We need to hold our hands up after almost three years and say that we are not ready to leave the EU at the moment, and will not be ready to leave in April or May either. The negotiations have been a shambles and a national humiliation, as many noble Lords have said today.
I said back in December that we needed time as a Parliament and a country to sort ourselves out, to extend or revoke Article 50 and to scrap the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration in their entirety. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, the EU says that it will not renegotiate the deal. Fair enough—let us look at an entirely different model.
I have been one of the millions of people who have signed the parliamentary petition calling for the revocation of Article 50. We need the time that that will buy us to look at Brexit again and, as a country, work out what we seek before starting negotiations, rather than the other way around.
The May premiership is in its death throes. Colleagues say that she is now irrational and unstable. She should, in my view, resign.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow what the noble Lord said about Article 50. He and many others have used the word “humiliation”, and I think there is a lot of truth in that. I think we are seen around the continent as a country that has lost its way in a bizarre fashion: a once great nation now caught up in an endless psychodrama. I have sensed that the mood in Europe has hardened against Britain over the past few weeks and months. For much of the negotiation that the Prime Minister conducted, they were prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt. It would be like any other European negotiation: it would be tough, there would be moments of drama but in the end there would be a deal. The Prime Minister would go back and get agreement for it in her Parliament and it would be done.
As the meaningful votes have come one by one and she failed to get agreement, I think the mood has darkened. I think it changed first to incomprehension and now to exasperation—and even to humour. Noble Lords may have seen that the French Europe Minister, Mme Nathalie Loiseau, said that she had renamed her cat Brexit because every time she got up in the morning, the cat mewed furiously to leave the house, but when she opened the front door, it did not want to go out. It then transpired that she may not have a cat at all, but the point is right.
Of course, this is not a laughing matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is not here, but I shall trample on his place to say that an argument can be made that last week was perhaps the greatest international humiliation for a British Prime Minister since the Suez crisis. Then, noble Lords know well, the Americans put their foot down and declared that we would stop our invasion of Egypt, running a UN Security Council resolution against us and threatening to pull the plug on sterling.
That was a brutal end to British pretensions to great power status but a salutary lesson, which put British foreign policy on to a different basis for the future. Perhaps there will be something salutary about last week, but you have to look quite carefully to find it. We saw the Prime Minister open proceedings with a petulant letter as if, somehow, the Europeans were to blame for the decision she had had to take to delay the date of 29 March. She then went to Brussels, failing entirely to convince her colleagues that she could win a third vote or that she had any kind of plan for what to do if she lost it.
I think that at that point, her colleagues thought: we have to take this over and find a way that the British are unable to find themselves. When can a British Prime Minister have cut such a lamentable figure at an international meeting?
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, there was more to their deal than he suggests. It was a very clever way to do two things: first, to open up some space in British politics for new thinking to begin to take hold; secondly, to avoid the blame for their having pushed Britain out on 29 March or not allowing it to come up with other options. They avoided the sense that they were dictating to Britain by encouraging us to come up with our own options and have created space.
The contrast between a divided British Government, unable to get beyond the next vote in the House of Commons and a group of very busy and distracted European leaders finding the time to roll up their shirtsleeves and come up with an astute political move to change the dynamics in British politics was remarkable. That is what may be salutary from this. Let us hope that it may be a source of inspiration. We must be under no illusion that this is our last chance to avoid an acrimonious breakdown in our relations with our nearest neighbours, who also happen to be the largest economic bloc in the world and vital partners in our security.
Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the Prime Minister’s words in the other House this afternoon:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.
That is very encouraging. Is it really true that there is now zero risk of a crash-out under any circumstances? What if the House of Commons spends the next two weeks in more factional manoeuvring, votes down the Prime Minister’s Bill again and fails to find a majority for anything else? Are we then not still confronted with the cliff edge on 12 April rather than 29 March? If so, there will certainly be no extra time available from the EU. There will be no managed no-deal: the EU will look after its interests and have scant sympathy for the catastrophe that will overtake Britain—not just Britain as a country but the hundreds of thousands of British citizens who have made their life choices to live in the European Union and are still desperately anxious about what the future holds.
I really hope that that will be avoided, for the reasons that most noble Lords have referred to in this debate, and I think that there are signs that the alchemy that the EU began to work at the European summit is having its effect. It is obviously very welcome that MPs will now be holding indicative votes in the other place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, it is pretty extraordinary that within a few days of the point where, up to now, we had been due to leave the European Union, finally, MPs turn their attention for the first time to trying to work out where there may be a majority beyond the Prime Minister’s deal. These are votes that should have happened before Article 50 was ever triggered. I hope that they will come up with a new way forward that will meet what is a very modest test set for us by the European Union,
“to indicate a way forward … for consideration by the European Council”.
I think it means by that not just a process but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, some sense of direction as to where we want to go, where we might be coming down on the fundamental choice referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of what future relationship we want with the EU.
I think it may have also expected that that would trigger off a rather wider cross-party consultation than the event at Chequers yesterday. Perhaps that wider cross-party view will begin to emerge if the Letwin amendment passes in the other place this evening.
In any case, I agree with others who have said that we are in such a mess that, rather than trying to ram through the Prime Minister’s unloved deal by just a few votes in a country that is deeply divided, we should have a pause and a rethink. I cannot prove it, but I think something shifted last week. The 1 million people march and the five and a half million people who signed the petition in just the law few days calling for a revocation of Article 50 suggests that something is shifting. Therefore, it is essential to test public opinion again.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right when he says that we will not resolve this in the next two weeks. These are fundamental issues about our future relationship with the EU, which we have not got near to settling in the last two years; but, it is right that we should embark on that journey and that, when there is a way forward, it should be put to the people in another referendum. I hope the way forward will involve revoking Article 50 to give us time to think this through again. I am persuaded that the very best course for the UK is to stay in the EU, and that there is no other relationship that will bring us anything like the same benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said that he does not think the country is in any mood to revoke Article 50. I think the petition gives a different impression of where the country may be moving. In any case, it is an entirely legitimate, democratic way of proceeding now that everyone in Britain has discovered something of the true costs of separating ourselves from the EU. If the House of Commons prefers a different sort of Brexit based on maintaining the customs union, or the single market, or both, then that too is sufficiently different to require putting it back to the country in a referendum.
I do not believe the EU would be willing to give us an indefinite extension of Article 50, because that just continues the uncertainty for much longer. All other EU countries have issues of their own. If you open a French newspaper, “Crise” is the headline, but it is not referring to Brexit; it is the affront to French sovereignty from the violence around the gilets jaunes demonstrations. Every other European country has its issue.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake: the EU is more than an economic group: it is a community of values, and it is the group of countries with which we share our deepest and most important relationships. I favour revoking Article 50.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord who just spoke, not least because he gave us an insight into Europe, which I do not possess. For nearly 25 years of my life I sat in a marginal seat, and managed to win it for most of those 25 years. When you sit in a marginal seat, you have to listen to the public and to the floating vote, not just the hard core of your constituents.
I want particularly to thank the two Front-Benchers: the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—she has disappeared, but I gather she will be back in a matter of minutes—and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is temporarily absent. It is not just they who have borne the burden; the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have, too. They were in from day one after the extraordinary referendum result—seats in the north and the south of England voted to leave the EU—so they have had an important role in communicating what your Lordships’ House feels to their Members of Parliament in the other place. They have been given quite a burden, and I thank them for bearing it.
After the referendum, we had the general election. In that election, both parties’ manifestos were quite clear: the referendum result should be implemented. The issue before us this evening is the Prime Minister’s deal, not what is in the political declaration—we know there is some flexibility there—so any talk about a Canada deal or a Norway deal is pretty irrelevant this evening. It does not matter that I voted to remain. That is totally irrelevant. It is irrelevant to every Conservative Member of Parliament, every Labour Member of Parliament, and all the other Members of Parliament in the other place. It is no good people who were elected to represent the people then deciding to abstain. Not a single Member of Parliament will get much thanks from their constituents for abstaining—they are sent there to make a decision one way or another. It is no good a couple of Members of Parliament, in particular, Mr Letwin and Ms Cooper, trying to take the high ground from the Government of the day—what arrogance. I do not think that is acceptable.
I remind myself that all the MPs in the two big parties signed up to the referendum and their manifestos. Maybe the EU is very difficult to work with. My noble friend who spoke earlier is right to point out that we have never really been totally committed to it, other than during the period of just two Prime Ministers. Maybe Mrs May’s agreement on offer is not perfect—I do not think any of us believes it is perfect—but it is all that is on offer today. It is there, it is available and—this is the key point—it creates Brexit. We go back to that referendum and what the people of this country wanted.
I spent this morning in Northampton, where it happened to be press day for photographs of the cricket first 11. They will succeed only if they work as a team. For me, the most important part of this morning’s visit, apart from encouraging the troops, was to listen to our sponsors, large and small. I will now tell your Lordships what three of them said to me, while almost pinning me against the wall: “Michael, speak up for us, please. We need a decision—a deal or no deal. No more indecision. No more putting it off for another day”. I interpret that as no more kicking the can down the road, and no extension of Article 50. “But”, they said, and to me this is the key point, “Unless we get a decision, there will be no further investment”. I come from industry and commerce, and I know that this is absolutely crucial to the future of our country.
