European Council

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this was an extraordinary European Council summit. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement.

I think we are all surprised to see so little on Brexit right at the end. Obviously, Brexit is the key issue for the UK. Although it is increasingly apparent that everything in government is now seen through the prism of Brexit, the summit highlighted that it does not occupy the EU 27 in the same way. So I have some sympathy for the Prime Minister. It must be increasingly difficult at such summits, struggling to maintain influence and credibility in Brussels when under such pressure at home. Then, there is luck—or the lack of it. Who could have predicted that the Belgian Prime Minister’s gift of a No. 10 football shirt could possibly present any hazard? At least he is an attacker, not a defender.

The summit was also extraordinary in other ways. We saw the vetoing of an entire set of conclusions, requiring an all-night session to ensure progress on migration. Angela Merkel, who has taken the lead on the migration issue, questioned the very purpose of the EU if it is unable to deal with this. The discussion on security and defence took place against the backdrop of our Government refusing to confirm that the UK will remain a tier 1 military power and the US President confirming a summit with Vladimir Putin in July.

Migration has divided EU member states for years. The conclusions eventually reached on Friday morning stated:

“This is a challenge not only for a single Member State, but for Europe as a whole”.


Although there have been fewer crossings, the recent plight of more than 600 migrants on the rescue ship “Aquarius” highlighted that political judgments need humanity and decency at their core. We agree with Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, that unilateralism and inflammatory rhetoric are not the answer. I hope his message was echoed by the Prime Minister in her contributions to that discussion.

Member states are right to want to step up their efforts in Libya, including increasing support for the Libyan coast guard. But, as your Lordships’ House debated recently, Operation Sophia is falling short of expectations and can only ever be one piece in this complicated puzzle. The UK and the EU must do more to secure a political solution in Libya and to support the development of state institutions to tackle people smuggling at its source. Could the noble Baroness the Leader of the House clarify the Government’s position on the UK’s post-Brexit participation in EU migration agreements with Turkey, Libya and other states? Will the UK’s support in Libya continue to be a part of co-ordinated European efforts?

EU leaders also discussed security and defence. Like many, I was disappointed by the Prime Minister’s almost belligerent attitude. The Prime Minister was criticised for appearing to make threats on security at Lancaster House. Even with the Commission’s strict stance on Galileo, it is disappointing that she has returned to playing hardball. As with migration, co-operation is essential; we are co-dependent in ensuring the security and safety of all our citizens. The Prime Minister noted the imminent arrival of the NATO summit, arguing that we are “leading throughout NATO”. That does not appear to be the view of President Trump, his Defence Secretary, or even the Prime Minister’s own Defence Secretary, whose agitation and campaign for additional funding show no signs of abating.

Elsewhere, we welcome that action will be taken to allow a co-ordinated response to the challenge of disinformation and to enable the improved identification and removal of online content that incites hatred. Discussions on tax avoidance and evasion, and the importance of rules-based international trade, remain as important as ever.

But, on Brexit, the four—just four—paragraphs in the conclusions are a stark reminder of how much work lies ahead in the next few months. They express,

“concern that no substantial progress has yet been achieved”,

on the Irish border, echoing the comments made by the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, that breaking the impasse and fleshing out the details of the proposed backstop solution is the EU’s,

“first, second and third priority”.

They issued a warning, to be heeded by certain Cabinet Ministers, that,

“negotiations can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken so far are respected in full”.

In the absence of the Government’s White Paper, the EU demanded,

“further clarity as well as realistic and workable proposals from the UK”,

highlighting that the fractures at the heart of government are damaging our interests.

Nothing in the conclusions reflects the Prime Minister’s optimism when she arrived in Brussels hailing the significant progress of recent weeks. The reference to Gibraltar will rightly raise concerns, so I hope the Leader can inform your Lordships’ House of how the UK will engage constructively with EU and Spanish counterparts to resolve the situation.

I return to a point I raised previously on the Prime Minister’s Statement back in March. The paragraph in the draft withdrawal agreement on the onward movement rights of UK citizens living in the EU simply disappeared overnight. I was assured in a letter from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House following that debate that this remains a priority for the Government but that it was a matter for negotiation. Yet, the UK-EU joint statement of 19 June suggested that no progress had been made. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this remains a priority for the Government? If so, what does that mean? When will this next be discussed by negotiators? Did the Prime Minister have any informal discussions on this important issue at the summit? Has any progress been made? What discussions have taken place and when? If the noble Baroness does not have the details on that part, I am happy for her to write to me.

Both the Prime Minister and the EU have called for an acceleration of the negotiations, but it is not the first time that attempts have been made to inject a sense of urgency into the talks. It now has to happen. We are running out of time. There appears to be a growing consensus across the EU that it will be the December summit, not the October summit as previously anticipated, that signs off any agreement. That is a problem. Are the Government still aiming for October, not least to give both Houses of Parliament sufficient time to study the details of the deal? The House of Commons Brexit committee warned last week that even without any slippage it might prove difficult to ratify the agreement and pass enabling legislation before the Article 50 window slams shut.

In the absence of an agreed UK position, the EU has made it clear that it is preparing for a no deal outcome. As we have said so often, no deal is the worst possible outcome and would be catastrophic for the UK. I see the Brexit Minister shaking his head. That really does not inspire confidence in anyone in this Chamber. Nevertheless, the EU 27 have reiterated their willingness to come up with an improved offer if the UK reconsiders some of its red lines, for instance over the EU charter and the underpinning of the European arrest warrant.

All eyes will be on Chequers on Friday. With no England match, there will be nothing to distract the Cabinet from fulfilling its responsibilities. This could be the most important Cabinet meeting for a generation and it is time for leadership. We all know that no plan was put forward at this summit because the Prime Minister had sought party and Cabinet unity on an issue when there is none. Is it the case now that the Prime Minister believes that the dangers of not having a detailed plan for Brexit are outweighed by the dangers of losing a Cabinet Minister or two? As the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will have a seat at that table on Friday. She has an important role, and I hope she will urge Cabinet colleagues to put their differences aside, to open their minds and to agree a position that enables the UK to achieve the deal it needs, rather than the deal that the Brexiteers will let it have.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is a Statement of two parts. The first relates to the major issues on migration and security, which were rightly at the top of the agenda. The Prime Minister sets out in the Statement the things that we are doing to support the EU efforts to control migration: a further Border Force patrol vessel off Greece—leaving how many, I wonder, left to patrol our own territorial waters—a few policemen helping EU and African countries, and a small contribution to the EU trust fund for Africa. But while the Statement reiterates the UK’s commitment to working together with other member states to counter illegal migration, the Prime Minister is silent on how this will be achieved if we leave the EU. We will obviously not be in the room when the European Council discusses these matters, but which room will we be in? What forum of which the UK is a member does the Prime Minister propose should take these discussions forward post March next year? The same applies to security, where again the Prime Minister says that she wants a new security partnership but has given no indication of what form that might take, other than via our continued membership of NATO bodies.

The statement issued by the European Council naturally covers the issues discussed last Friday in the absence of our Prime Minister: jobs, growth, competitiveness, innovation and digital. On these vital issues for our future prosperity we are already out of the room and having zero input on the development of more-effective EU policies. The Government have no answer to the question of how we might have an input in the future, despite the implications for British jobs and prosperity.

The second half of the Statement is on Brexit—or, rather, the final page of a seven-page Statement is on Brexit, which confirms that the issue was hardly discussed, either when the Prime Minister was present or in her absence. The EU’s statement, four paragraphs of it, on its Friday discussions is terse and crackles with frustration at the lack of progress made in the talks so far.

How had the PM sought to deal with this frustration the previous day? According to her Statement:

“I warned EU leaders that I do not think this Parliament will approve the withdrawal agreement in the autumn unless we have clarity about our future relationship”.


She warned them about a lack of clarity? This is a Government who will have a Cabinet meeting in Chequers purely to get some vestige of clarity among themselves. The EU has been patiently waiting for a British proposal for months. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has obviously decided that his position is so embarrassing that he does not even bother to meet Monsieur Barnier, except very occasionally. The Prime Minister would do better to warn the Cabinet of the consequences of lack of clarity in UK policy. It is surely a bit rich even by her standards to blame the EU for a problem which is entirely her own.

The Statement is curious in that it does not mention the issue which the Prime Minister’s spin doctors were claiming last Thursday night to be the main burden of her intervention on Brexit. The Times, for example, led with the headline:

“EU putting lives at risk over Brexit, warns May”.


Did the Prime Minister, as alleged, accuse the Commission of,

“putting obstacles in the way of a new security pact”?

If so, what response did she receive? If she really raised security but failed entirely to mention trade and Northern Ireland, what sort of message does that send to the many British businesses now seriously worried about the prospects for jobs and investment?

There are many questions which one could ask about the Government’s approach to Brexit, but I realise that the Leader of the House will enjoin us to be patient and wait for the White Paper promised for next week, so to ask them is pointless. But, 10 days ago, I said that if there were a World Cup for kicking a can down the road, the Government would win it hands down. This Government are kicking and kicking, not least each other. I suspect that they are likely to continue to do so well after Friday’s Chequers meeting concludes.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. As the Prime Minister made clear, the UK is playing, and will continue to play, an important role in international affairs. The noble Baroness asked about migration. We will certainly continue to work closely with our EU partners on this difficult area. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord’s somewhat implied assessment that our contribution has not been significant. I assure them both that we remain absolutely committed to providing protection for the most vulnerable refugees and improving the ways in which we distinguish between refugees fleeing persecution and economic migrants. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the UK is providing a further Border Force patrol vessel to work with the Greek coastguard. This brings our total maritime support to FRONTEX to two vessels in the Aegean and one in the central Mediterranean. As was mentioned in the Statement, the Prime Minister has agreed with Prime Minister Tsipras of Greece that we will work together on a new action plan of support for Greek and European efforts. Despite the noble Baroness’s misgivings about Operation Sophia, our naval assets have destroyed 182 smuggling boats and saved just under 13,400 lives since the operation began, so it is having an impact. We have also agreed to hold a strategic dialogue on migration with Turkey, which will allow us better to work to address the drivers behind illegal migration on the eastern route and to tackle organised crime groups. All this work will continue. We have so far contributed €328 million to the EU’s facility for refugees in Turkey and remain committed to the second tranche.

