Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Lord Newby

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 3A in this group, which is in my name. It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is not my intention to move this amendment, largely because it does not add substantially to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord who just spoke with great eloquence. Suffice it to say that I very much support his amendment and if he is minded to test the opinion of the House, I shall vote in favour of it.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I think everybody agrees that this is a very curious device and in many ways a very curious amendment. I am sure that the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House will look forward to receiving regular reports about the situation in respect of Northern Ireland; it might help move things forward very marginally. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, that is not why this amendment is being proposed. The amendment is considered necessary by him and me only because we face the constitutional outrage of a potential Prime Minister refusing to rule out proroguing Parliament to get through the most major public policy decision of our lifetimes without debate, because he knows he cannot win a vote in a debate. This is the activity of a banana republic, not the mother of parliaments; we should do whatever we can, however strange, to stop it. This is a clever, ingenious device with that in mind, and it has our full support.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Lord Newby

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham]

I am very grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her intervention. Perhaps I might revert to where I started.

I rise very briefly to support the amendment to which I was very happy to put my name, which was so clearly advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. As he said, its only purpose is to make it more difficult—impossible, I would like to think—for a Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament for an improper purpose: namely, to prevent the House of Commons from challenging, and perhaps overriding, the decisions of Ministers with regard to Brexit. The fact that in a parliamentary democracy we have to contemplate such a possibility is truly lamentable, especially when the party in office is the Conservative Party, which I have supported in and out of Parliament for 40 years, and my family has for much longer. But that is where Brexit and the personality of Mr Johnson have brought us.

Most Members of this House, not least those of us who have served in the House of Commons, know that such an action would subvert the foundations of parliamentary government. As the noble Lord reminded us, it would also involve the Monarchy in an intensely partisan controversy. We must take every proper and available step to frustrate that possibility. This amendment addresses that purpose, and it is in that spirit, and for that reason, that I commend it to your Lordships’ Committee.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord True, to speak. All amendments are in the same group, and although the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said that the Amendment 7 had not been moved, it has been spoken to. If the noble Lord, Lord True, wishes to speak now, that would be appropriate.

[Lord True]

I thank the noble Lord. I think it would be helpful for the House to hear the other side of the river speak, as it were—the minority that we are. I was not minded to take part in this Bill, though I am troubled by the high-handed intervention in Ulster affairs and other parts of the Bill by MPs in another place, and will be listening carefully to what my noble friends say later.

I tabled my amendment because I am concerned by the attempt to hijack a Northern Ireland Bill to—let us be blunt—stop the UK leaving the EU on 31 October or to weaken our negotiating position. It was a move instigated by my right honourable friends Mr Grieve and Sir Oliver Letwin. They were supported by the usual galère of referendum-deniers and pushed towards the line by the votes of more than 220 Labour MPs. Yes, Labour again: with 76% of the votes for Mr Grieve, Labour has been, since 2017, the single greatest political force obstructing Brexit.

This amendment does not touch the call for progress reports, but it prevents exaggerated machinery being added for repeated debates, which some have admitted is to stop Brexit on 31 October. Sir Oliver Letwin declared that these amendments would “prevent Prorogation”, and we have heard that argument today. But Mr Grieve freely admitted that his aim was to prevent Brexit on 31 October. Both rather arrogantly took it for granted that if they were defeated—as they were—your Lordships’ House would act as they instructed, and hey presto, here we are with Amendment 7. Your Lordships’ House is again invited to be the doormat for a defeated party in the other place.

The motive for all this is clear, whatever the pretence. One of the two men likely, though not certain, to become our next Prime Minister has said that he would honour the verdict of the referendum and take Britain out of the European Union on 31 October. The tablers of this amendment want to stop him. Some will tell us today, as we have heard already, “Oh, it is nothing to do with Brexit. It is all about protecting Parliament”—the very Parliament they wish to remain subjected to the superiority of EU law. Is it nothing to do with Brexit? I really do wonder.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who spoke eloquently, states on his website that he is an EU law nerd and veteran of more than 150 cases before the ECJ. He argued that, even if Brexit were delayed, the British people did not need to be given the chance to vote in EU elections—“Do not let the people speak”. The noble Lord described as moving my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s words, which were that Brexit was an act of national self-harm that moved him to anger, shame and distress. We may safely conclude that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is not an enthusiast for Brexit.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham has always been open. From the outset, he declared his wish to frustrate Brexit, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have never seen the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on an amendment to do with the EU and concluded that it might be about advancing our exit. This amendment is designed to do one thing: to make it harder to leave the EU on 31 October. If, in the light of 17.4 million votes in a referendum and the result of the European elections, your Lordships’ House wishes to align itself with that objective, so be it. Our names will all be counted in the Division lists. Perhaps the days of this House will then also be counted.

The smokescreen of this amendment, as we have heard, is all about stopping Parliament being prorogued, so Parliament can have a say. Make no mistake that my right honourable friend Boris Johnson—as has been made clear by my noble friend Lord Hailsham—is the target of this, as he is the target of a relentless campaign of personal vilification. Mr Johnson, it is said, wants to prorogue Parliament to “force” Britain out of the EU. Mr Johnson, of course, has said no such thing, but we have since had the spectacle of a former Prime Minister, himself responsible for the longest political Prorogation in modern times, threatening legal action against one of his successors to prevent him giving considered advice to the sovereign. Is it not extraordinary for a former Prime Minister to argue that the duty to advise the Crown should be taken away from the elected Prime Minister and given to unelected judges?