I finish on a quote, deliberately from a Labour Prime Minister. A number of my colleagues in the House will know I have a deep interest and involvement with the Indian subcontinent. Over the weekend, I looked up what Clement Attlee said at a difficult time, to create independence for India. A good number of MPs said that it could not be done then, because it was all too difficult and would cause absolute chaos; they said they would not support him. And he said, in winding up his long speech:
“The British Commonwealth of Nations survives today, and has survived through the strain of two great wars, precisely because it is not static, but is constantly developing, and because it has throughout the years steadily changed … My hope is that we may forget past differences and remember only how often and in how many fields of human endeavour Britons … have worked together in harmony.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/1947; col. 2462.]
It was a great speech. Churchill was ill at the time, so Macmillan had to respond. He agreed with what Clement had said.
There is a lesson here for all of us. We are not really leaving Europe and our millions of friends there—my second name is Wolfgang, and I feel I am part of the EU. We are Europeans in that sense and will remain so, but we are also an energetic and creative nation, particularly in trade, commerce and industry. We want some freedom to develop that.
I ask every Conservative Member now to support the May agreement—perhaps some will have to bite their tongue. I suggest to those on the Front Bench opposite that every Labour MP should think hard about their constituencies and the people they represent. They should bite their tongues as well. We must remember that, during Harold Wilson’s referendum—while I sat in that marginal seat with a majority of 179—I stood shoulder to shoulder with my next door neighbour, a Labour Member of Parliament, because we both believed in the future of our country. We put that ahead of anything else.
I return to those on both Front Benches—and I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, now in her place. I suggest they need to liaise and work more closely together than it appears has been happening on the surface. After tonight’s debate, I hope that those on both Front Benches will communicate to those in the other place and their followers that, although it is not a perfect withdrawal agreement, it opens the crucial gate of Brexit. If we achieve that and allow it to happen, confidence, that very tender plant, will return to our people, our commerce and our industry.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, in February 2003, the march in London was the biggest in history, with 2 million people trying to stop the Iraq war. The Government did not listen and Prime Minister Tony Blair did not listen; what a disastrous decision that was. On Saturday 23 March, I was proud to be among the 1 million people who marched—more than the 700,000 who marched a few months ago. It was peaceful, with families and people of all ages taking part, from all around the country.
The placards were terrific: “Even Arsenal are still in Europe”; “Less Farage, more fromage”; and, “I’m incandescent with rage—but I’m British, so I’m just holding up a sign”. In Parliament Square, we had speeches about the people’s vote. Tom Watson, Labour deputy leader, said we should, “Let the people vote”; and Anna Soubry said,
“put your country first, get into the lobbies and vote for a people’s vote”.
Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, said:
“It’s time to give us, the British people, a final say on Brexit”.
Michael Heseltine lambasted Mrs May for blaming Parliament for what has happened with Brexit. He invoked Winston Churchill, saying:
“I was appalled by Theresa May’s speech on Wednesday evening. It will rank among the biggest affronts on parliamentary democracy in our history”.
Calypso Latham, a 19 year-old science student, said:
“I was too young to vote in the last referendum. It’s going to affect my career with research grants so I definitely wanted to come and protest”.
Aurore Mead, aged 14, said:
“I really wanted to come because it’s a big part of my future and my life”.
In another part of the country, on Saturday morning, Nigel Farage rejoined the march to leave near Nottingham, and there were 200 people present.
Side by side in all this, we have had two petitions. Noble Lords have spoken about one of them: to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU. At the last count, it had more than 5.5 million signatures and counting; 96% of the signatories are from the UK. But there is also another petition: leave the EU without a deal in March 2019. Guess how many have signed that? Just 550,000 people. Where is 5.5 million and where is 550,000? Will the Government listen? No.
The Prime Minister’s Statement today stated,
“it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote”.
Then she said:
“If we cannot, the Government made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way forward”.
That all sounds good. Then she said that,
“the Member for West Dorset seeks to provide for this process by taking control of the Order Paper … an unwelcome precedent to set, which would overturn the balance between our democratic institutions”.
So the Government will oppose that amendment this evening. On the one hand they are saying they will work with the House and on the other saying they will oppose it. Then she said:
“So I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House”.
Then she stated that:
“The default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal. But this House has previously expressed its opposition to that path, and may very well do so again this week”.
She finally said that:
“The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum”.
I cannot go on without quoting Boris Johnson in his article today. He said that Mrs May and the Government had “chickened out” of delivering Brexit. I do not know which world he lives in. He lives in a utopian world where he says you should drop the deal, go back to Brussels and set out the terms—just like that. What have the Government been trying to do for two years? He said:
“Extend the implementation period … if necessary; use it to negotiate a free trade deal; pay the fee; but come out of the EU now—without the backstop. It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus, and say to Pharoah in Brussels—let my people go”.
What a load of nonsense.
At the crux of all this is not just a constitutional crisis. We are not just watching a train crash in slow motion. It is not just business, with the CBI and the TUC coming together, terrified of a no-deal Brexit. It is not just the collapse of collective Cabinet responsibility. Just yesterday Minister Mark Field said that he would vote to revoke Article 50 and Chancellor Philip Hammond said that a second Brexit referendum deserved to be considered. That is not just a Cabinet divided or a Conservative Party divided but the Labour Party is divided and Parliament is divided. Families are divided. The UK is divided.
Yet what is really at stake is the democracy of this country. We are told repeatedly that 17.4 million people voted to leave. But they voted to leave by a very narrow 52:48 victory. People forget that in the first nationwide referendum in 1975 on whether to stay in the European Community, the result was—wait for it—17.4 million people voted to remain. The difference was that that 17.4 million was not a narrow victory but a two-thirds majority—not 52:48. At the time of the referendum exactly three years ago, 75% of the people in the other place and over 75% of this House thought that the best thing for the UK was to remain in the European Union, yet now we are being held to ransom by this democratic vote in the referendum three years ago.
At that time, the EU was not an issue. It was not something that people knew much about. I knew a fraction of what I know now. At the top of people’s minds were health, taxes, education and crime, and now, three years later, we know how complicated leaving is. We know the benefits of being in the largest trading bloc in the world. We know how difficult it is to replicate the EU’s 50-plus free trade agreements. We have only six ready to roll over. We know that it has taken two years to negotiate three things—£39 billion, in the context of a £2 trillion economy? I would pay the £8 billion a year that we pay to the EU just for the peace that it has helped bring to Europe.
What about people’s rights, our rights and EU citizens’ rights over here? We cannot use people as bargaining chips. That is a given. Then there is the backstop protecting the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland border. That was hardly mentioned during the referendum. Now we are told, “These three things have been agreed, it has taken two years, now capitulate and agree to go forward out of the European Union and into a transition period”. But then we will have left the European Union. The backstop will continue. We will still be subject to ECJ rules and we are going into a blindfold Brexit. We still have to negotiate trade, security, a frictionless border, nuclear and so forth, and we know now that in every analysis it is far better for businesses, the economy and citizens, on balance—the EU is not perfect—to remain. Why in the name of democracy are we all being forced to honour the will of the people—the instruction of the people three years ago? It is out of date. It is irrelevant.
The electorate have changed. There are now 2.4 million more youths of voting age who were not old enough to vote three years ago, and 80% want to remain, including two of my children, one who turned 18 in October 2016 and another who turned 18 last week on 21 March. There are 2 million more people of voting age now who can vote. Sadly, on the other side, with a death rate of 600,000, there are probably more than 1 million people who voted to leave who are no longer with us. That means 3 million more. The victory was 17.4 million versus 16.1 million and the youth did not turn out three years ago. They regret it and now they will turn out in force.
Where, then, is the gumption of our MPs? Where has our representative democracy gone? Where are the MPs who are not meant to be delegates? They are not meant to be lemmings. They are meant to vote with their conscience, to do the right thing for what, in their opinion, is in the best interests of Britain and their constituency—not for what is in the best interests of their party, which, sadly, is what the Conservative Party is doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about dynamic democracy. When people change their minds, when the facts change, and when people are far more informed, Parliament should do the right thing. The Prime Minister keeps ruling out another Brexit referendum, saying that it would deepen divisions and undermine support for democracy. Brexit supporters say that a second referendum would trigger a major constitutional crisis. What have we got, if not a divided country and a constitutional crisis, right now? Stephen Barclay, the Brexit Secretary, said that if we have indicative votes, which are now being voted on, that could bring about a constitutional collision and increase the risk of a general election.
The polls show that the people have changed their minds: there is an 8%-10% lead for remain. The Prime Minister can go back to Parliament and say, “Please change your mind”—she wants to go back a third time and say, “Change your mind”—and yet the people do not get even one chance to change their mind. That is wrong. If we impose any of this Brexit on people and the people have not had a say, if it is a bad Brexit, for generations from now people will not thank this Parliament. When Parliament and the Government fail, the only sensible thing seems to be to go to the people. We are damaging our constitution. We are damaging our relationship with our biggest trading partner, which makes up two-thirds of our trade. We are damaging our economy. Parliament must now vote for a long extension to Article 50, to which Europe will agree. Then we must put it back to the people, and they must decide whether they want to leave or to remain. That is, today’s people; not yesterday’s people, not an out-of-date electorate.