The noble Baroness asked about Gibraltar. The scope of the draft withdrawal agreement, including the implementation period, explicitly covers Gibraltar. We have been consistently clear that it is covered by our exit negotiations with the EU. Alongside the Government of Gibraltar, we have had constructive discussions with Spain about arrangements for future co-operation and look forward to these continuing. The Prime Minister had a first conversation with Prime Minister Sánchez since he took office. They touched on our close links. I understand that Gibraltar was mentioned in that conversation. We will continue to work with the Spanish Government and the Government of Gibraltar in developing our plans.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord acknowledged that we will publish a White Paper on our future partnership with the EU next week. It will be a comprehensive document covering the entire breadth of our future relationship.

The noble Baroness asked again about the onward movement of UK citizens. I assure her that this issue remains a priority. As we accelerate the pace of negotiations, we hope to reach agreement quickly.

The noble Lord asked about our future security arrangements. The Prime Minister has set out in her Munich speech what we would like to achieve, which is an unprecedentedly deep partnership. On her comments at the summit, we have given a firm commitment to the future security of Europe and we will continue to make a major contribution, but the Prime Minister pointed out that our ability to do this could be put at risk. The existing legal frameworks for third countries do not allow us to realise the extent of the ambitious partnership that we believe is in both our interest and that of the EU. For example, under the Commission’s current position, the UK and EU would not be able to share information through key databases and agencies. Those are issues on which we want to continue; we have been very clear about that. We will continue to work with the EU to make sure that they are included in our future relationship.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the House of Commons has done what we had hoped: they have considered and debated our meaningful vote amendment. They have not done what some of us hoped and agreed with it, but I think we should celebrate how far we have come on this issue since the Bill arrived in this House. At that stage, there was absolutely nothing in the Bill about a vote, meaningful or otherwise, on the withdrawal deal and there was no mention of no deal. All the Prime Minister had said was that there would be a vote in both Houses on a deal. There was no commitment to that in law and the result of such a vote would have had no legislative consequence. The vote would have simply been on a Motion, which could be ignored—I will not go into whether it would have been amendable. Any such vote in this Chamber would have been particularly meaningless, as either we would have felt obliged to vote the same way as the Commons, whatever our view, or we would have voted differently and then been ignored, both of those, of course, being meaningless for this House, because as my noble friend Lord Grocott rightly feared, if there were two votes, one in each House, it would raise the question of the primacy of the House of Commons.

So that was all we had: the promise of a Motion but untied to any legislation. What we now have in the Bill is that the withdrawal agreement, including the framework for the future relationship, can be ratified only if it has been approved by the Commons and debated here. That is a legislative requirement akin to the Article 50 requirement for a vote in the European Parliament. That is a major concession. It would not have been there without the hard work of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, without your Lordships’ commitment to ensuring that this matter was in the Bill, and without us sending the amendment back on Monday.

However, I have a query about what would happen if there was no deal, as to my mind the rather extraordinary last-minute Written Ministerial Statement, as a result of which Dominic Grieve seems to have felt that he could support the Government this afternoon, does not really clarify things. I am not sure what it means. Will the Motion be amendable? Liam Fox is already out and about, briefing that actually there is no change as a result of that. To me, it reads that it still leaves it to the Speaker to decide whether or not it is sufficiently neutral to be amendable. So it is not actually an undertaking that such a Motion will be amendable. Perhaps the Leader could shed a bit of light on the significance of what made such a difference to the right honourable Dominic Grieve.

In the meantime, with the catalogue of changes to the Bill outlined by my noble friend Lady Smith on Monday and the insertion of parliamentary approval of the withdrawal deal agreed today, I hope even the Government will recognise the vital role played by your Lordships’ House, and that our detractors, particularly in parts of the press, will realise that it is our role to ask the Government, and the Commons, to think again. We have done that, and to quite a large extent we have been heard.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it seems rather hard to believe but this really will be the last time we debate the withdrawal Bill in your Lordships’ House.

As we did on Monday, we are focusing on only one issue—indeed, the significance of just two words in relation to a Motion that the Government would bring forward in the event of reaching no agreement with the EU on Brexit terms. The two words are “neutral terms”—a phrase, incidentally, which most of us have never heard before. The argument which won the day in the Lords was that “neutral terms” would preclude the Commons having the opportunity to express a view on the merits of the Government reaching no deal in the Brexit negotiations and on what should be done next. The Government argued that their formulation was necessary to preserve the constitutional role of Parliament and that the Grieve amendment would mandate the Government in completely unacceptable ways and they would not countenance it. Your Lordships’ House took a different view and that is why we are still here today.

Between the Bill leaving your Lordships’ House on Monday evening and this afternoon, the Government have clearly thought deeply about this matter and realised that their understanding of parliamentary procedure on Monday was flawed. They produced the Written Ministerial Statement—which, unless I missed it, the Leader did not refer to at all, yet that has been the crucial thing in the debates today—which, in lay man’s terms, says that it will be up to the Speaker to decide whether or not any government Motion in the event of no deal would be amendable, and that, in any event, there is nothing to stop the Commons debating any Motion that they want to on this issue, and that time would be found for them to do it.

There is now a battle of spin as to whether this represents a significant climbdown by the Government or whether winning the vote represents a victory. I wish that the right honourable Member for Beaconsfield had supported his own amendment this afternoon. But if I am disappointed, neither the Government nor Parliament can take any satisfaction from what has happened today. This week’s events demonstrate the contempt in which the Government hold Parliament. First, they try to muzzle it by putting “neutral terms” into the Bill. Then, fearing defeat, they publish a Written Ministerial Statement just minutes before the debate in the Commons which rips up their earlier justification for using the “neutral terms” ploy. At every turn they have demonstrated their only consistent characteristic: the determination to survive to another day. If there were a World Cup in kicking the can down the road, the Government would win it hands-down. But the can cannot be kicked down the road for ever.

G7: Charlevoix, Quebec

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Prime Minister on resisting the temptation to issue her Statement on the summit on Twitter.

We agree with the opening remarks in the Statement: it is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose and value of the G7. These seven developed, large modern economies have recognised both self-interest as a group and wider world responsibilities. We have worked together during financial crises and on the sustainable development goals, and we have taken action on debt for the heavily indebted poor countries. There have obviously been criticisms of that time, but these gatherings have been optimistic and have sought to be effective and responsible.

This time, it is fair to say that expectations were pretty low before the summit, but I suspect that the real outcomes—not just those in the communiqué—are more worrying than anyone anticipated. It is increasingly clear that, despite the best efforts of G7 members to seek to manage and engage with President Trump, the US President does not abide by the same rules. It may appear chaotic, but his unpredictability has become very predictable. Even as other G7 leaders and the EU Council President thanked Prime Minister Trudeau and his team for hosting the summit, President Trump tore up the diplomatic rule book to decry the Canadian Prime Minister as being “weak” and “dishonest”. Those now trademark forthright tweets appear to isolate him from the G7 as an effective group and, whatever agreements are reached and whatever compromises are made, it is not certain whether the agreement or acquiescence of the US will last as long as the flight home.

One part of the Prime Minister’s Statement evoked memories of the understatements of Sir Humphrey Appleby and Jim Hacker in “Yes, Prime Minister”—the part where she says:

“This was a difficult summit with, at times, some very candid discussions”.


How well this was illustrated by the marvellous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by the other leaders, as she leans forward across a table to a seated President Trump, with his arms folded, looking away from her at something in the distance—he did not want to look at her. You could almost hear that “candid discussion”.

The implication of this summit is that it appears that President Trump does not see himself or the US as part of a global strategy seeking a consensus on key international issues. Indeed, he does not appear to value his association with the UK. The Prime Minister has made much of her special relationship with President Trump, and Ministers have been vocal in their opinion of the necessity of this, particularly in a post-Brexit world. However, when asked about his relationship with the G7, President Trump declared that the level of his relationship was a 10 with “Angela, Emmanuel and Justin”, very pointedly and deliberately ignoring Mrs May and, later, briefing against her. If our Prime Minister has irked the President in some way, it could well be to her personal credit that she has done so, but it does not bode well for our transatlantic special relationship. It also means that our relationship with our European partners is all the more essential.

Even without US endorsement, there are some good and strong outcomes in the communiqué. We appreciate that the G6 has signed up to a progressive, value-based programme that is to be welcomed. It includes the condemnation of Russia’s destabilising behaviour in seeking to undermine democratic systems, its support of the Syrian regime and the attack in Salisbury. Yet, although initially signing up to this, President Trump also called for Russia to again be part of a G8 summit.

