Brexit: New Partnership

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and the House for agreeing to hear it so early, before having time to see the White Paper. It was a courtesy to me so that I can get away for the funeral of my favourite uncle, Uncle Joe. That is why we are having this debate early—so I can go and bid farewell to him—and I thank the House for its tolerance.

I also thank the Government for now—perhaps a little late—putting a White Paper to Parliament and making an announcement here. It was a tad regrettable that the Prime Minister’s two key speeches were made outside Parliament; one to the Conservative Party on 2 October and one in Lancaster House on 17 January. It is Parliament—and particularly the House of Commons—which speaks for the country, so we are pleased that the White Paper, which we have long sought, has been announced at the Dispatch Box.

The driving motivation for Mrs May and her negotiators must be the long-term economic and social well-being of the UK. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that she led the country. I hope that she can and will, because only by exiting the EU in a way that serves all the country—Scotland, Wales, London and the areas that have done less well from globalisation—will she truly be able to work to unite a divided country and also enable our economy, businesses, workers and consumers to benefit, while safeguarding our environment and our relationship with our nearest neighbours and close allies.

Some of what is suggested in the White Paper we can support: tariff-free, encumbrance-free and—I think the Minister said—frictionless access to the EU market; the ability to recruit talent; support for science and innovation; and, as I have stressed before, the partnership that we need with the EU 27. But we also have serious concerns about the White Paper, which will form our agenda for scrutiny here and, I hope, for the ongoing work of our EU committees, to which the Minister paid tribute earlier.

Consumers are not highlighted in the 12 principles but are vulnerable to losing compensation from cancelled flights and dangerous products once we are out of the European alert system. They will possibly be unable to use our courts to follow insurance claims for car accidents abroad, and may even face visa requirements to travel in the EU. The environment is also not one of the overarching 12 principles, despite enormous improvements to the environment made at EU level in co-operation with our EU allies. Nor is how to make good our absence from Euratom—just three paragraphs in the White Paper. We regret any departure from the customs union. We will seek to understand why on earth this is an objective, given the problems it will cause for our importers and exporters, particularly of complex products or components, and for the service sector, as was raised this morning.

I am also curious about the background to the White Paper. Is it just the Lancaster House speech but in a more normal White Paper style? Or is it what we would normally expect from a Government who know what they are doing, based on careful cost-benefit and options appraisal, with impact assessments prepared for the various options? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked some fairly simple but fundamental questions this morning about such assessments, but answers came there none. I ask again: will the Government, while holding any negotiation tricks safely up their sleeve, complete and publish impact assessments on the White Paper’s objectives? Will they make these available to our EU committees in a timely manner so that their reports can influence the Government’s thinking?

When will the Government publish the other White Paper, not on what is called the great repeal Bill but on what is actually a retrenchment Bill? Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I ask him from where the Government believe they derive the mandate to leave the single market, in an extreme version of Brexit. This dishonours the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, breaks the Conservative manifesto promise to stay in the single market and breaches the wishes of 90% of voters who, in a poll last November, said they wanted to stay in the single market. There was no choice on the ballot last June that asked people, “Do you want to leave the single market?”.

Therefore, will the Minister tell me why this version of Brexit, which will be so destructive to our economy and jobs, is being chosen? It will also be a great deal more bureaucratic. Any alternative to the smooth trade we get with the single market and the customs union, especially for supply chains that exist not only in manufacturing but in services and, as I learned this morning, universities, which depend on the free exchange of academics, will be more bureaucratic and mean more red tape. The Conservatives always tell us they stand for slashing red tape. Also, how do we expect to get the benefits of common systems and frameworks when we are not in the single market and customs union? I do not understand how we can derive such benefits.

The Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech that,

“no deal … is better than a bad deal”.