To conclude, it saddens me that the whole world is looking at this great country with disbelief, saying, “What are you doing? Why are you doing this to yourselves? You don’t have to do this!”. Let us put the “great” back in Great Britain and the “united” back in the United Kingdom, by giving the great British public the final say.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I may be alone but I always feel that there is an air of unreality about this present situation—especially given that we in this House are spectators, watching a potential disaster unfold before our eyes. Apart from a few Brexiteer zealots who still believe their own propaganda, we all know that we are participating in a process that will lead to the United Kingdom being politically and economically worse off, as well as in terms of world influence. Sadly, there have been few references to the need for European unity and the part that we could and should play in that. It is even more extraordinary that a Government whose primary task must be to safeguard the nation in the widest possible sense are acting as they are.
However, we are in extraordinary times, and we need extraordinary measures. I hope that, somehow, we will find the political leadership that will honestly address the nation and tell it the problems that we face. Yes, you voted to leave the European Union. Yes, we have done our best to negotiate that in a way that leaves you as well off—or, as the leavers would have you believe, better off—as you were as members of the European Union. But that has not proved possible. There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, there is not a better deal than membership of the European Union. Secondly, in an attempt to meet your wishes, we trapped ourselves in a set of red lines, which rendered our aspirations, which are now set out in the political declaration, impossible to achieve, as those aspirations are largely incompatible with the red lines.
An honest assessment would tell the people that revocation of Article 50 or, at the very least, a long delay, is necessary while we belatedly decide what we want from our relationship with our closest and most important partners. Sadly, I feel that I shall wish on, because there is no evidence of any political leadership prepared to take such steps. The May deal does at least give us a transition period but, if the Government throw away that time in the same way as they have thrown away the time since the referendum, we will be in no better state to decide what we want in December 2020 than we are in March 2019. Such incompetence cannot go on.
Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box in this House and told us that we cannot be kept informed of progress in the negotiations for fear of prejudicing those negotiations. However, this time and for the future, we must decide what we want before we go into those negotiations. This dysfunctional Cabinet and Government have no idea of where we are seeking to end up. Whether it is the May deal, another deal or no deal, we shall still have to have a close relationship with the European Union. What that is has to be established as a matter of urgency, and it will take leadership and not constant capitulation to the ultra-Brexiteer party within the Conservative Party. Until this is resolved, we are only delaying the ultimate disaster to a later date. It cannot go on, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that to the House at the conclusion of this debate.
On a previous occasion I asked the Minister a question which he did not answer. If this deal does not go through, what is plan B? I hope that this time it is plain enough to him that the House and the people need to know.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has just said, and my speech continues from where he left off. It seems to me that plan B is to revoke Article 50 and to put this nightmare behind us, because there is no other credible way to resolve this crisis on terms that are acceptable to the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that his mentor was Lord Carrington, whom I also held in very high esteem. However, my mentor, and indeed friend, was Roy Jenkins, who always said that in politics the key to success was constantly to argue to solutions, not to conclusions—to get on with it. We now seriously need to get on with it because after two and a half years of this fiasco the country is not prepared to wait much longer. However, whatever we do must be towards a solution, and that solution must actually work rather than being a form of words or a ruse that simply kicks the can down the road.
Although the Prime Minister has exhibited a combination of incompetence and intransigence unmatched in recent times—one can debate whether it goes back to Anthony Eden, Lord North or Charles I, but among our rulers it is almost unmatched—she makes a good point when she says that the only way of stopping no deal, which people do not want and the House of Commons has now voted against twice with big majorities, is to have either a deal or no Brexit. That is correct. She keeps stating it because she thinks that if she forces the House of Commons to vote again and again, ultimately it will vote for her deal. However, there is no sign of that at all, and indeed she is the standing refutation of it, because today, in the extremity of our situation, she could not even come to the House of Commons to propose a third meaningful vote. I say “meaningful”, but the Prime Minister treats the votes as meaningless and hopes that ultimately she will win one and it will become meaningful.
Anyone who was in the Gallery of the House of Commons, as I was earlier, knows that there is no chance whatever of the House of Commons agreeing her deal at a third vote. You just needed to listen to the parliamentary leader of the DUP and a whole group of representatives of the ERG—which I have come to dub the “Economic Ruin Group”—to know that there is no prospect of her deal going through on a third vote, and we are right up against the wire. The House of Commons has, by decisive majorities, twice voted against no deal. Therefore, either there has to be some new deal or there has to be no Brexit. Those are the only options and, if we are to argue to a solution, those are the only potential solutions.
We have heard the mantra from many noble Lords on the other side of the House today that it is unconscionable that we should have no Brexit, but I do not think it is unconscionable at all. Parliament is here to exert its wisdom. As we are a democracy, it would of course then need to submit its judgment to the judgment of the people. That would happen either in a general election or—more likely in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—a referendum. It looks to me, in arguing to solutions, that we will end up with revocation followed by referendum, or a referendum followed by revocation. Those are the only credible solutions. If we get the long extension that may be necessary, we could spend many months getting to that conclusion, but it has been clear for a year that the basic Brexit proposition is imploding. We are a democracy, so there has to be a democratic role beyond simply a parliamentary vote in this process. That is where I believe we will get to.
The problem with the Prime Minister’s deal—the reason that it has gone down twice and will go down a third time—is that it does not remotely deliver the objective that was set out at the beginning: a deep and meaningful partnership with the European Union while leaving it. That was the constant mantra and objective that we heard from the Government Front Bench day after day. It does not remotely do this. It is not even a partnership that lasts beyond 21 months; there is no deal beyond then.
When the Prime Minister made the speech in Lancaster House that set the whole process off, she said:
“We will provide certainty … it is in no one’s interest for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability”.
These were the key words on which this whole process was launched and she invoked Article 50:
“Instead I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded”.
That was the basis on which this whole process started, whereas where we are now is with a withdrawal agreement that simply gets us legally out of the European Union—ostensibly this Friday, but that will be delayed—with no long-term agreement whatever. Indeed, the reason that we need the backstop and all these much-touted alternative arrangements is precisely that we do not have agreement about a future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded.
That is why, in an unprecedented statement, the TUC and the CBI joined forces last week and said:
“Our country is facing a national emergency. Decisions of recent days have caused the risk of no deal to soar … we ask you”—
I remind noble Lords that it is the TUC and the CBI saying this to us,
“to take three steps to protect the jobs, rights and livelihoods of ordinary working people. First, avoiding no deal is paramount … Second, securing an extension has become essential … Third, ‘the current deal or no deal’ must not be the only choice”.
This is the situation we face now.
The reason that it will not be possible to get a majority in the House of Commons for this deal or anything remotely close to it, is that it does not even begin to safeguard the long-term economic or security future of the country. The political declaration is one load of waffle. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, described when he resigned as a “gangplank into thin air”. It is still a gangplank into thin air. We are being asked to leave all the benefits of the European Union for a mess of pottage. Walter Bagehot once said:
“The cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look at it”.
That was deeply unfair; it is a wonderful assembly, and the closer you look at it the more impressive it becomes. But the cure for admiring the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement is indeed to read them.
The political declaration is one of the most threadbare documents ever presented to Parliament on a major policy issue. On these huge issues affecting the whole future of the country, it says, at paragraph 22 that,
“the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area”—
I repeat, “envisage”, with no provisions made whatever. Paragraph 25 says:
“In this context, the United Kingdom will consider aligning”,
with the European Union, “in relevant areas”. “Consider” and “relevant” are totally undefined and there are no follow-up provisions. Paragraph 55 says that,
“the Parties will explore the possibility to facilitate the crossing of their respective borders for legitimate travel”.
That is an astonishing statement. We are just about to leave the European Union on the basis of exploring whether we will agree with the European Union the facilitation of the crossing of our borders for legitimate travel. If we had not become inured to this Brexit catastrophe, anyone reading these documents would think we had taken leave of our senses.
I like paragraph 107 best of all. It says:
“The Parties should consider appropriate arrangements for cooperation on space”.
Where that will lead the negotiations over the few weeks before the Prime Minister brings back the next iteration of her political declaration, I do not know. Who honestly believes that that will lead to a solution?
There will now almost inevitably be a long extension of the Article 50 process. It is vital that we do not exchange the pursuit of one unicorn for the pursuit of another. The idea which is in danger of gaining ground is that the reason why this deal did not work was that the Prime Minister was a singularly inept negotiator and her red lines were singularly intransigent. Well, she was an inept negotiator and her red lines were intransigent but, in my view, there is no other deal that will maintain a deep and special partnership with the European Union that could conceivably be negotiated. The quest for it will simply set us off on another two or two-and-a-half-year search for the Holy Grail that will almost certainly end in further catastrophe, and, of course, completely preoccupy Parliament, the Government, the Civil Service and our national life while it goes on, while we pay virtually no attention to any other public policy issues of great concern to the country.
The loss of trust and faith in politics if we engage in that process will be profound. It might simply lead to Brexit fizzling out without any further democratic process, because of ultimate exhaustion. However, rather than doing that, it would be much better to use the opportunity of the extension to resolve this issue by revoking and having a referendum, or having a referendum and then revoking, rather than searching for the Holy Grail.
I do not want to detain the House longer, so I will simply stress that what is now loosely referred to as “Norway”, and which may be part of the indicative votes in the House of Commons, is something that will disintegrate in the hands of those who seek to negotiate it, as soon as they try to unpack it and turn it into a proposition. There is no common understanding at all of what is in this box marked “Norway” and there is profound misunderstanding about what it contains. In particular, it does not contain a customs union, so it will not be a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. The things it does contain are things that there will not ultimately be a majority for in the House of Commons, if there is a desire for Brexit at all. It contains no change whatever in freedom of movement and those rules. You just need to read the speeches and comments made by the Norwegian Prime Minister and those who actually know what goes on in Norway to see why it will not be viable.