We welcome the recognition that ensuring that all citizens benefit from the proceeds of growth is essential for a cohesive modern society to meet the challenges ahead. Given the imposition of the new US tariffs, to which the noble Baroness referred, President Trump’s intentions, if not the accuracy of the assessment, could not have been clearer. The Prime Minister refers to the open, direct discussion, but President Trump did not sound like he was discussing it with anyone. He said:

“We’re like the piggy bank that everyone’s robbing. And that ends”.


He went on:

“If they retaliate…we win that war a thousand times out of a thousand”.


This is clearly a difficult situation. Can the noble Baroness say anything more about the implications for the forthcoming EU summit and what discussions she has already had with our current European partners?

The commitment to a more secure and peaceful world and advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment are important statements but, to be effective, they must jointly be acted on with political will and adequate funding. This was also a key issue at CHOGM earlier this year. I ask the noble Baroness, if she can respond today, how this builds on the CHOGM discussions. Is it consistent with the outcomes from that conference?

The statement on the protection and sustainability of our oceans and coastal communities is clear and far-reaching. Was the impact of the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement properly discussed? The comment at the end of that section of the communiqué is conciliatory to the US, but that US decision has serious implications.

If we are to build a more peaceful and secure world, all countries must abide by international law and their international responsibilities. Yet, in the past few days, the Italian Government have refused to let a rescue ship dock despite it carrying around 600 refugees, including young children, unaccompanied minors and pregnant women. That undermines those international agreements and the sense of shared responsibilities that underpin bodies such as the G7 and the G20. What discussions have the UK had with other EU countries regarding this situation and future implications?

I hope that, when the noble Baroness answers the questions today, she will also turn her attention to the value of the relationship we will have in the future with our EU partners.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is easy to feel some sympathy for the Prime Minister and the other non-US members of the G7 today. It must be extraordinarily frustrating dealing with an American president given to “fits of anger”, to quote President Macron, and they must all share Chancellor Merkel’s view that it was “sobering and a little depressing”. Again, Sir Humphrey would appreciate the understatement in that phrase.

For the Prime Minister and her colleagues, though, it must be particularly depressing because a large part of the case which Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and others make for Brexit rests on the assertion that the UK will receive a warmer welcome from the other English-speaking countries in negotiating favourable free trade arrangements if we free ourselves from the shackles of the EU. America’s supposed commitment to free trade was the key to that argument, as was the closeness of the special relationship which, we were told, would guarantee British leaders easy and preferential access to the White House. President Trump has now demonstrated that he does not believe in the special relationship at all. The Prime Minister does not even feature in the list of leaders with whom he has a good relationship—or, rather, had a good relationship, before he fell out with all of them—and he rejects the principles of free trade. This leaves the justification for leaving the EU to pursue more open markets elsewhere dead in the water. How appropriate that it was World Oceans Day with the Government and the G7 so at sea.

The G7 meeting has rightly been described as a G6 plus one, with the UK aligned with France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan in resisting the arguments of the US. However, only last week our Foreign Secretary was describing our European neighbours as the enemy rather than the allies with whom we are most closely associated and with whom we share interests and such close values. It is hardly surprising that the Prime Minister appeared to play only a marginal role in this summit, while Merkel and Macron stood up to Trump. Is it not the case that we have now marginalised ourselves as a nation and lack any coherent foreign policy whatsoever? The EU will now impose retaliatory measures against the US tariffs on steel and aluminium, but the Prime Minister is urging caution. In the Statement, she says that she wants to avoid tit-for-tat measures, but that is what countermeasures are. Could the Leader of the House, therefore, explain what sort of measures the PM does think appropriate? Could she explain what the Prime Minister hopes to gain by resisting calls from the rest of the EU for a firmer response?

The Prime Minister also said that, as long-standing allies, we do not make progress by ignoring each other’s concerns but by addressing them together. What do those words mean in the context of the attitude of President Trump, and by what means does the Prime Minister propose to do this in practice? Is she really going to start replying to President Trump’s tweets, or is there some sense in her mind about what those words might mean?

The world today is in greater disarray than it has been for decades. Nothing in the Prime Minister’s Statement would give you any sense that that is the case. In these circumstances, you need to embrace your friends in order to rebuff those who do you harm. This weekend has demonstrated that our friends are in Europe, and that we should be standing with them and not planning a walk into the wilderness.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I say again, as the Prime Minister made clear in her statement, this was a challenging summit, and we are not denying that, and there were difficult discussions, but we continue to believe that continued dialogue is the way to make progress.

In relation to the communiqué, as we said, it was agreed by all parties. We fully intend to honour it, and we certainly hope that the US will also stand by the agreements made, and we will continue to have discussions around that.

On the question that the noble Baroness asked about Russia, the Prime Minister was very clear that, before any conversations can take place about Russia’s future involvement in this group, it must change its approach. Of course, we have to remind ourselves why the G8 became the G7. It was because of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea—again, a point that was reiterated at the summit.

On the questions on climate change, the Prime Minister once again made it clear that we remain firmly committed to the Paris Agreement, and the international momentum that underpins it, we believe, is irreversible. What we now need to do to move forward is agree on a robust set of rules to enable it to function effectively. While we may differ on the Paris Agreement, we still believe that within the G7 we can work together on solutions to address impacts and build greater resilience while creating economic opportunities.

The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of the ship that was not taken by Italy or Malta. I think it is good that Spain has now said that it will step in, so we are very pleased that progress has been made there. Of course, we will continue to support international efforts to effectively manage migration flows, tackle people smuggling and prevent people from making perilous journeys across the central Mediterranean Sea. We are committed to working with European partners in continuing with our efforts to aid Italy and other countries with the issues that they face.

On the comments by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about our relationship with the United States, it is true that of course difficulties were experienced in the summit, but we remain strong partners and allies. We have of course recently worked together to expel Russian spies, to increase bilateral data sharing and to make plans for the next generation of F35s. Of course, when the President visits in July, we will be able to continue some of the discussions that we have had over the past few days.

The noble Baroness asked about the £187 million of new funding announced at the summit. That will support more than 400,000 marginalised girls in developing countries such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Nepal and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It builds on the commitments made at the Commonwealth summit and the announcement of £212 million for phase 2 of the Girls’ Education Challenge. Those funds will help nearly 1 million marginalised girls across the Commonwealth to benefit from quality education to 2025.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked, quite rightly, about tariffs. I reiterate the point that the EU will impose countermeasures, but we all want to avoid a continued escalation and to maintain a constructive dialogue. We will continue to work with the EU and the US to achieve a permanent exemption. The Commission is required to seek member state approval for any countermeasures to come into effect; it has announced its intention to do that this month. We made the point that we believe that the US tariffs hit the wrong target. China alone was responsible for roughly half of the overcapacity in steel in 2017. We believe that we need to use the G20 Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity, in which China is involved, to help encourage a reduction in excess capacity. We also need a concerted international push to strengthen the global system of trade rules.

We of course want to continue to work constructively with our EU partners and friends. At this summit, we stood firm with them on a number of issues and we will continue to do so.

Syria

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I am grateful—along with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the Lord Speaker—for the briefing we were given by Cabinet Office Privy Counsellors today, as well as the offer of a wider detailed background briefing for all Peers.

First, I want to join in the condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Sergeant Matt Tonroe, who was killed in the service of his country. I entirely endorse the Minister’s comments. His family has rightly regarded his highly regarded military service with great pride. They, and he, would always have known how dangerous that service was—but that will not make the pain of their loss any easier. We rely on men and women such as Sergeant Tonroe to keep us safe, and we should never forget how much of a sacrifice they are prepared to make.

The attack on Douma, which has brought so much suffering, was the latest and most serious of a number of chemical weapons attacks since 2013 in Syria. The Syrian conflict is estimated already to have cost more than 400,000 lives, and many more people have been injured, maimed or forced to flee their homes as refugees. This area had already seen intense air and ground assaults when—as we heard from the Minister—on 7 April, reports and images emerged of what now appears to have been corroborated as a horrific chemical attack, leaving hundreds of people affected and around 70 dead. No one can read those reports or see the images of such suffering without being deeply moved. We completely and unreservedly condemn such attacks.

The multilateral action that has followed this attack was clearly one of limited precision targeting, aimed specifically at chemical weapons installations, including storage. It is to the credit of those involved in both the planning and execution of the attack that there are no reported fatalities and that the installations have been destroyed. We welcome the fact that all our personnel arrived home safely. It must be clear that an operation of this kind cannot ever be in retaliation but must be to prevent further such atrocities.

I am grateful to the Government for publishing some of the information that was made available to the Cabinet at its meeting on Thursday. It would be helpful if the Minister could say more about the international legal position, including the advice of the Attorney-General. Clearly, the use of chemical weapons is against all international law and conventions. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on the moral and legal case, but she will also be aware that humanitarian intervention is not universally accepted; indeed, it is disputed by some. What discussions have the Government had with the United Nations on this issue, including prior to the operation? Specifically, are any discussions ongoing?

We are also aware that this conflict remains ongoing—not just with chemical weapons but with conventional weapons as well—bringing enormous suffering with no real end in sight. It is vital that we continue to play a role in humanitarian relief and medical support and care. Will the Minister say more about this in her response? That brings us to the much-needed pressure to renew diplomatic efforts to ensure they are resumed. What discussions are taking place on that? Have the Government made any assessment of the risk of retaliation after these attacks?

A crucial part of this is the role of the OPCW. I understand that the director-general told a meeting of his executive council today that inspectors had not been allowed to visit the sites. According to Sweden’s representative on the council, Syria and Russia told the inspectors that their safety could not be guaranteed. Additionally, I am informed that Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister said that the inspectors would not be allowed to access the site until they produced an appropriate UN permit. What efforts are being made to engage with all parties? It is essential that the OPCW is allowed to continue its work and visit these sites. What discussions are taking place so that it can do that with the full co-operation of both Syria and Russia?