We are now told that, seven days before seeing the sovereign, a Prime Minister must send a letter to Mishcon de Reya, which I gather is a law firm. I count myself fortunate to have had no dealings with it and, after this, I intend none. Who elected it? We were told that what a Prime Minister advises a sovereign must be subject to judicial review. What next? Will the Supreme Court require and subpoena transcripts of the weekly Audience to find out the purport of the advice the Prime Minister is giving? Will the Prime Minister’s advice have to be accompanied by an explanatory note from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick?

Brexit

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Lord Newby

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is now the 13th opportunity that we have had to debate the Government’s withdrawal agreement. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House hope, like me, that it will be the last.

Since we had our previous debate on the subject, some things at least have changed. The first is that the EU has agreed to an extension of Article 50, which will be widely supported across the House. The way in which this happened, though, is a telling foretaste of how life would be were we to leave the EU. The Prime Minister was allowed into the Council to petition other member states and was subject to lengthy and sceptical questioning. Then, like a prisoner in the dock, she was led from the room to a windowless cell, where she was kept until the verdict on her proposals had been reached. A modest meal was brought in. After a number of hours, the verdict was read out to her and she was allowed to leave. This is the reality of “taking back control”; this is what it would be like, week in, week out, were we ever to leave the EU.

Before leaving for Brussels, the Prime Minister had made her petulant and ill-judged address to the nation. Many in the Commons were angered by her attack on them. What really rankled with me was the statement:

“I am on your side”—


by which she meant the side of the people. But this weekend has demonstrated that she is not on the side of the people.

Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will no doubt argue that a million people from across the UK on the streets of London, and 5.5 million people signing a petition, are only a fraction of the people. They are technically right. But how many people could the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, summon on to streets in support of the Government’s deal? How many people could the extreme Brexiteers summon up in support of crashing out? We know that Nigel Farage can summon up 200 in a pub car park—hardly the will of the people. We also know that every poll shows a large majority in favour of a people’s vote, and a large majority of them now want to remain rather than supporting either the Government’s deal or leaving without a deal. So when the Prime Minister says that she is on the people’s side, she is, as with so many other things, completely at odds with reality.

Until today, however improbable this may seem, the Prime Minister seemed to be a disciple of Samuel Beckett. When it came to her deal, she was following his injunction:

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better”.


Today’s Statement signals the end of that strategy, and the end of any attempt by the Government to stay in charge of the Brexit process.

The Prime Minister says that she is no longer willing to fail better, and will not bring forward her deal again until it succeeds. If—as she tacitly accepts—this is unlikely ever to happen, she has said that she will provide government time for other options to be considered. But what is unclear is when she will conclude that her deal is dead. Will it be this week? Will it be next week? Will it perhaps be 11 April? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

It is therefore hardly surprising that Members of another place will vote on an amendment later today that would give them early votes on other options. The Government say that if this amendment succeeds it will upset the balance between the Government and the Commons. But surely her proposal does the same. The Prime Minister accepts that it is for the House of Commons, not the Government, to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which it wishes to do so. The only difference between the Government’s position and that of Sir Oliver Letwin is one of timing, not substance. The truth is that the Government have thrown up their hands in despair and effectively said to the Commons, “Over to you”. It is the most humiliating abrogation of leadership and government in our lifetimes—but it is long overdue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the phrase in the Prime Minister’s Statement that,

“I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House”.

In response to a question from the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister—if I heard her correctly—said that the Government would not feel obliged to follow any decision of the House of Commons that would cut across the commitments made in the Conservative Party manifesto. This seemed to me an extraordinary, dangerous and wholly unacceptable statement, and it is quite possible that I misheard it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he also heard the phrase in the Statement:

“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.


Does he share my view that that means the Prime Minister is saying that, in the absence of an affirmative decision by the Commons, no deal is now impossible?

Trade Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Lord Newby

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

He must have a lot of sympathy with them. The truth is that it was always unrealistic to expect these deals to be in place by 29 March because most of the EU’s free trade partners will want big UK concessions, particularly on issues such as food imports, requiring long and difficult negotiations that are likely to last several years. The Government sought to deny this but the truth is now there for everyone to see.

The other thing that might reasonably have happened is that the Government might have been clearer about their expected trade policy, how it might work and how they might bring it to Parliament. What would their red lines be? What processes would they follow to get future deals discussed and approved by this Parliament and the devolved assemblies? We still have no clue. In the circumstances, it is completely reasonable for this House to decline to proceed beyond Committee with the Bill. Indeed, it could be argued that we should not even proceed to Committee at all, but the Motion before us allows us to make some progress on the Bill while giving notice to the Government that they really must clarify their intentions if the Bill is to complete its passage through the House.

It will no doubt be argued that this amendment is unprecedented. Perhaps it is but, as we are seeing in the Commons, at a time when the Government have all but collapsed, it is inevitable that Parliament should assert its control over proceedings. That is what the amendment seeks to do, and it has the support of these Benches.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly explain why I support the amendment to the Motion. Any outcome of the present Brexit stalemate other than crashing out without a deal will require more time. I do not believe that there is any national or parliamentary majority for crashing out without a deal. That means we either have to extend the 29 March deadline or revoke Article 50. At the moment, the first option is probably the most acceptable course, but I could live with either. Supporting the amendment to the Motion is a method of encouraging the Government to obtain more time. It also enables the Government to respond to the perfectly sensible points and demands for information made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

I will make two final points, if I may. First, we have arrived at the time when the national interest must be put first, before any narrow party interest. That is the duty of all parliamentarians. In fact, it also happens to coincide with the pragmatic interest. Secondly, speaking directly to my Front Bench: if we crash out without a deal, this Government and their Ministers will not be forgiven lightly, either by the electorate or by the millions of those—myself included—who have historically voted Conservative.