My strong plea to Members of the House of Commons, who will take these key decisions in coming weeks, is to not exchange one unicorn for another. As the Norwegian Prime Minister put it:
“We do agree with the EU that you cannot be cherry-picking … Norway is outside [the EU], but we are inside the single market ... We do accept that decisions on the four freedoms are done in Brussels”.
The Norwegian MP Heidi Nordby Lunde warned us that,
“the Norwegian option is not an option … The three countries in Efta have to agree on all the regulations coming from the EU, so if one country vetoes something we all have to veto, which means that if the UK enters the Efta platform and starts to veto regulations that we want, this will affect not just the UK but also us as well”.
She went on to warn:
“If, as I understand, UK politicians do not want to be ruled by regulations coming from other countries, why would they accept a country with 38,000 citizens like Liechtenstein being able to veto regulations that the UK wants. That would be the reality”.
As soon as you get into the Norwegian option, you realise that it will crumble in your hands. The right thing is not to proceed in pursuit of unicorns, but instead call a halt to the whole grisly process that we have been going through, and to do it democratically by revoking and then holding a referendum.
When the Prime Minister asked the House of Commons to invoke Article 50, she said:
“At moments such as these—great turning points in our national story—the choices that we make define the character of our nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/17; col. 251.]
The choices we make on behalf of the people in the coming weeks will define the character of our nation. I want it to be defined by putting the people and the national interest first, not pursuing unicorns, and respecting the right of the British people to have good government that looks after their long-term interests.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, always enlivens our debates. I am challenged, and I hope I am not chasing unicorns at this moment. I will proceed as I was, but he has really made me think again.
We are finally close to the brink, and this is a good moment to pause. The cliff edge is in sight, and I am reminded of the old Hoffnung bricklayer’s story, in which our hero meets the barrel of bricks going up and down, and he ultimately receives all the bricks on his head when he hits the bottom. That is the Prime Minister. The bricks of Brexit are still falling, and the damage is still being done. This is no comedy, but it is a joke in a funny way, and a joke it may be for all the 27 EU states, which seem to be at the limit of endurance and good humour. They have shown a remarkable ability to respond, as my noble friends Lord Kerslake and Lord Ricketts have said, to an unprecedented display of political unwisdom. They need us, we need them, and I share their exasperation.
What about this phrase, “Mother of Parliaments”? Do we dare use it any more? I have never rated it highly on overseas visits. Europe has never taken much notice of it, and if you go to Commonwealth Parliaments you will find a semi-circular Chamber. This is one lesson that has been learned. Do not build confrontational Chambers which merely reinforce the two-party system. As we have seen, they can lead the Chamber into stultification or worse.
I am always interested in how others see us. Back in 1972 I persuaded Macmillan Journals to publish a review of the European press so that, as we entered Europe, we would understand more of what the Europeans were saying. However, it was difficult. If it was foggy in the Channel, in those pre-digital days the European press would sometimes never arrive at all. Last Thursday, while the EU was cogitating on the Prime Minister’s latest version of her deal, I quickly scanned the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Le Monde for Brexit. The front-page headline said, “Franz Kafka” in large letters. I thought, “What an appropriate image for Brexit”—until I realised it was about the Leipzig Book Fair. Eventually I found news stories and a disgruntled Bavarian who complained of English arrogance in assuming they were still in charge of a united kingdom.
In Le Monde I found nothing until I got to a full-page spread on China’s overtures to Italy and other EU members. The author seemed genuinely sorry that Brexit was inevitably going to encourage China and everyone else to develop stronger diplomatic and trade relations with the EU.
This leads on to my main point, which is that the powerful centrifugal force of Brexit damages the economic and political health of the separate nations. Brexiteers complain of a growing European unity that I do not see. I see the loss of so many vital ties in security, in health care, in almost every sector of life—ties that are dismissed so often as mere regulations. I see a threat to our own United Kingdom.
Europe is not uniting. Well before the referendum, there were countries expressing discordant voices, not least on the eurozone and on border controls. We were difficult customers. We were given certain privileges and opt-outs—observer status in Schengen and so on—but we were not the only ones. Immigration was always going to be different in different countries because its effects were different, but at least we could all sit down and argue the case. Now we cannot.
I am proud to own an EU passport and to feel that I am an EU citizen, at least for a few more days. I am therefore emotionally encouraged by any further slippage in the timetable that postpones the inevitable and possibly ends up with another referendum. Having said that, I would not vote for a referendum or an Article 50 extension now. We must give Parliament a chance first. I would still prefer that the Government persuade their more eccentric Brexiteers to join them in the lobby and that a deal of some kind go through, because no deal has already been rejected. It is the only amendment that has had such a large majority.
The House of Commons is losing its old discipline, in spite of the Speaker’s valiant efforts. This is, I believe, a genuine reflection of the close voting on Brexit. It has never faced divisions on this scale in our lifetime and it has not experienced such a national confrontation. This is not unique: other European Parliaments have gone into battle, with fisticuffs and even tear gas. We do not see that happening here quite yet. Long before that—even this afternoon—MPs had an opportunity to restore order. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was so good on this: they need to find a proper consensus, a coalition of the willing who are respected individuals from all parties who can put forward reasonable, so-called indicative amendments that can command a majority. To achieve that—it is no mean task, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—there has to be a compromise that satisfies moderate leavers and remainers alike. It will have to be a customs union or Norway-plus, as described by my noble friend Lord Butler, or at any rate a close association with the EU that also provides the opportunity for free trade agreements. We simply cannot throw away all the advantages offered by EU membership over 40 years. Details have already been worked out in the political declaration, for which we are waiting.
This must be a serious exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, spoke about this. He even mentioned a Government of national unity. Why not? It cannot be designed as a scheme to support the Prime Minister; it has to be a genuine effort by senior parliamentarians to lead where the Prime Minister cannot, and, of course, ultimately to persuade the Government that this is the only way through the mess of successive meaningful votes.
I also believe in the power of prayer. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I happened to be in Lincoln Cathedral yesterday morning; I think that he believes in it too. I hope that the right reverend Prelate continues to support the power of prayer.
Perhaps I am being optimistic, because policy formed through indicative voting is not yet policy, but this is a time when the whole country will want to will Parliament forward, and forward it must go. The Prime Minister should support this exploratory process because it could yield new elements to support a deal—not her deal, but one that comes from a majority in Parliament.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I was indeed delighted to see the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and his wife in Lincoln Cathedral yesterday. We attended matins together in one of the most glorious of all European buildings. Whenever we talk about Europe, I always think that though my identity might be English and my nationality British, my culture and civilisation are European. We owe so much to the intermingling of those who practised the arts and the crafts through the ages on our wonderful continent.
I do not propose to expand on that, but there is just one thing that I have been asked to say by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, who unfortunately has had to withdraw from the debate. He wanted to convey his apologies, which I gladly do, and also to say that, imperfect as it might be, he is foursquare behind the deal on offer.
I have been a member of the Conservative Party for 63 years. I joined in a momentous year: 1956. Within a year I held office as a young Conservative chairman and have had some kind of office or position in the party ever since. Politically, I have never felt more depressed. I have never felt more concerned, and, like a right honourable friend of mine in another place, I have at times over the last three years felt ashamed. I am deeply concerned that a group of Conservatives have almost held the country to ransom. I refer to the ERG. They are coming close not just to splitting the party—which of course is less important than the country—but to wreaking real havoc in our nation. I hope that they will draw back now and realise that if they want any sort of Brexit, the one sort currently on offer and on the table is the one that the Prime Minister has put there.
The Prime Minister is a good Christian woman, whom I admire very much. However, I wish that she had been a little more flexible and a little less obdurate, and that when she talked to the nation last week, she had done so not from a lectern but at a table—rather as the Queen does when she gives her Christmas message—and talked to the people. That is what we need. I also thought it a pity that, while I understand why she wanted to talk to certain Members whose transfer of allegiance could be of enormous help to her, the news yesterday and the newspapers this morning were dominated by a certain group of people going to Chequers—as if they mattered more than any others. That was a great pity.
In spite of all that, I hope she gets her deal, but I was in the Gallery of the other place when the Prime Minister made her Statement today, and it does look as though she may not put it to the Commons before, or even on, 29 March. As I understand it, we would then have a period of a fortnight, until 12 April. The sands really are running out. It is the last chance saloon. I very much hope that the time will be used profitably. In a remarkable speech earlier today, my noble friend Lord Bridges made some extremely telling points, but in two weeks we have to be able to convince our friends and neighbours—I use those words deliberately and repeatedly—in the European Union that Parliament is working towards a solution. If her deal has not been accepted, we will have to show that there is a basis for agreement. I sincerely hope that we will.
I have talked in your Lordships’ House before about the creation of a committee of both Houses. There would not be time to create one in the remaining fortnight, but there would be an opportunity, which I commend to my noble friend Lord Callanan. He will be winding up this debate and has exercised enormous patience and good humour over the last two years or more. I put it to him that there would be some merit in putting together the Exiting the European Union Committee, chaired by Mr Hilary Benn, in another place, and your Lordships’ European Union Committee. There is an enormous amount of cross-party experience and ability in those two bodies. It could do no harm for them to have a dialogue and consider the various options that, by then, might have been or could become the subjects of indicative votes. We have to find something around which we can coalesce or, in spite of the Prime Minister’s protestations—which I was glad to hear—there will be a real danger that we crash out.