The Minister said that, even if the OPCW team can visit Douma to gather information about that assessment, it cannot attribute responsibility because Russia vetoed in November 2017 an extension of the joint investigatory mechanism set up to do that. Then, last week, as we heard, in the wake of the Douma attack, Russia again vetoed a new UN Security Council resolution to re-establish such a mechanism. What plans do the Government have to engage with other members of the Security Council to ensure that the OPCW has the necessary powers to undertake full investigations?

Finally, I will ask the noble Baroness about parliamentary engagement. We all understand that there will be times when Governments, in an emergency, have to act in the national interest and when there is no opportunity to return to Parliament until after an operation. We also understand that there are times when details cannot be made public—even in your Lordships’ House—and when rapid action is needed. But in the past there were a number of occasions when the Government consulted Parliament and even voted on an issue before military action. Will she say something about why in this case it was deemed impossible to consult Parliament prior to action and possible to return to Parliament for debate only after the operation had been concluded?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches associate ourselves with the Government’s condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Tonroe.

Last week, the Government and their allies were faced with a painful dilemma. The atrocious attack in Douma was only the latest and most lethal in a series of chemical attacks that have occurred in Syria over the last year. The only credible perpetrator of these attacks is the Assad regime. The stark choice which the Government and their allies faced was either to do nothing or to take some form of military action to signal our abhorrence of the use of chemical weapons. Given the attitude of the Assad regime and its Russian allies, there was, in the short term, no third effective diplomatic avenue open.

To undertake military action the Government needed to ensure that it was legal, effective and proportionate, and did not lead to an escalation of the multidimensional conflicts that beset Syria. The strict targeting of facilities, the extraordinary accuracy of the missiles, the avoidance of civilian casualties, the forewarning of the Russians and the assurance that the military action was a one-off event appear to have met those requirements. Another requirement for the use of military action, however, that was not met was the need to gain the prior approval of Parliament. It would have been possible to recall Parliament last week at very short notice and the Government should have done so. They might have had in mind the precedent of 2013, when the Commons refused to back unspecified military action in response to chemical attacks in Syria, but the hesitancy of the Commons to authorise military action then only strengthens the case for getting its approval now.

However effective the air strikes might have been in degrading Assad’s short-term ability to manufacture chemical weapons, they do not constitute a strategy. Indeed, the Government make no such claim. But the need for a way forward in Syria that goes beyond the brutal suppression of all resistance by the current regime has never been greater. As far as the UK’s role in achieving this is concerned, we can be effective only when working over a sustained period with our allies and the wider international community.

As the Statement makes clear, the Foreign Secretary has today, alongside his French counterpart, briefed the EU Foreign Affairs Council about Syria. This is commendable but, if the Government have their way, in 12 months’ time he would not be in the room. So I repeat a question that I have put before: after 29 March next year, how do the Government foresee being able to have a voice in EU Councils when they discuss Syria and foreign affairs more generally?

As for the US, it is reported that President Macron and Chancellor Merkel are to visit Washington next week. Does this mean that the French and Germans are now speaking for the European allies instead of the E3, of which the UK was a partner, which handled the Iranian nuclear negotiations?

On the prospects of a long-term settlement in Syria, while the Geneva talks appear to be deadlocked, there are more encouraging signs from the discussions convened by Russia in Sochi with the participation of the Iranians and the Turks. What is the Government’s assessment of the potential of these talks and are they in any way associating themselves with them? Will the Government offer their support to those within Syria gathering information about those committing war crimes so that they can eventually be brought to justice before the ICC?

The multi-layered conflicts being played out in Syria—Assad v al-Qaeda, Turkey v Kurds and Iran v Israel—have the potential to cause further horrific suffering and senseless violence beyond that which we have already seen. At the very least, we must ensure that action by the UK does nothing to escalate these conflicts. Last week’s raid appears not to have done so, but the Government must approach any further such interventions with great care and should take action only when they have the support of Parliament.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. As they will be aware, the UK is permitted under international law on an exceptional basis to take measures to alleviate human suffering, which is what we did. As the noble Baroness rightly said, we have published our legal position, which sets out how we believe that the military action taken has met this requirement. That is available for all to see.

The noble Lord and noble Baroness both asked about escalation. They are absolutely right: escalation is not in anybody’s interest, and I hope that the Statement I repeated made it clear that escalation was considered in discussions about what action to take. This was a discrete action to degrade chemical weapons and deter their use by the Syrian regime. We do not want to escalate tensions in the region. The Syrian regime and Russian and Iranian forces were not the target of the operation.

We are committed to playing our part to help the humanitarian catastrophe. As the noble Baroness rightly said, more than 400,000 people have been killed and half of Syria’s population has been displaced. As the Statement made clear, the UK is the second-biggest bilateral donor to the humanitarian response in Syria. Since 2012, our help has provided more than 26 million food rations, more than 10 million health consultations, more than 9.8 million relief packages and more than 8 million vaccinations. We have provided more than £200 million through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, and we remain committed to continue this within that region. I can reassure the House that we remain committed to achieving our goals in Syria: defeating the scourge of Daesh and achieving a political settlement that ends the suffering and provides stability for all Syrians. Alongside our US and French allies, we will continue to pursue diplomatic resolution—as I mentioned, there will be a further meeting of various partners next week to look at how we can continue to do that.

As I said in the Statement, and as the noble Baroness rightly mentioned, it appears that the OPCW team is being prevented from continuing its assessments in Douma. This has come out in a meeting today, so it is quite early days in terms of the information being passed back, but we will now work with our international partners to see what further steps can be taken. We must at the very least find out what is happening and we will work with our international allies to do that.

The noble Lord and noble Baroness both asked about parliamentary involvement. As I am sure they are both aware, the Cabinet Manual acknowledges that parliamentary debate is not necessary where there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. We believe that we acted in accordance with the convention. It was necessary to strike with speed so that we could allow our Armed Forces to act decisively, maintain the vital security of their operation and protect the security and interests of the UK. This is in accordance with the convention on the deployment of troops and Parliament.

This action has shown us once again to be playing a leading role internationally. As permanent members of the Security Council, we, the US and France have a particular role in upholding the international laws that keep us safe. That is what we were doing with this action. Support has been wide-ranging, including through many of our European allies, the EU, NATO, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. We will continue to play a leading role in maintaining international order and making sure that we can keep people safe.

House of Lords: Allowance

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. This seems a sensible and appropriate approach to an uprating mechanism. As she pointed out, Members of your Lordships’ House have not seen any increase in allowances since 2010. To have an automatic annual increase on the same basis as Members of Parliament seems an entirely fair and appropriate way to proceed. She will understand that issues and anomalies remain that colleagues across the House will seek to address. They have not been addressed today, as she commented. However, the approach to the uprating mechanism is entirely appropriate. On a personal level, I thank the noble Baroness as I have raised this issue for a number of years, and without her personal commitment I do not believe that we would have seen this uprating at all.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Leader on securing this settlement. It is modest but it protects the current level of allowances after years during which they have fallen and provides the basis of a regular uprating in the years to come—and it is closely linked to what happens in the Commons. In the current environment, I simply do not believe that a more generous settlement was politically possible, so it is very much to be welcomed.

In my view this does not mean that we have anything like a satisfactory approach to allowances. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, produced a simple political fix when he introduced the current system, and, while it has met what I am sure were his objectives—namely, a system which survived without inviting much adverse comment—it is by any logical perspective deeply flawed. In the past 10 years, I have seen my allowance in effect doubled—I lived in London when the Strathclyde measure was introduced—and then, when I moved last year to north Yorkshire, halved again. These changes have borne no relation to my participation in the affairs of the House.

Colleagues who have lived outside London for the whole period have seen a real terms fall in their allowances of nearly 20% at a time when London accommodation costs have increased faster than the overall rate of inflation. Personally, I can see no reason why, within a slowly rising funding envelope, we should not move towards a position in which expenses start again to reflect the actual costs incurred by Members who live outside London. I think that would be a much fairer system. However, I realise that there is no consensus in the House to move in such a direction and that the overall funding available to the Lords is likely to remain tightly constrained for the foreseeable future. That being so, I reiterate my thanks to the Leader for securing the increase she has announced today.

European Council

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We fully endorse her comments about the extraordinary bravery of police officers both in the attack in France last week and here at home as we commemorated last week. We recognise the bravery and commitment of those who have lost their lives and we will never forget their actions, which are truly heroic. We should also pay tribute to the police officers and members of the other emergency services who never know what danger they may face on any and every day. They and their families live with the knowledge that they always have to be prepared to ensure that we are safe.

I turn to the security issues outlined in the Statement. We welcome the recognition of the necessity for co-operation. Specifically on Russia, we were grateful for such swift and strong support from President Tusk and the EU 27 following the Salisbury attacks. Even in the midst of what are obviously very tough negotiations, our EU partners have not hesitated to offer both solidarity and action, which emphasises our shared values. Action has now followed across the world, with the announcements today of Russian diplomats being expelled from European and North American countries. We look forward to further updates on the detail of future security arrangements, but is the noble Baroness able to provide any information on discussions regarding UK participation in vital schemes such as the European arrest warrant?