The only person who has talked with insouciance about that in this debate has been my noble friend Lord Lilley, but most of us, looking at the TUC and the CBI in that remarkable partnership last week, listening to industrialists, farmers and others in the country, know there is enormous concern about the potential damage that could be inflicted in the short term. There is also a degree of national humiliation in this country. People have looked to this country, over the years, as the embodiment of good sense, effective diplomacy and real leadership, and they say, “Where are those now?”. We had a group of French schoolchildren and their teachers in Lincoln Cathedral last Thursday, and I fell to talking to some of them. They were desperately sad that we appear to be moving out, but desperately anxious to maintain the friendships that have, over the last century or more, united our countries since the great entente cordiale of 1904.
It is crucial that we do everything possible to ensure that, by 12 April, we have done enough to convince our European friends and colleagues that we should have more time to arrive at a mutually agreed solution. Some of your Lordships have talked in this debate about a very long extension. I understand the worries about the European parliamentary elections and do not think that, if we were making real progress in our discussions, it would be impossible to ask for an extension of the sort the Prime Minister went to Brussels to ask for last week—until the end of June. It would be possible, I hope, to iron out the heads of agreement that would enable us to proceed, without having to go through all the trouble of participating in European elections. I understand why some people think that that would be breaking faith and would cause more turmoil and upset. Our people are too bitterly divided, at the moment, to do anything that will divide them more.
I was at a function in Lincoln on Friday night and talked to a lot of people, many of whom said, “We are confused. We are frustrated. We are getting angry. You’ve got to deal with this in Parliament and you’ve got to deal with it soon”. There is not much time left but, if the deal goes down or is not brought forward to be voted on, the responsibility bears upon us all in both Houses, but particularly those in the other place, to find a way forward that will not cause undue delay. I believe that your Lordships’ House has so much wisdom within it that the putting-together of those two committees could play a significant part in working towards the conclusion that surely we all want.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and before him the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I found myself agreeing with much—not everything, but much—of what they said. I also hope that their prayers prove to be efficacious, because they might be our best bet now.
One of the hazards of speaking late in what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I think, told us was the 13th debate on this topic is that all one’s good points, if any, have been made by other speakers, and most of the less good, and even the bad, points that I was thinking of making have also been made. So I shall take up one or two of the issues raised, and draw out some out of the threads.
In his powerful speech, with which I disagreed fundamentally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who may be moving a Motion later on revocation, said that it should be done “democratically” and then we should revoke and then call a referendum. I have great respect for the energy and resolve of the noble Lord, and the high degree of candour with which he has expressed his objectives over the past two or three years. But when he puts to the House the prospect of revoking first and calling a referendum later, he has not, with great respect, paid sufficient attention to the meaning and effect of revocation of the Article 50 notification in the light of the Court of Justice’s decision in Wightman—and, to some extent, the Supreme Court decision in Miller.
First, revoke and then have a referendum is never going to happen, so I will not take up too much of your Lordships’ time with that possibility. It will not happen because, almost certainly, primary legislation would be required before the existing Article 50 notification could be revoked. It is far too late to go into the legal analysis; anyone who is interested will find an excellent paper by Professor Young and Professor Phillipson, which sets out the reasoning in a very erudite way, on the Constitutional Law Association website. I do not think, from conversations I have had outside the Chamber, that any of the very distinguished noble and learned Lords who sit around me would disagree with my proposition.
So primary legislation would be required, and, realistically, there seems no prospect whatever that the House of Commons would think it expedient to try to enact primary legislation that said, in 2019—after the referendum Act, the notification Act of 2017 and the withdrawal Act of 2018—“Do you know what? We did not really mean it at all—we are taking it all back: we are revoking, without consulting the people”. The House of Commons will not do that, because it is the elected House, and it has one eye—possibly both eyes—on the response of the electors to that procedure. I agree entirely with the very powerful points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who perhaps looks at these issues in a slightly different way from me but who very convincingly explained why it could not possibly be right to decide this issue in Parliament before it was returned to the people—if it has to be returned to the people.
So the revoke first, referendum next solution will not happen in practice. It would in any event—and it may be important for other reasons to appreciate this—be completely inappropriate because of the legal effect of the Court of Justice decision in the Wightman case. As the House knows, the Court of Justice held, in Wightman, that it is possible to unilaterally revoke an Article 50 notification. That came as no surprise at all to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who had predicted that outcome throughout; if I had had a bet with him I would have lost. It did not wholly come as a surprise to me but, nevertheless, there was a very powerful point against the Court of Justice’s conclusion, which, in short, was that Article 50 imposes a stringent two-year time limit—as we all know by now, being in its vice at the moment. It does so in the interests of the member states that continue to be part of the Union, and one can well understand why that is so. If a departing state can unilaterally revoke a notification, it is not easy to see what would stop it tactically revoking a notification towards the end of the two-year period—because the talks had not gone so well and it wanted to buy some more time—and then re-notifying a week, a month or a few months later, thereby converting the two-year limit to a four-year limit, and conceivably doing the same thing at the end of the four-year period. That would make a nonsense of Article 50 and the Court of Justice had to deal with that.
The text of the judgment and the prior opinion of the Advocate-General, read together, do not convey an entirely clear picture of the answer to that point, but, read sensibly, it is reasonably clear what the court is saying. I shall not go into the text, but it is saying, “No, a tactical revocation of an Article 50 notification is inappropriate and unlawful. We the CJEU will not permit that”. It has to be done in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the departing state, pursuant to a democratic process and, according to the Advocate-General, in good faith. What one probably gets from that is that a revocation followed by a later notification would be treated by the Court of Justice as ineffective so far as the later notification was concerned. In short, a revocation will be final and determinative, on the state of EU law at the moment. Accordingly, “revoke first, referendum second” would not be conducive to the maintenance of trust in democracy in this country, because the post-revocation referendum would not be advisory or mandatory; it would be a rubber-stamp referendum, and the people would not like that at all. I mention those points because I have been looking at the European case law.
I shall close my observations in this way. Like, I should think, other Members of the House, I spent quite a lot of the weekend watching elected politicians on television ducking, diving, weaving and dissembling to answer good questions put to them by Mr Marr and others. It was a very depressing sight. We the country, and within the country Parliament, are in big trouble now; I think that everyone who has spoken in this debate recognises that. The crisis will get worse fast unless elected politicians in particular start talking straight about the options and how they are to be dealt with.
Let me not be partisan. The ultra-Brexiteers in the Commons should stop engaging in covert manoeuvres in the hope that they will lead to an inadvertent no-deal Brexit. I say respectfully that the Prime Minister should stop saying, “To be completely clear” and then saying something that is as clear as mud. That is not convincing. She should try to be a little clearer about what she is seeking to do. The remainers—just to be even-handed about this—should stop using language in a way that is reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in 1984.
I shall not go back into the terminology of the “people’s vote”—we have all enjoyed analysing that concept; I want to talk about a different concept that has been gaining currency during the past couple of weeks and was discussed on television yesterday. It is a so-called “confirmatory referendum”, referred to obliquely by various representatives of the Opposition. I listened carefully and I think that the proposal is that the Prime Minister’s deal, which is so widely derided, would be voted through, but only on condition that it is subject to a “confirmatory referendum”. Such a referendum, it is suggested, would consist of a—rather displeasing to some—binary choice: vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, which has been voted down twice by the House of Commons by enormous majorities and suffers from many defects which have been discussed today and on other occasions, or vote for remain. That is, to borrow from an observation made by one speaker on the other side of this Chamber today, a choice between a dead parrot which has ceased to be—the Prime Minister’s deal, which no one wants—and remain. That structuring of the referendal question simply will not do, because it disenfranchises a large number of voters in this country. Something else must be structured if there is to be a referendum. I have not yet heard the question satisfactorily defined, and we are running out of time.
The people may not have known what they were voting for, but they will know if they are being lied to. We and all elected representatives need to start talking straightforwardly to them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, scratched this evening has slightly shot my fox since he is a very easy person to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, is not such an easy person to follow, because he expressed a great deal of good sense. I agree with him about the sequencing of revoke and having a referendum—you cannot do it that way round. My view is that a referendum is desirable and necessary, and I would also like to see it made mandatory so that we do not get into an argument about a neverendum.
The seemingly unending series of debates in this House on Brexit is often criticised by quite a few of the speakers, including some this evening. It is said that the options before us do not change much. I believe this is a worthwhile debate, because the context in which those options are being examined and the urgency of reaching general conclusions both change. Never could one say that more forcefully than this evening—following last week’s European Council meeting, we really are up against it now. I am not criticising this debate at all.
It needs to be recognised that the risk of a no deal exit has not disappeared. The cliff edge has been postponed from 29 March to either 12 April or 22 May, and the agreement being sought for the statutory instrument which I am glad to hear is coming forward will bring that into our domestic law as well as international law. Both Houses have said extremely forcefully that no deal must be taken off the table—it must not be an option—and I find it pretty regrettable that the Government keep referring to it as the default option instead of saying how and by what policy course they will prevent it happening. There are any number of ways they can do that, but you will never hear the Prime Minister saying how she will prevent it happening, except by telling people to vote for her deal.
How is it best done? There is of course the option the Prime Minister continually produces—approving the deal she concluded last November—and she seems absolutely determined to pursue that to the exclusion of all else, unpromising though the prospects of getting an agreement from the other place may be. The legal clarifications which have now been formalised by the European Council are welcome, but do not seem to me—as a non-lawyer, at any rate—to alter the realities of the Irish backstop. They also do not alter the fact that this is actually quite a poor deal which promises years of uncertainty, arduous negotiation and, let us face it, divisions within the Government’s camp as to what they want to negotiate for our future relationship. The idea that the civil war now raging will suddenly be calmed by leaving and then opening the negotiations for the future relationship defies all belief.
It would surely be better to look seriously at all alternatives now, having got rid of those disastrous red lines on the customs union and the single market, and to ask the EU for a longer extension than 30 June—not indefinite, of course—in which we could hope to lay the foundations for what is to follow. Such an extension would have the added benefit of providing enough time and space to consult the electorate—which, as I said at the outset, I believe is the right thing to do. So I hope that that is where we will end up in the course of the next two weeks. I hope that the Prime Minister will carry out the will of the other place if it is so expressed, go back and ask for that reasonably lengthy extension, and make it clear that its purpose is to set out on a new course, not the old one.
How should we deal with the complication of the European Parliament elections in May? I have to say that I am a bit distressed that the EU 27 have made our participation in those elections such a central element in their determination of the duration of any Article 50 extension. There are a number of ways of getting round this problem that could be used without treaty change, using the inherent powers in Article 50 to organise an orderly and stable exit. It is a pity that that has not been given more space. It has certainly been lurking in the drawers of the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, but they have opted for a more forceful approach.
However, someone like myself, who believes that Britain’s place—indeed, Britain’s interest—is to remain a full member of the European Union, cannot possibly recoil from the possibility of having European elections in May, if only because if we have a referendum and vote to remain, that is what we will have to have done. We will need Members of the European Parliament. I hope that a way will be found of dealing with this issue without too much drama, and that if necessary we will have those elections.
I very much welcome the fact that we now know, as a result of an Answer given on 19 March to a Written Question of mine, that what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said on 27 February was misleading the House. They said that the legislation to hold European Parliament elections no longer existed— well, it does exist, as that nice little Written Answer says. I would be grateful if the Minister would now tell the House that that is the position.
These are some of the messages that I would like the other place to take very seriously when it returns, with added urgency, to this whole issue later this week, and considers the options facing the country. For far too long there has been absolute stasis in the handling of this matter. It is now time to break out of the rut that the Government have got into, to abandon attempts to run down the clock—which can only now end in disruption and lasting damage to the economy—and to set out on a new and more promising course, mandated by Parliament.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hannay, who was an extremely distinguished UK representative in Brussels.
As tail-end Charlie, I can be pretty brief. I was struck by a remark made by my noble friend Lord Hennessy. He asked: what have we done to ourselves to find ourselves in this present position? I suggest that part of the answer is that we have lost touch with ordinary working people. Part of that is that we have ignored their real concerns, including those about the scale of immigration to our country, but also many other things, including housing and education. Worse than that, they feel that we have condescended to them: that we know best and they should know better.
Immigration is only one issue, but it was undoubtedly a major factor in the referendum, and it will be a critical factor when the public come to judge the outcome. It is also an important element in two of the future courses proposed, an element that is often distorted. The first concerns Norway. There, my fox has also been shot by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The Norway model provides no useful benefit in terms of immigration. Any measures are limited in scope and duration. They must be reviewed by a Joint Committee with a view to abolition and there is a risk of retaliatory measures, so they have never been used, never will be used and are no use to us.
The second aspect concerns Article 50. Some people have made the extraordinary claim that we could control EU migration if we only adopted Belgian-type measures. These turn out to be measures designed to deal with benefit tourism. Belgium has issued eviction notices to a couple of thousand people a year, but no one knows whether they left or whether they have come back. For the UK, that is completely irrelevant. We have 2 million EU citizens here and they arrive in their tens of thousands every year. It is absolutely unfeasible and in any case irrelevant to bring that argument.
The only honest conclusion—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was avoiding it—is that reverting to EU membership means continuing with immigration that we cannot ourselves control. Noble Lords may not think that that matters, but that is the fact of the matter and we should accept it. We should not try to deceive the public on this matter, which is of greater concern to them than to many Members of this House.
This brings me to the Government’s deal. It is a deal that should give us some control over immigration. Unfortunately, the subsequent White Paper has produced proposals for post-Brexit immigration which are dreadful. In the medium term, as I have mentioned before, they are much more likely to add to net migration than reduce it. Beyond that, more generally, we would be tied into the EU with no voice, no vote and no sure means of escape. We would face years of trade negotiations with virtually no cards in our hand, as I think my noble friend Lord Hannay was implying.
What an astonishing outcome for a country with our history of influence and achievement. However, I think we may find that the EU has overplayed its hand, and I rather hope that, as a result, this deal will not go through.
Lastly, where can we go from here? The referendum indeed gave a clear instruction, as the Government had requested. If a different path is now chosen, there will have to be another referendum and, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, pointed out, the question has to include whether we wish to leave entirely. That would mean that, at the end of a second referendum, there would no longer be an argument about people not understanding what was involved, et cetera—they have been hearing about it for two years, they are fed up with it—but they will have reached a view and we should not condescend to them. If we find that the vote goes the same way, as I believe it might, so be it. I think almost anyone would accept that second referendum result. Equally, I would accept a second referendum result that went in the opposite direction.
Let us be frank. The reputation of Parliament is at rock bottom. To seek to override purely by legislation a referendum that Parliament itself called would be a body blow to the institutions of our government and it must not happen.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I intend to be relatively brief. I hope I will be, not just because it is getting late, or because I have nothing new to say—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, teased me for saying that in our last debate—but because a lot has changed. It would take me a very long time to get out of my system what I really feel about the incompetent and partisan way that this Government have behaved in the last three years—with their red lines, their appeal only to leave voters, and their prioritising of unity within the Tory party, which does not seem to have been a great success. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who said that all of this has brought us to a state of national humiliation. We are in big trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, said.
One reason that I do not want to go on at too much length is because I agree with so many who spoke earlier in this debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Lord Hannay, Lord Kerslake and Lord Ricketts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I was struck particularly by the mention of patriotism and of the colleagues of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It reminded me of the 97 year-old veteran who was at the march on Saturday. If I recall correctly, one of his tasks in the war was digging people out of the bomb-hit city of Coventry, but his conclusion from his wartime experience and the medals that he was awarded was to say “never again”. We must have the European Union to build peace, security and prosperity.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, that fear of splitting the Conservative Party has been the guiding force over the last three years. Obviously, not being in the Tory party, I can only empathise, rather than share the pain that must be felt by relatively reasonable people within that party. The complete loss of Cabinet collective responsibility has been the most dismaying. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly highlighted the existence of a party within a party—the ERG. Obviously, if we had a decent electoral system, those people would have to stand under their own banner and not that of the Conservative Party.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, highlighted, Saturday was a great day. It was good-humoured and well behaved; there was not a single incident that required the attention of the police, just like in October. Those commentators who said the mood was slightly different from that in October were probably right. It was very serious and determined, as well as enjoyable.
I was interested to hear Mark Field MP, who is a Minister, say that he could envisage supporting the revocation of Article 50. Perhaps that has to do with the high level of support in his constituency for the petition. Cleverer people than I have analysed those figures for all the constituencies; no doubt, there will be some very thoughtful MPs looking at those figures. In many cases, the number of those who signed the petition is greater than the majority that MPs enjoy.
The Prime Minister is showing contempt for both people and Parliament. She keeps invoking the will of the people but refuses to check whether, nearly three years on, with 1 million people marching, 5.5 million people petitioning to revoke Article 50, and polls showing a majority support for remain, their views have evolved. She allows herself so many bites at the cherry but she will not allow voters a single reassessment, which is quite arrogant. She also said she will take no notice of indicative votes, which continues her high-handed attitude towards the House of Commons. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and as my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham both stressed that the 2016 referendum result is not a mandate for what is happening now on Brexit. No one could possibly have wanted to arrive in this situation. It should not be a problem to ask voters whether this still represents their views. Surely the people’s vote has to be between whatever deal MPs agree and remain. To those who say that no deal would need to be on the ballot paper, I ask this: what is no deal? What does it consist of? How do you describe it? I really do not think that that is a runner.
If Brexiters are so sure that leave would still win—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that if it did, that would be the end of it, perhaps for a generation—they should have no problem holding another referendum. What are they afraid of? We need a long enough extension of Article 50—for four or five months, say—to allow a people’s vote.
I believe that a lot of leave voters were protesting against the system in 2016, and most of that protest had nothing whatever to do with the EU. I do not deny that immigration was a factor, although three years on it has become less of a factor. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green, that any consideration of continuing free movement must be looked at in the round, along with the fact that British citizens are being denied free movement and the opportunities they expected to have, particularly young people and those who wanted to retire to, for example, France or Spain. It is a two-way street and we need to look at it entirely in the round, as well as reflecting the huge contribution that EU citizens make to this country, not just economically but socially and culturally.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, that we need to focus on post Brexit, but we might define that term differently. I mean that, even if it is only clinging on to nurse for fear of something worse, we should remain in the EU; I think he means we should exit and then deal with all the other problems. There are so many crucial needs in this country. One of the tragedies of the past three years is how all our energy, capacity and thinking have been taken up by Brexit. I feel that myself. When I left the European Parliament, I was really hoping to do things other than EU affairs—I do have other interests, as it happens—but this has been a straitjacket from which it has been difficult to escape. But of course we will have less money to pursue those other things, whether it is social care, decent housing, better skills training or youth services. Talk to anybody in the area of knife crime and you will learn that it is not just the police but the lack of money for schools and youth services which is totally undermining the ability to deal with that terrible problem. By post Brexit, therefore, I mean once the country has liberated itself from this disastrous exercise.