The Government have been reluctant in the recent past to take action to protect the British steel industry, so we welcome that the Secretary of State for International Trade has now joined in representations to the US Government against US-imposed tariffs on EU steel. But we have to ask: would he have been able to achieve this on his own, without the support of the other 27 nations? I wonder whether we might now see a conversion by the Secretary of State to the benefits of joint and co-ordinated action by the EU in all our interests. The exemption that has been achieved, while positive, is only temporary. With talks ongoing between the EU and US, I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that the Secretary of State will provide an update through a Statement in the House of Commons in due course.

Turning to Brexit and the discussions on key issues, the noble Baroness will know that we have been calling for an agreement on a time-limited transitional period and we welcome the Government’s recognition of the necessity of this, not least for the British businesses that lacked certainty on their ability to trade with the EU after March next year. But although I understand the noble Baroness’s and the Government’s reluctance to use the word “transition”, labelling it as an “implementation period”, as in the Statement, is pushing it a bit when it then says it is an implementation period to “prepare properly” for the future. Surely an implementation period would be to implement what has been already been agreed, rather than to allow more time for Ministers to plan for the future.

As we heard in the debate this evening, the Government seem yet again to accept being tied into an absolute cut-off date. It seems a little like watching the sand run through an egg-timer and when it gets to the end, that is it. Does the noble Baroness accept that once the principle has been agreed that there is to be a time-limited period, as it now has been, there is a need for a little flexibility beyond having to return to Parliament? Such flexibility has no impact on the effect of the Bill and, as we heard in the last debate, it would be helpful and useful to the Government. I was sorry to hear the Minister, who is in her place at the moment, rejecting building such flexibility into the legislation. The Prime Minister has already discovered the pitfalls of setting firm deadlines when she rushed over to Brussels to announce the phase 1 agreement only to find she had not properly squared off the DUP. A couple more days were needed. Such flexibility would avoid that kind of embarrassment.

The Statement is clear that the issue of the Northern Ireland border remains to be resolved, but it seems that the Statement misses the crucial point. It talks of,

“how our commitments to avoid a hard border … should be turned into a legal text”.

That is part of the issue, but the fundamental point is not about the legal text and the language to be used, but is about the policy agreement, the practicalities of delivering the frictionless border we all want and maintaining our commitment to and operation of the Good Friday agreement. In her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister outlined her vision of a technological border, despite her Brexit Secretary’s previous description of these proposals being as an example of what she called “blue sky thinking”. If the Government insist that it is now just a matter of a legal text, can the noble Baroness tell us how the Government will give practical effect to the commitment that there should be no hard border in Northern Ireland?

I have two final points on clarity. Last week, this House passed two significant amendments on Euratom in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. This issue was flagged up in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech and is one of vital importance to the country. Can the noble Baroness clarify whether the Government will accept those amendments when they are considered in the Commons, and/or bring back alternatives in the withdrawal Bill?

My final request for clarity is on the position of UK nationals. The noble Baroness is aware that I have raised this numerous times in this House before, including on the previous EU Council Statement from the PM that said that the Government had protected the rights of UK nationals. I raised then that unless the issue of onward movement is addressed the Government will have disadvantaged UK nationals, but will have protected just some of our rights. I ask her to look at two documents. The first is the withdrawal agreement of 28 February. I thought it was clear, if, to me, unwelcome on this point. Article 32 says:

“In respect of United Kingdom nationals and their family members, the rights provided for by this Part shall not include further free movement to the territory of another Member State”.


Then we had the updated document from last week. There is a mystery. Apart from the mystery that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, tried to raise earlier about what had been agreed and what had not, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was not able to answer, we have Article 31 on the development of law and adaptations of Union acts, but I looked for Article 32 and it has gone. It has disappeared. We move straight to Article 33. Where is Article 32 about the rights of UK nationals when we Brexit? What will happen to them? It has mysteriously disappeared. It is a blank piece of paper. If the noble Baroness can explain the missing article, where it has got to and whether it means the Government have now come to the negotiating table to protect the interests of UK nationals it would be extraordinarily helpful.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I echo her condolences to the families and friends of all those who died in Trèbes, particularly those of Lieutenant-Colonel Beltrame. On security, the Prime Minister is clearly to be congratulated on securing a co-ordinated EU response. To have 18 EU member states expelling Russian diplomats is clearly a major achievement. However, I wondered whether the noble Baroness would agree with the assessment from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, of why such an agreement is possible. He said:

“Those who weren’t keen on nailing the Russians were brought along by the powerful instinct for consensus that develops over a long summit discussion. It will be much harder to get that amplification of a UK position from outside the EU”.


It really is important to be in the room. Could the Leader say anything about how the Government will seek to replicate that ability to be in a room with other EU leaders when vital matters of our national security are being discussed in future?

More generally on our response to the Russian incident, when we debated this on the Prime Minister’s previous Statement, a number of suggestions were floated by the Government about further action being taken against individuals. Could the noble Baroness tell us what further action the Government now contemplate?

On Brexit, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition about the use of the word “implementation”. It implies that there is something to implement. This is a standstill agreement or transition agreement; it certainly is not a period during which any agreement is being implemented. The process that has led to this agreement has been very instructive on the Secretary of State for DExEU’s negotiating strategy. It seems to follow the following rules. First, make a series of extremely bellicose statements. Secondly, have no meetings whatever with your main interlocutor for three months. Thirdly, wait to see what the Commission’s proposals are, having made no detailed proposals of one’s own. Fourthly, just accept them all: the customs union, the single market, a £40 billion payment and the European Court of Justice having a rule during the transition period. These were all things that the Government were ruling out at the start.

On the most intractable issue of all, the Northern Ireland border, if I were the DUP I would be seriously worried about the UK’s agreed fallback position of a customs union down the Irish Sea. The only alternatives that it has put forward are widely accepted as completely unsustainable and unworkable. The draft agreement applies the EU’s solution—that is, of the border down the Irish Sea—unless and until another system is agreed, yet detail of another system is there none. There is a curious passage in the Prime Minister’s Statement on which I would be grateful for the Leader’s clarification. It reads:

“I have explained that the specific European Commission proposals for that backstop”—


that is, the border down the Irish Sea—

“were unacceptable because they were not in line with the Belfast agreement and threatened the break-up of the UK’s internal market. As such, they were not a fair reflection of the joint report”—

that is, the December report. But they were in the December report. What has changed to make them unacceptable now when they were in the December report which the Government signed? I find that a remarkable statement.

On the agreement, most of it is in green, which is agreed, or in yellow, which is agreed in principle, but probably the biggest section in white, which is not agreed, is on ongoing police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This is a crucial element of the whole deal and of our relationship with the EU. What were the problems that have meant that we have not reached agreement in principle on the policy in that area? We have been able to reach agreement in principle on the policy on virtually everything else.

As for the future, the Government have so far produced no detailed proposals. Can the Leader give us some idea of whether the Government plan to do so at any point and whether Parliament might have an opportunity to discuss them?

The Prime Minister concludes:

“With a year to go, people are coming back together and looking forward”.


Well, they are looking forward, but the emotions which that forward glance fill them with vary. The Prime Minister said that,

“many are … tired of the old arguments and the attempts to refight the referendum over the past year”.

What does the Leader say to the majority of voters, including the majority of Conservative voters, who according to recent polling now believe that they should have a vote on any Brexit deal? How does the mantra of respecting the views of the British people sit with ignoring the views of the British people in respect of approving any final Brexit deal?

Tributes: Lord Richard

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments; we are grateful for the tributes she has paid. As well as Lord Crickhowell, she will understand that we are also mourning our colleague Brenda Dean who died very recently.

In 1997 Lord Richard—Ivor—led the Labour Party in the Lords into government for the first time in 18 years. He had taken over the leadership in 1992, just after we had been defeated in an election that we went into with such high hopes. Noble Lords will understand that it was not an easy time: despite the convincing nature of Labour’s victory in 1997 the future had looked far from certain five years earlier.

Ivor was a man of great intellect and experience—a “wise owl” if ever there was one. He had strong political convictions and as someone said to me earlier, he was a true character. His time in Parliament spanned almost 54 years. He was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1964 for Barons Court in west London and served for 10 years in the other place, returning to Westminster on the red Benches in 1990. Between his times at Westminster he served in not one but two high-profile international postings; first, as Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations and then as a European commissioner. In the former role, Ivor was at the centre of two of the key issues of the day: the Middle East conflict that still troubles us and the growing movement for independence in what is now Zimbabwe. An early advocate of Britain’s membership of the then Common Market, Ivor found himself briefly dislodged from the Labour Front Bench for defying the Whip on the historic vote to join in 1971: some things change.

We will miss Ivor’s wisdom, expertise and statesmanship as the seemingly never-ending Brexit process moves forward over the coming months and years. In 1997, his tenure as a Cabinet Minister and Leader of your Lordships’ House was inevitably dominated by the new Government’s heavy legislative programme, particularly the proposals for reform of this House. Lords reform remained a passion and an issue close to his heart, so he was the obvious choice to chair the Joint Committee considering the draft Bill at the last major attempt to reform your Lordships’ House, under the coalition Government.

A proud Welshman, he also played a key role in the development of the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, paving the way for the 2011 referendum on the Assembly’s lawmaking powers. Ivor served on more committees of this House than we have time to mention here, most recently on the Select Committee that this House set up to consider some of the most contentious aspects of the Trade Union Bill. I well recall the Monday morning when Ivor arrived at my office in your Lordships’ House, having just been appointed the previous week, with a huge pile of papers under his arm, all marked up, all flagged: he had spent the whole weekend examining in detail the issues before that committee. His contribution to Parliament and to the Lords over many years was huge. He was the last former MP to become Leader of your Lordships’ House—so far.

So today we pay tribute to Ivor, our friend and colleague whom we shall miss enormously. Our thoughts are with his family, particularly his wife, Janet. I hope that our thoughts as we remember him today will be of some comfort to them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Ivor Richard, as we have heard, had an exceptionally varied and successful career in both domestic and international politics. As MP for Barons Court, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, he gained the battle honours of being sacked from his Front Bench for supporting the Bill taking the UK into the European Community in 1971. After leaving the Commons, he was a forthright UK Permanent Representative at the UN and then a successful commissioner when he succeeded Roy Jenkins at the Commission in Brussels.

On these Benches, he is especially remembered, particularly by my Welsh colleagues, as architect of the Richard commission report, which was commissioned in the early days of the National Assembly for Wales by the coalition Government, of which the Lib Dems were then part. The report looked at the powers and the size of the Assembly, and, somewhat remarkably, proposed changed the voting system to STV—which particularly commended it to my friends. He was a committed devolutionist and a committed Welshman. He helped push the boundaries of thinking on full powers for the National Assembly, which eventually, many years later, have come to fruition.

But the thing which always impressed me most was his presence and his voice. He had a solidity, an authority and a manner of speaking which commanded attention and made me, at least, want to listen very carefully to everything he said. This, in my experience, is a very rare ability and made him a most effective leader of your Lordships’ House. I will certainly miss that voice.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on the Cross Benches, I too wish to be associated with the warm and very well-deserved tributes that have been paid to Lord Richard. As we have heard, he had a distinguished career before he became a Member of this House. Under the name Ivor Richard, he became very well known to the public, first as the UK’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and then as an EEC commissioner. Perhaps less well known is the fact that he had practised at the Bar for nearly 20 years before accepting these appointments. His clarity of thought, his skill as a communicator and the air of quiet authority which in later years were to become his hallmark when he spoke in the House must surely have owed much to his legal background.

As we have heard, he spent much more time on the Front Bench as Leader of the Opposition than he did when he was appointed Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House after the 1997 general election. It was not until after he had left that office that the House of Lords Act 1999, which was the first measure to reform the House that was passed during the then Labour Government, received its Royal Assent. So he had the difficult task of being Leader when the party in government were very much in the minority in this House because of the presence of the hereditary Peers. I was serving as a Law Lord during that time, so I did not see how he handled that, as I was usually sitting upstairs with the Appellate Committee during Questions and on other occasions when his skills would have been put to the test.

His contribution as Leader was by no means the only contribution he made to the work of the House. I saw him in action when he chaired the committee that has already been mentioned, before which I gave evidence, which was appointed to scrutinise the Bill that became the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. That Act is certainly steeped in my memory because it resulted in the departure of the Law Lords and the creation of the UK Supreme Court. Then he was invited to chair the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill which sat from 2011 to 2012. The careful and measured way in which he fulfilled these responsibilities and the many others that came his way was an example to us all.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to Lord Richard’s presence. We on these Benches had the advantage and pleasure—denied to those on the Opposition Benches because of layout of the Chamber—of seeing and watching the noble Lord every day when he was in his place on the Back Benches. He was one of those remarkable men who could communicate his views by the look on his face or maybe the movement of his shoulders almost as well as he could when he spoke. There was much entertainment to be had when he was in that mood. We shall miss him very much, and to his wife and all the members of his family, we on these Benches wish to extend our condolences on their loss.

Salisbury Incident

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We are grateful for the information the Government have been able to share with us so far regarding the threat from Russia.

On Monday, I said that this incident had local, national and international ramifications. We are now seeing an escalation on all three of those fronts. The people of Salisbury are dealing with an attempted murder, through a nerve agent, on British soil and in their home town, with total disregard for the lives of British citizens. We welcome that the evidence that the risk to the public was low appears to be correct, and that those members of the public who sought medical attention for poisoning symptoms have been cleared. We again send our best wishes to Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. We also recognise that there are ongoing checks and issues in Salisbury. This was an unacceptable and reprehensible attack, and the response must be robust. We cannot continue with business as usual, and we welcome the measures announced.

The Prime Minister is clear in her Statement, as she said on Monday, too, that we deploy an “engage but beware” strategy when dealing with Russia. Following the high-level diplomatic expulsions, what form do the Government expect that engagement to take in the future? The noble Baroness will be aware of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on Russia, which confirmed that engagement is vital both to de-escalate points of difference and avoid misunderstandings, and to better understand any threat that is faced. She will be aware that President Putin is facing the first round of Russian elections this Sunday, so currently he is obviously focused on his domestic audience. This makes the support of our allies all the more important.

The UK has called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. Donald Tusk has announced that EU leaders will discuss this issue at their summit next week, and there will be a NATO meeting tomorrow. International co-ordination is key for any action against Russia to be successful, so will the noble Baroness update the House on the preparations for potential UN Security Council resolutions that should be drafted in order to get the widest possible international support?

Will the noble Baroness also update the House on investigations being carried out on other deaths under similar circumstances? While the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal is confronting us today, what efforts are being made by the Government to reassess the deaths of Mr Skripal’s wife Liudmila, who died in 2012, and his elder brother and his son, who died within the past two years?

Sergei and Yulia Skripal were not regarded as facing a high risk and were not living under a witness protection programme. They lived openly under their own names. What assessment has now been undertaken to review the protection currently offered to other Russian citizens who are not currently deemed, or were not previously deemed, to be high risk?

We welcome the Government’s intention to table a Magnitsky amendment to the sanctions Bill to see the UK doing more to challenge gross human rights abuses. We look forward to seeing the detail. The noble Baroness announced plans to look at further legislative powers to support our defences against hostile state action, and we will work constructively with the Government to scrutinise the proposals that are brought forward. On plans for powers at the border, the noble Baroness will understand that there will need to be safeguards to ensure that the power is used properly to protect citizens and is not open to abuse. On all these issues, will the Government work with the Intelligence and Security Committee and all other relevant committees of Parliament to ensure we understand the threat Russia poses and the consequent pressures on our intelligence and security services and how best they are to be supported and resourced to do the job they have to do?

The Prime Minister announced that the Government have commissioned the OPCW independently to verify the Government’s analysis of the nerve agent. Will the noble Baroness provide assurances to the House that the Government will work with the OPCW to strengthen its chemical weapons monitoring system and encourage an investigation, including the inspection of relevant facilities in Russia?

Finally, all this serves to emphasise how essential it is that we work internationally. International co-operation, European co-operation and engagement are the only way to tackle any threats and, indeed, to seek to prevent them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Like her, I start by paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the emergency services, the medical staff and others in Salisbury who are dealing with what is clearly a more complicated business in cleaning up and in dealing with a rather larger number of people who have been affected by this incident than was at first apparent.

The conclusion that this incident represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom is stark and unavoidable. On these Benches, we agree with the Government that, that being so, this act needs to be met with a full and robust response. The challenge is to identify practical and effective measures to constitute that response. The Government have come up with a number. The first proposal is to,

“expel 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers”.

If they are indeed undeclared intelligence officers, this seems a fully justified measure.

Secondly, the Government plan to,

“develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity”.

While we will obviously wish to scrutinise any such measures very carefully, and for understandable reasons we do not have the details of them yet, we welcome the proposal to introduce the Magnitsky powers. That is something that we have been calling for for some time, so the Government will have our support in getting those powers on to the statute book. Is the noble Baroness able to tell us whether it is intended that those powers will be introduced by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill or whether they will be coming forward in free-standing legislation?

Thirdly, the Government plan to,

“increase checks on private flights, customs and freight”.

On a number of occasions, your Lordships’ House has debated the potentially damaging consequences of the lack of checks on private flights, so this is welcome. The concern is that this is potentially a very big commitment, because there is a very large number of small airports which are currently almost totally unregulated. We look forward to hearing from the Government how they expect to be able to do that effectively and what the manpower and cost implications will be.

The final strand of the Government’s proposals relates to working together internationally. Of course, that is very much to be welcomed. Within that strand, there are two principal international interlocutors, the first being NATO. Given the strength of the Prime Minister’s language, about the incident involving the unlawful use of force by the Russian state, have the Government given any consideration as to whether these events would justify invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty? Finally, it is obviously the case, as the Government have recognised, that the attitude of our EU partners is very important. The Prime Minister has spoken to Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. I believe that earlier today President Tusk proposed adding to the agenda of next week’s European Council an item relating to this incident. Could the noble Baroness tell us whether the Government have yet accepted that invitation?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments, and I will endeavour to answer the questions that they have posed. The noble Baroness asked about continued engagement with Russia. As the Statement made clear, we have suspended high-level engagement, but of course we will continue to engage with Russia through international fora such as the UN, so there will be mechanisms by which we will maintain a dialogue.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord were absolutely right to point out the need to work with international partners. As we made clear in the Statement, the issue will indeed be put on the agenda for next week’s EU Council, and we look forward to that discussion. We have been engaging with NATO at the highest levels, as the noble Baroness rightly said, and there is a meeting of the NATO Council tomorrow to discuss this. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about Article 5. We do not consider this incident needs to be raised under NATO Article 5, given the engagement already under way. Later today, the UN Security Council will also hold initial consultations, and as the Statement made clear, we will be pushing it for a robust international response. But we were waiting, as indeed our international partners were, to see Russia’s response to the reasonable questions that were set out yesterday. Obviously now that we have had that response, we will start to work together with our partners to engage with them on where we go next.