I apologise that I have not been as brief as I thought I would be. I am grateful that the Prime Minister confirmed that the extension knocks out the 29 March date. She may be right that there would be legal confusion about the UK’s ability to implement EU law, but we would still be in the EU because of the European Council decision on the extension. Can the Minister confirm that in fact the repeal of the European Communities Act under Section 1 of the EU withdrawal Act has not been brought into force yet, the same as the repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Act? An SI is needed for that, and that SI has not gone through, and so the European Communities Act is still in force.
I am also pleased that the Prime Minister’s announcement today, on 25 March, marks the anniversary of the treaty of Rome. There seems to be something significant about this coincidence. Can the Minister clarify the categorisation of the European Council decision as “international law”? Surely it is EU law, unless I have missed something.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not in fact ruled out no deal. I am afraid that that is an illustration of her tendency to be not entirely straight and somewhat manipulative. On one side, she said that no deal had been ruled out but on the other that it had not. She said, “Let me be clear”, then was nothing of the sort. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, needs to clarify whether she really meant that no deal could be chosen only by an affirmative process.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Cormack, reminded us that no deal would have a catastrophic effect. One thinks particularly of people with serious medical conditions such as epilepsy or cancer or who are having dialysis, who are terrified. You see this all the time on social media. Some of them are unable to get their supplies now. What will happen is frightening. It is unbelievable that any Government would impose this fear and anxiety on their citizens.
Lord Lilley
Did the noble Baroness not hear me read out the assurance from the Department of Health that there would be no interruption of supplies? Why is she indulging in this disgraceful scaremongering of vulnerable people?
Baroness Ludford
I follow people who report their own experience of going to the pharmacist and finding already that they cannot get their supplies. I am sorry, but whatever assurances the Government give, I am personally at the point where I believe the individual patients rather than the Government.
We need a longer extension to be able to hold a people’s vote. If we have to participate in European elections, that is fine with these Benches. I would not be entirely surprised if some legal political fix will eventually be found because everyone is ignoring the opinion from the European Parliament legal service that says that we must hold European Parliament elections but if we do not it will not invalidate the legality of the new European Parliament. That seems a straw in the wind that might point to a different solution. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, nothing makes me prouder of being a Member of your Lordships’ House than sitting through a debate like this. Although we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, spectators at the moment, the wisdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, strength of opinion and experience shown in a debate like this is extraordinary and something to be proud of. We also learned one or two things. I am not sure that I will get used to thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, as a national treasure. I still think of Dame Vera Lynn as the original national treasure. I can think hard about that, and I did not know that the middle name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was Wolfgang, so one learns a lot in these debates.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, knows how much I admire him, even though I do not agree with the conclusion of his speech. I was particularly struck by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. She reminded us of the risks to which Members of Parliament, particularly female Members, have been exposed—and not just by this issue but by another that is taking place at the moment, about which nobody can be the slightest bit proud. I wish her well with her three candles project, which sounds a tremendous way of trying to heal some of these divisions, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury told us would be necessary on a previous occasion.
I will come to what I take from the debate so far, but I first want to deal with the legal issues that have arisen. Noble Lords know that I turn up at these debates for that reason. We have not had many but I want to refer to a couple. We have had no change, which we had all been expecting, in the legal issues relating to the backstop. We have had no further opinion from the Attorney-General. We have had no change, as we know, to the withdrawal agreement. It is clear that there will be no change to the part of the withdrawal agreement that says that the backstop will continue unless and until there is a new agreement. That has not changed at all. Maybe we will come back to that at a later stage.
There has been a suggestion—I think the only person who mentioned it in this debate was the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—that Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the interpretation of treaties is a way out of the problem. I fundamentally, seriously and critically disagree with that. From a letter in the Times, I know—rather to my surprise, because I admire him very much—that it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because he could jump up and tell me why I am wrong. He will have to do that on a later occasion. However, I have been back to the treaty and I do think he is wrong. The treaty says clearly that a fundamental change in the circumstances existing at the time of a treaty’s conclusion, and which was not foreseen by the parties, can lead to its termination. I do not see how one can possibly say that a failure to agree a deal is something that is not foreseen; obviously, that is what we have been debating for some time. That does not seem to be an answer to the conundrum that has been put forward.
One question that was raised, and which might be relevant, was whether international law trumps national law. Several noble Lords raised it, and it is referred to in the Prime Minister’s Statement. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, in his place, so he can at least whisper the correct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is winding up this debate. My understanding is this. It is rather as though one is a member of a club. If the club’s rules say that you are no longer a member, or it decides that you are no longer a member, you can say as much as you like that you continue to be a member, but you are not. I think that that is what is going on. Whether it is right to describe that as international law trumping national law, I am not sure, but I am clear in my own mind that because the European Union has now said that the leaving date has changed, it has changed. Until that date we will continue to be a member and after that date, we will not be. The fact that there is little legal discussion in this debate probably indicates how peripheral these issues have been, compared with what your Lordships have really been considering today, with the wisdom, insight and perception that your Lordships show on these occasions.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
If the noble Lord’s club analogy is correct, why do we have to pass a statutory instrument at all?
Lord Goldsmith
It is to change the club’s rules. In this case, Parliament is the club. I was just trying to explain how I see the situation. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rising to his feet and gladly give way to him.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I think that there has been some discussion about this. The situation is that the EU is in charge of the treaty. Therefore, if we are not out of the treaty, we remain members as a result of the treaty of the European Union. However, the treaty by itself was not the whole story, because we had to pass an Act of Parliament to make the treaty work in the United Kingdom. If, as has happened, the EU has extended the date so far as the treaty is concerned, in order to make our law conform with the way the treaty works, the statutory instrument is required. Otherwise, there would be a discontinuity between the treaty on the one hand and the initial law on the other.
Lord Goldsmith
I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said. I see that the noble and learned Lord, the Advocate-General, has come to sit next to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to put him straight on all of this.
Let us move on quickly to the things that matter more than that. The issue is what the country is now faced with. In that debate we are now really a spectator, as has been said. At this stage, we are watching as the House of Commons considers what to do. We may well find that, through the mechanism of indicative votes—personally, it is what I hope we will see—it will now consider all the possible alternative routes for this country. As has been said by a number of your Lordships, we are reaching that point at a very late stage and, as has also been said, that is as a result of the obduracy of the Prime Minister. One has to respect her stamina and perseverance but, as already raised in this debate, the fact remains that there are people whose voices have not been heard by the Prime Minister. It was remarkable to watch on the television yesterday who was turning up at Chequers. I admire their motorcars, and there were two exceptional ones that I envied, but it was surprising for the people of this country to see that this is how their future is being decided—by private discussions with just a small group of people.
Now, I hope that that will not happen and that the House of Commons will take charge of the situation. I have no doubt that it will take into account many of the points that your Lordships have discussed today. I am glad that there was a reference during our debate to the position of young people. I have seen the benefits of Erasmus in my own family, and I saw the young people during the march protesting about their lack of voice.
I think that only the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the contribution that the European Union has made to peace and security in Europe. I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, at Saturday’s march and I am sorry that he is not in his place. This was powerful stuff. He has said it before in this House, although perhaps not in those words. As I recall, he said that being alone was not Churchill’s wish or hope; it was his fear. Peace and security is a very important matter which no doubt the House of Commons will take into account when it considers where we go from here.
Inevitably, your Lordships have talked about the legitimacy of a referendum. Again, it is for the House of Commons to consider in its indicative votes whether that is a way forward. I myself have never understood the objections to a further referendum on democratic grounds. I appreciate that people who thought they had achieved a particular result the first time round do not want to see it rerun. However, regarding legitimacy, in an earlier debate in this House—I do not which one it was; it might have been the first debate but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Newby, can tell me—the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, used the colourful if slightly whimsical example of his maiden aunts being invited to make a choice on the basis of inadequate information. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who asked why this would be undemocratic.
As a result of what the European Council said, there has also been much discussion about the need to hold further European elections. If that is the case, it will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, inconvenient—one could perhaps put it more strongly than that—but I find it difficult to describe it as undemocratic to ask people to vote in an election. That is perhaps why the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, referred to the need to give people the final say. However, that is not for us to decide today. Looking at the annunciator, I see that there is a Division in the Commons. Maybe I should sit down before we find out what is going to happen over the next few days. Arguments were powerfully put by my noble friend Lord Adonis. I am not sure that I agree with the sequencing that he has in mind but that was not the fullness of his observation.
In an earlier debate, I drew an analogy with the play “Waiting for Godot”. At that stage, we thought that there would be a further opinion or a further amendment to the legal position that would cause us to reconsider what we had been saying about that. I quoted the Irish critic who had referred to “Waiting for Godot” as,
“a play in which nothing happens, twice”.
I hope that we are not going to see nothing happening three or four times.