The noble Baroness asked about previous incidents involving Russians. We of course take seriously any suggestion that a foreign state has engaged in murder on UK soil. Our immediate priority is the Salisbury investigation, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has replied to a letter sent by Yvette Cooper, saying that in the weeks to come she will want to satisfy herself that the allegations made about previous incidents in which investigations at the time did not discover evidence of foul play are nothing more than that. The police and MI5 agree and will assist in that endeavour. She will make the information public if anything further comes to light as a result of that.

The noble Baroness also asked about the OPCW. We will be working closely with it. We made a national statement to its executive council yesterday and will continue to talk to it about what further action it might take. We are of course working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis and share it with international partners.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned the Magnitsky amendment. It is our intention that that will be brought forward within the sanctions Bill in the other place.

Salisbury Incident Update

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and I join her and, I am sure, the whole House, in paying tribute to the dedication and bravery of our emergency services and Armed Forces who are responding to this incident. Our thoughts remain with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey and his family at a stressful and worrying time for them, and we wish him a full recovery. This is a deeply shocking attack which we agree was reckless in its disregard for the lives of UK citizens, as well as a direct attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. We commend members of the public in Salisbury who have assisted the investigation. We have to understand the emotional impact on the residents of Salisbury.

The noble Baroness is right that this investigation must be led by evidence, not by speculation. However, she has now been clear about the facts known so far and the evidence that links this attack to Russia, whether government or rogue. I am grateful for the details of the Government’s follow-up engagement with the Russian embassy in the UK, and I welcome the Minister’s agreement to update Parliament on the Russian ambassador’s response as a matter of urgency after he has responded by tomorrow evening. Can she give the House an assurance that this will be discussed in Cabinet and that the response will be formulated before it is brought to your Lordships’ House? We welcome the assurance that a full range of measures will be brought to your Lordships’ House.

The implications of this attack are international and national but they are also very local. Are the Government confident that members of the public have been given all the information they need to cope with this incident in a timely manner? Have all the relevant authorities responded quickly enough in offering help and advice to people in the area? Following the incident, the Chief Medical Officer told the community in Salisbury that there was a low risk to the public. It was not until a week after the attack, on Sunday 11 March, that possibly affected members of the public were told that, although the risk remained low, there were actions they should take for their own safety. They include washing clothes as normal in a washing machine. However, clothes that cannot be washed are apparently safe to handle but must be covered and sealed inside two plastic bags and safely stored. For other personal items, such as mobile phones, the instructions say that a wipe down with a baby wipe is adequate. At the moment at which reassurance is needed, the information that is reaching the public has been delayed and, at times, contradictory. We are told that staff working in the Zizzi restaurant on the date of the attack were told to destroy any clothes they were wearing and visit their doctor for a health check. Can the noble Baroness tell the House when staff were informed that that should be their course of action? Why were they told to do that when members of the public in the same restaurant and bar were not told at the same time? We also know that the table at which Mr Skripal and his daughter ate has been destroyed. Are the investigators aware of whether any other members of the public sat at the table in the hours immediately afterwards? If so, have they been identified and contacted?

The Public Health England guidance for those who visited either the restaurant or The Mill pub states:

“You do not need to seek advice from a health professional unless you are experiencing symptoms”,


but it does not give any information on the symptoms to look out for. Would they be respiratory symptoms or a skin rash? A little more information might be helpful for members of the public who are concerned and do not know whether they have symptoms.

The former Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, has today said there has been quite a long delay, and his experience led him to state that health chiefs should have set up an emergency health centre and a helpline. The public are entitled to more open, specific information rather than general reassurances. Although the risk remains low, members of the public need to be confident that they have all the information they need and know exactly what they are required to do to be safe. Do the Government have any plans to set up a public helpline as the investigation continues?

The former commander of the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment—the CBRN regiment—which specialised in detecting chemical weapons, has said that it is important to be more open about what the city is facing. Taking a step back and looking further into the future regarding our response to this deeply disturbing attack, he has also raised the point that the CBRN regiment was disbanded in 2011 as part of a cost-cutting defence review. Will the noble Baroness consider whether that decision should be revisited? Can she update the House on what plans the Government have to ensure our Armed Forces are properly resourced and prepared for such attacks?

It is important that the emergency services work together and are fully briefed, trained and equipped. The fire and rescue service is responsible for decontamination. When was the guidance for dealing with CBRN last updated? I could not find anything on the government website since 2012, and issues have changed since then. Can the noble Baroness say whether the funding has kept pace with the threat, and whether it has increased or decreased since 2010? I am happy for her to write to me on those points.

Finally, the sanctions Bill that passed through your Lordships’ House with some amendments is now in the House of Commons, which has the opportunity to support the amendments on the Magnitsky clause. It targets sanctions against individuals who abuse human rights. Will the Government reconsider their opposition to that clause as it may well be appropriate when we are dealing with issues such as these?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in echoing the views of the Prime Minister about the bravery of the emergency services. Like her, our thoughts are also with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and we wish him a speedy recovery.

Although the emergency services are well rehearsed in dealing with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, that is primarily aimed at dealing with terrorist attacks, such as happened on the Tube. This is a very different sort of case and I wonder whether the Government will now consider giving revised guidance to first responders who might find themselves, out of the blue, dealing with a case like this, which at first sight is not necessarily a terrorist attack. In this case the effect on the first responder has clearly been very significant.

The Prime Minister says that there are hundreds of detectives working on the case. Given that police numbers are at their lowest for 30 years, could the Minister explain where these hundreds of detectives have come from? Are she and the Government satisfied that in drawing hundreds of detectives from elsewhere, they have not left unacceptable gaps in those parts from which they have come? When my noble friend Lord Paddick, commenting on this incident last week, asked the Home Office Minister about police resourcing, he was told that the police had the numbers “and more” to do the job they have to do. This flies in the face of the National Police Chiefs Council statement in December that the Budget settlement,

“does not fully meet the level of investment that we identified as necessary”.

I know there is not long to go, but can the Minister have a word with her friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that, when he makes his Statement this week, he reassures the House and the country that he is making available the level of resource required for the police numbers to be there to do the job they are absolutely required to do.

The Statement explains the steps that were taken after Mr Litvinenko’s death to prevent repetition of such an event. It is very tempting to say simply that they have not been very effective in this case. What is slightly more worrying, however, is that there have been suggestions from US intelligence sources and elsewhere that the UK Government have not been particularly rigorous in implementing those measures because of the levels of investment by Russians in London and elsewhere. I hope the Leader of the House can reassure me that that is not the case.

The Statement goes on to talk about international collaboration against Russian expansionism and unsatisfactory behaviour of various sorts via NATO. Yet the kind of sanctions that we are talking about here are nothing to do with NATO. We are not talking about putting up tanks against the Russian border; we are talking about targeted sanctions against individuals and companies. The way we co-ordinate that is through the EU. That is what we have been discussing with the recent Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill: how on earth we manage to have proper co-ordination going forward. It is rather typical of the attitude of this Government that they talk about NATO, which is almost entirely irrelevant to this incident, but fail to mention at all the EU, which is absolutely germane if we are to get a co-ordinated European response.

The Government say that we must now stand ready to take more extensive measures. I am sure they will have the support of the whole House if they come forward with credible measures to respond to this outrage and potential future threats. But we will be looking very carefully to ensure that any such measures are properly resourced and carried forward with a degree of energy and commitment that has not always and obviously been the case in the past.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. The noble Baroness, rightly, raised the important issue of public safety. I can reassure her that all those who have been in contact with the patients have been contacted by Public Health England, and questions asked about their health status. The latest information was received only on Saturday, and a website was prepared to give the public access to all the relevant information. An announcement was then made early on Sunday. The CMO was confident that nobody who was in the pub or restaurant has come to any immediate harm, and the advice on Sunday does not indicate a change to the existing advice that the risk of harm to the general public is low. However, following new evidence of traces of the substance at the restaurant and pub, and as part of the continuous risk assessment, it was decided to issue additional, highly precautionary advice to a small number of people whose clothes or possessions may have residual traces of the substance, to eliminate future risk.

I will take back the noble Baroness’s suggestion about a helpline, as I do not have an answer on that. I will also write to her in response to her questions about CBRN, as I do not have that information to hand. On defence, I can certainly say that, through the Modernising Defence programme, the Ministry of Defence is assessing the threats to UK security and prosperity, including increasing Russian hostility to the West, and ensuring that our Armed Forces have the right capabilities to deter and respond to these threats.

The noble Baroness also asked about Magnitsky. We already have a range of powers, similar to those in the US Magnitsky Act, which we regularly deploy to protect national security and our financial system. As the Prime Minister herself said in the other place, conversations will continue to see whether there is any further need for legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about front-line responders. I can assure him that the Home Office, working with ether government departments, the devolved Administrations and the emergency services, has co-ordinated the delivery of training to more than 150,000 front-line responders. He also asked about resources. More than 250 counterterrorism police from eight of our 11 counterterror units are now working on this incident. We have the best expertise available in this very difficult situation.

I can also assure the noble Lord that we recognise that some of the factors which make the UK attractive for legitimate business also expose us to the risk of illicit financial flows. Recognising these risks, we have taken a leading role in the global fight against illicit finance. We have robust legal and regulatory frameworks that enable effective investigation and prosecution of money laundering and the recovery of illicit assets. Indeed, this Government have recovered more criminal assets than ever before: £1.4 billion was taken from offenders between April 2010 and March 2017, with many hundreds of millions more frozen.