We have to move on for the sake of the country, and it is now to the other place that we must look to get the guidance and establish the direction in which the country will be going. That is what I look forward to seeing at the end of this evening when the House of Commons decides about the procedure, and during the rest of this week, when it makes its decisions on the votes.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate has allowed us the opportunity to explore the recent developments in relation to our exit from the EU. I am yet again grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their insight and contributions, even if one may say we did not hear much that was new or original. Indeed, noble Lords will not hear much that is new or original from me, but I will seek to address as many of the key points arising from the debate as I can while conscious of the late hour.
It is worth saying again that the experience and expertise demonstrated by noble Lords today is consistent with the valuable contributions this House has made to the process of the UK leaving the EU. I thought the debate started off very well and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle spoke some wise words in calling for a calm, civilised debate. I am pleased to say that everybody in this House certainly abided by her instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke extremely well on the subject of reconciliation and compromise from his personal experience and provided sound advice to both Houses as we go forward in this discussion. I pay tribute to many other contributions, from all sides of the House, including about the work of our Select Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, gave some powerful examples of the excellent work of those committees.
Over the past couple of weeks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shared his excellent analogy of feeling as though in a holding pattern somewhere above Aylesbury. I know that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who actually represents Aylesbury, will tell you that there are no finer patches in the country. Indeed, I noticed at the weekend that he took to the airwaves to make it clear that he has no plans to move from that lovely patch of England to a more well-known address in London. I hope the noble and learned Lord will not mind if I take his analogy a little further and say that the pilot has now identified a runway and that now is the moment of decision for the other place as to where we land.
The legally binding assurances secured by the Prime Minister mean that, in the unlikely event that the backstop is ever used, it will only be temporary, and that the UK and the EU will begin work immediately to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by the end of December 2020. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out earlier today, the European Council also agreed that if there is a successful vote on the withdrawal agreement this week, the date of our departure could be extended to 22 May to allow time for our Parliament to agree and ratify the deal.
However, should Parliament not agree a deal this week, the European Council has agreed to extend Article 50 until 12 April, which would then become the point at which we either leave with no deal or present an alternative plan. The Government’s position is clear that the best way in which to leave the European Union is in a smooth and orderly manner, by supporting the negotiated withdrawal agreement. The point was powerfully made by my noble friends Lord Bridges, Lord Howell and Lord Cormack, as well as, somewhat surprisingly, by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and perhaps slightly reluctantly by my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others talked about extending Article 50. Our agreement with the EU provides for two possible durations, which I have just outlined. Either of these scenarios would require a change in our domestic legislation to reflect the new date.
I can confirm that the Government have today laid a draft statutory instrument under the EU withdrawal Act that provides for both of these possible agreed extensions. This will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so it will be debated in each House and must come into force by 11 pm on Friday 29 March. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal confirmed earlier, in this House, that debate will take place on Wednesday, so we have it all to look forward to again.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, this is to make sure that our domestic statute book reflects the extension of Article 50, which is already legally binding in international law. Not having this instrument in place would cause serious problems and uncertainty regarding the domestic statute book from 11 pm on 29 March. A large volume of EU exit legislation preparing the statute book for the moment that EU law ceases to apply has been extensively debated in this House and is due to enter into force on exit day, which is currently defined in the withdrawal Act as 29 March at 11 pm.
These regulations are necessary to bring domestic law in line with the agreement at the international level. Without this instrument, there would be a clash in domestic law, because contradictory provisions would apply to both EU rules and new domestic rules simultaneously. It is therefore vital that the instrument is approved by Parliament so that we can ensure that the statute book accurately reflects that the UK will remain a member state until at least 11 pm on 12 April.
Lord Adonis
The Minister has made a very important statement. Are we to understand that, if the third meaningful vote does not take place tomorrow, the statutory instrument changing the exit date to 12 April will be laid on Wednesday? In what circumstances will we debate a 22 May extension rather than a 12 April extension?
Lord Callanan
The statutory instrument has already been laid. It reflects the decision of the European Council, so both potential dates are included as options, depending on whether the meaningful vote is approved—not necessarily tomorrow but this week. That was the decision laid down by the Council and agreed to by the Prime Minister.
In response to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, no deal remains the legal default at 11 pm on 12 April, if that is where we end up. The Prime Minister was simply stating that Parliament is likely to intervene to prevent no deal, if a deal has not been agreed by then. This is in line with her comments on 26 February, when she told the House of Commons:
“So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 166.]
Viscount Hailsham
Is my noble friend saying that, in order to secure a no-deal Brexit, the House of Commons has to approve that affirmatively?
Lord Callanan
I do not want to go further than the comments of the Prime Minister which I have just quoted. This is in line with her comments on 26 February, when she said:
“So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 166.]
I will reply to my noble friend Lord Balfe, who called for an indefinite extension to Article 50. I am afraid to tell him that that is not possible. Any extension has to have an end date. As he will know from European law, Article 50 is a mechanism for leaving the EU, and an indefinite extension is, of course, not leaving.
Many noble Lords spoke about revoking Article 50 and mentioned the online petition and the march that we saw at the weekend. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke approvingly of both, but carefully avoided committing her party and saying whether Labour is actually in favour of either of those options. Indeed, if she carries on sitting on the fence, she might end up with spelks in her posterior. There is no doubt that there are clear and strongly held views on both sides of the debate. That has been clear since the referendum, when the largest democratic exercise in our history took place, with 17.4 million people voting to leave—as noble Lords are no doubt tired of me saying.
My old sparring partner, the House’s resident heckler, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about the impressive march and petition. They were indeed impressive. Let me say, however, that we govern this country by the ballot box and by this Parliament and not by numbers on demonstrations, or indeed by internet polls. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was very careful not to mention either—because, of course, he was a member of the Blair Government when we had a similar, and even bigger, demonstration against the Iraq war and by the Countryside Alliance—and we all know what happened as a result of those demonstrations.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, slightly bizarrely called on us to revoke Article 50 and then to hold a referendum. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, made on this. It seems slightly strange. If we do that, what are we going to hold a referendum on? Is he seriously saying that we could revoke—in other words, tell the EU unconditionally that we are going to stay as members and then maybe, possibly, decide that we are going to leave again? I think that that was possibly one of the more ridiculous of his strange ideas.
The Government have long been clear that failing to deliver on that vote would, in our view, be a failure of our democracy. On this point I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. In response to my noble friend Lord Hailsham, it remains a matter of firm policy that this Government will not be revoking Article 50 because to do so would contradict the result of the first people’s vote, which we are committed to respecting. This Government are committed to delivering on the result of that referendum and leaving in a smooth and orderly way.
I was particularly struck by the interesting and insightful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. She referred, for noble Lords who did not hear her, to her sadomasochistic tendencies. Now, before noble Lords get too excited, she was referring to a forthcoming book, which we will all read with great interest, on the history of European referenda, and how she thought referenda were a device for demagogues and dictators and were always a bad idea, but maybe we should have just one more of them, so bad are they. Of course, ignoring referendum results is a common feature of the European politics that she studies so closely.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about the European Parliament elections, a subject very familiar to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and of course myself. The Prime Minister has been clear that, should there be a further extension to Article 50 beyond 22 May, that would mean participation in the European elections. As she has said before, it is our firm belief that it would be wrong to ask the people of the United Kingdom, three years after voting to leave the EU, to then vote in the European elections.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Why do the Government think it is a particular burden to undertake European elections? Is it not a positive exercise in democracy that the Minister should welcome for a number of reasons? Will he confirm that it would in fact be possible for Peers to participate in those elections?
Lord Callanan
I think I answered the first point in my statement, but I think it is possible for Peers to participate. A number of Peers have been Members of the European Parliament, but of course they need to suspend their membership of this House while they are in the European Parliament. As we do not want it to happen, we do not need to speculate further about that.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about amendments in the Commons, I think he spoke approvingly of some of the amendments in tonight’s House of Commons vote. I assume that he was not so approving of the one last week in which they voted decisively against a further people’s vote.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Since the Minister has just commented on the European Parliament, could he please answer the question I asked about the way that he misled the House previously and said that there was no way on the statute book by which we could carry out the European elections, which turns out to be untrue, and which has been corrected by him in a written reply of 19 March? There is no impediment other than the unwillingness of the Government to use the laws that remain in force.
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord has correctly observed, I have answered that question in a written response to him. Anybody who is interested can read that response.
In response to the second question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, we cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any vote held in the House of Commons, but the Prime Minister has been clear that we are committed to engaging constructively in the process and aiding the House. In the other place this evening, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has confirmed that the Government will find time later in the week to facilitate the process if the amendment in the name of my right honourable friend the Member for West Dorset is in fact not approved.
I am grateful as always for the many contributions made in the debate. The Government are focused on finding a way for the other place to support the deal so that we can leave the EU in a smooth and orderly manner. As the Prime Minister set out, the negotiated deal before the other place seeks to deliver on the referendum, retain trust in our democracy and respect the concerns of those who voted to remain. If the other place supports that deal, we can end the uncertainty and the divisive debate, and move forward to a new future outside the EU. That is what the Government are committed to doing. I beg to move.
Brexit: Article 50
Lord Adonis
That this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to revoke the notification of 29 March 2017 in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s response was almost enough to provoke me into making a further speech, particularly his remark that the proposal to revoke is one of my more ridiculous ideas. The last idea that I set forward to the House that he greeted as ridiculous was that we would not be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019, so this is a sure sign that it will come to pass. However, I do not believe that we should embark on such a momentous debate at 10.16 pm, so I will not be proceeding with the Motion this evening.