United Kingdom-European Union Future Economic Partnership

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It seems that the Prime Minister is trying to create an optimistic, upbeat tone to quell the fears of those who are concerned about negotiations, so first I welcome the greater degree of candour from the Prime Minister. While others around her told us how easy it was going to be to leave the EU, she has admitted that it is complex, difficult and uncertain. She was clear that we have to face up to some hard facts, that life is going to be different and that our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. Her honesty recognised that we will not be allowed to have all the benefits without all the obligations, which is a far cry from Ministers telling us that we would have the exact same benefits. She also admitted that even after we have left the EU we will still be affected by decisions of the ECJ and that to ensure good access to each other’s markets,

“we must accept the need for binding commitments”,

and she accepted the principle of regulatory alignment in some areas. She has also accepted that in these negotiations neither of us can have “exactly what we want”. These statements are welcome in recognising the harsh reality of what has to be achieved with so little time left.

The Prime Minister has regularly stated her red lines—no single market, no customs union and no role for the ECJ—which we have consistently said she was unwise to use as a starting point for negotiations, yet some of those red lines are now looking distinctly pink.

On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said more about this in her Friday speech than in her Statement today, but it still seems to me, and others, that there is an inherent contradiction at the heart of the Government’s commitment that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while they remain opposed to any form of customs union. We were relieved to hear the Prime Minister reject the Foreign Secretary’s assertion in his private memo to her that it is not the responsibility of the UK to resolve the Irish border issue. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear on Friday that it is her Government’s responsibility to resolve this issue. She spoke of her personal commitment and said she recognised the anxieties caused by Brexit and the “desire for concrete solutions”. It is not a desire; it is a necessity, and it is fast becoming an urgent one. If the Government really believe that this issue can be resolved without any form of customs union, they need to start telling us how and to do so soon. The Prime Minister remains resolute against a customs union, but she is seeking a customs arrangement or a customs partnership, so we look forward to hearing more details about the “not a customs union” as negotiations continue.

The Prime Minister has also recognised that some of her early red lines have had to fade. We appreciate her acceptance of the necessity to remain in at least some of the EU agencies, even as an associate member. The Prime Minister identified the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency as being critical. We agree with that description. Many of us are bitterly disappointed that given the importance of the European Medicines Agency, the UK is losing it. Have there already been exploratory discussions with the EU on the principle of remaining, in whatever capacity, in these agencies? Are the Government prepared to negotiate similar arrangements for other agencies? Does the Minister accept that this may well mean a continuing role for the ECJ in the UK? Before she answers, it may help if I tell her that at the weekend, when I did a radio debate with Jacob Rees-Mogg, he described this as “perfectly sensible”. The Minister will be aware that we were a member of Euratom before we joined the EU. She will have heard the debate on Euratom last week in your Lordships’ House. We have now had the Prime Minister’s comment that she wants a “close relationship” with Euratom. Can the Minister tell us what that means? The Prime Minister has not gone as far as she has on the agencies, where she wants associate membership, but she talked about a close relationship. This is also a critical agency for the UK.

In the same way that there has been an evidence-based shift on the position regarding the agencies and the role of the ECJ, the Government have to recognise that if they are genuinely serious about the Northern Ireland border, they need to look at it without unrealistic and unnecessary red lines. We are clear that remaining in a customs union is the best way to deliver the frictionless trade the Prime Minister wants. For Northern Ireland, that means no customs duties or checks at the border. It means no checks for transporters, food, animal hygiene and so on. It will resolve the issue.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says that Brexit is not an end in itself, yet in a further contradiction she has repeated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Surely both statements cannot be true.

Finally, on Saturday morning I was very fortunate to enjoy the company of the political editor of the Sun, Tom Newton Dunn, as he hosted “The Week in Westminster” with two MPs, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sarah Wollaston, and me. Perhaps that is where the Prime Minister’s biggest achievement was evident because with such divergent views, they both supported the content of the speech. Indeed, Jacob Rees-Mogg admitted that it was “very encouraging for the unity of the Conservative Party”. So much of the Brexit journey has been about internal Conservative Party management. As we have heard, that canny blend of “We’re leaving the EU” with some red lines becoming pink smudges or fudges just might buy the Prime Minister some time. She said that all negotiations are about cherry picking on all sides. Michel Barnier has welcomed her acceptance that negotiations require trade-offs. Perhaps the Prime Minister has finally accepted that negotiations must be less about red lines and more about a pragmatic Brexit.

The noble Baroness knows from our previous discussions that we welcome a pragmatic approach, in the interests of the economy, of jobs, and of maintaining rights and standards. As part of that, I hope she will be able to confirm that she understands that it becomes even more crucial that Parliament has not just a meaningful vote but an ongoing meaningful role.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has set five overarching tests for a successful Brexit. Three are simply vacuous: respecting the referendum, being enduring and being consistent with the kind of country we want to be. Two are more substantive, but both are being actively undermined by the Government’s own Brexit stance.

The first is protecting people’s jobs and security. Has the Prime Minister given any thought to how that sounds to the 300 Ryanair workers at Glasgow Airport as the company closes its international base there, on the basis of Brexit, to the 288 workers at Landis+Gyr in Stockport as it moves its production to Romania, or to the small businesses which have contacted me explaining how leaving the customs union and single market will impose costs on them that will force them out of business? The Statement contains some welcome shafts of realism, none more so than the statement that our access to EU markets will be less than now. Does the noble Baroness the Leader accept that less access means less trade, which in turn means fewer jobs, lower national income and higher prices?

The second substantive test set by the Prime Minister is that Brexit must strengthen,

“our union of nations and our union of people”.

Leaving aside the impasse in discussions with the devolved institutions about the transposition of EU law, how does the noble Baroness think that sounds in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister has come up with absolutely nothing new to reassure people that there will be no customs border between the north and the Republic. Of the options on the table, one simply says that SMEs, which represent 80% of trade, can carry on as if the border did not exist. How could that possibly work if standards diverge or if the UK strikes its own trade deals with different tariffs from those applying in the EU? This is the only example I know of where the Government’s policy is indeed bold and imaginative—but it is hardly credible.

As for the technological solution to the border, does the noble Baroness agree with Pascal Lamy that there is no such thing as a virtual border? Does she agree with the report, much touted by Brexiteers, from Lars Karlsson, which explains on page 11 that, on the highest tech option he can see, an app on a mobile phone of a lorry driver “opens the gate automatically” as the lorry approaches the border—that is, a gate, a physical thing, not a virtual border. Has she read his description of the Norway/Sweden border, the most technologically advanced in the world according to him, where at staffed customs posts most goods traffic is cleared “within 3-9 minutes”? There is no soft border there either.

The Prime Minister refers briefly to our being able, in theory, to negotiate new trade agreements after Brexit. When she rang Donald Trump over the weekend to complain about his plan to slap a punitive tariff on UK steel, did she ask him how that fitted into a comprehensive free trade deal? Did she consider that in fighting any US steel tariff, the EU as a whole was likely to have a bit more clout than the UK on its own?

More generally, the speech sets out a range of areas where the Government plan to follow EU rules but pay for the privilege and lose any say in how they are set. Having associate membership of various EU bodies is better than nothing, but in reality we become rule-takers. On the trade in goods, the PM admits that we will have to follow standards “substantially similar”—that is, as near as makes no difference to identical—to those set by the EU.

The rationale for becoming rule-takers instead of rule-makers is that Parliament retains the right to diverge from the EU rules if it chooses. But the speech demonstrates how in practice it will not dare do so because of the damage it would cause to business and the economy. The Prime Minister wants to exchange the reality of influence for the pretence of sovereignty—and what is worse, she clearly accepts that it is a pretence.

The Government are going through extraordinary contortions of both policy and language to try to replicate as far as possible the existing terms of our EU membership. It all begs the question, “Is it worth it?”—and invites the response, “No”.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness’s constructive comments and assure her that we take the scrutiny and involvement of Parliament as we develop our new relationships with the EU extremely seriously and will continue to do so.

The noble Baroness asked about agencies. As the Statement set out, we want to explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could opt to remain part of EU agencies—as she rightly said, the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency. There may well be other agencies, such as those related to our future security partnership, that the UK chooses to remain a part of, and we will continue those discussions. Again, in relation to Euratom, it will be of benefit to both sides for the UK to have a close association, and that too will continue to be part of our ongoing discussions. As Prime Minister said, after we have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ, EU law and the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us, including through our respecting its remits where we agree that the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency.

The noble Lord asked about access to the EU market. He is right that the Prime Minister has said, in relation to hard facts we have to face, that in certain ways our access will be less than it is now. But we are also seeking the broadest and deepest possible agreement, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere today, and of course we will have the freedom to negotiate new trade agreements—so the future is bright.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord touched on the very important issue of Northern Ireland. I repeat again that, as we have said constantly, we want trade at the border to be as frictionless as possible, with no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We believe this can be achieved by a commitment to ensure that the relevant UK regulatory standards remain at least as high as the EU’s and by a customs arrangement. We acknowledge that there will be technological solutions to this, and we believe we have set out a structure by which we can begin and continue the negotiations with both the Irish Government and the European Commission to make sure we all achieve the aims that we have all clearly set out and to which we are extremely committed.

The noble Lord asked about future free trade agreements. I assure him that we have opened 14 informal trade dialogues with 21 countries, including the US, Australia and the UAE. These will form the groundwork for future FTAs. The Department for International Trade has a presence in 108 countries, and we have begun appointing a new network of trade commissioners. We are committed to new trade and new opportunities across the globe, but of course maintaining a strong, deep and positive relationship with the EU is what we are focused on in our negotiations with it.