In the light of that, will the Minister please explain how the Government will fulfil the promises of certainty, clarity and a smooth orderly exit, avoiding a disruptive cliff edge? If the Government propose to walk away from the negotiations, how can they avoid a disorderly, chaotic Brexit, which is precisely what business and most of us fear? Where is the national consensus? Where are the 48% of people who voted to remain reflected in the White Paper, which I acknowledge I have not had the opportunity to read, although I read the Statement, which talks about a national consensus? I second the request for the publication of impact assessments for us to know exactly where the Government think they are taking us in concrete reality.

The Prime Minister has admitted that the UK will continue to pay into the EU budget for the sectoral benefits they expect to get. Where will the money come from for the NHS, promised by the leave campaign? It is currently about £11 billion; we all know how cash-starved the NHS is.

On the declared red line of no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice, how will we then co-operate on crime and terrorism, and exchange data? These Benches fully support cross-border co-operation on policing and security, as well as civil justice. The Home Secretary was pressed on this in the other place by the Home Affairs Committee. It asked how she was going to get those arrangements while denying the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg court. She floundered in answering that question, as did the Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice to the EU Justice Sub-Committee on Tuesday in the area of civil justice. It simply does not add up.

I also ask the Minister a question we keep asking because it is important, particularly to this House. It is a cross-party concern that EU nationals and Brits in the rest of the EU should not be a pawn in negotiations. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Government giving a unilateral guarantee and a simplified procedure for EU nationals to stay, and for Brits in the rest of the EU. It is morally indefensible as well as economically illiterate not to do so. Can the Minister give me a real answer why that is not happening?

Lastly, if the Government really believe in British democracy, they should trust the people for a final say on this deal. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, thinks it is funny. The Liberal Democrats do not. We take democracy seriously. People have not had a chance to see the colour of the Government’s money when it comes to what Brexit will mean in detail. They—not just Parliament, but voters—should get the chance to say whether that Brexit deal is good enough or whether they prefer to stay with the European Union.

UK Withdrawal from the EU and Potential Withdrawal from the Single Market

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That this House takes note of the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and potential withdrawal from the single market on the rights of European Union citizens living in this country and the United Kingdom’s future economic requirements.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to cover two areas today. One concerns the rights of EU citizens already living in the UK, come our departure from the European Union. The other is the UK economy, on which we depend for jobs and prosperity, and for the tax revenues which fund our defence, education, health and public services.

I think we all know that there is great anxiety among EU citizens living here, to whom,

“the Government is under a moral obligation to provide … legal clarity”,

according to our EU Justice Committee. We must resolve the legal status of these citizens without delay. The 2004 EU citizens’ directive is clear about freedom of movement: it is the right to come and go, to stay here without question for three months, to stay longer provided that citizens are employed, a student or have the resources so as not to need social assistance, and to have health cover. Then, after five years, there is the right to permanent residence.

Those who have been here less than five years may have no right to stay post Brexit under the existing rules, but they are also unsure what criteria they would need to meet to prove that they had been here. It would be quite a challenge for the Government, as well—dealing with 3 million applications. Many EU nationals who have been here well over five years may be unable to prove that they meet the criteria for permanent residency, while others—perhaps elderly relatives—would have no entitlement under current rules. Indeed, proving health cover may be difficult. Giving evidence, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, suggested that an NI number might suffice as evidence, but that would not cover everybody concerned.

We have seen the problems faced by individuals—by the London-born Dom Wolf, whose German parents ensured that he had a German passport but who now, despite living here all his life, faces having to prove that he should stay, including having to take an English test. Then there is the Dutch lady, Monique Hawkins, who was similarly told to prepare to leave the country, despite making her career and family here for over 24 years. I myself, having been born in Germany, started to fill in the 85-page application form to prove residency. It is, I have to say, a nightmare. I would have to produce 15 documents spread over five years—or, if I use my husband as a sponsor, I have to set out when I met him, when I started a relationship with him and when I decided to marry him. I did not like to confess that they were all on the same day.

I ask the Minister to review urgently how we will define EU citizens already resident here and how they can demonstrate this along with offering them the legal clarity that they so need. While those who have been here very many years might be protected separately under Article 8 of the ECHR, those rights are not absolute, with each case being determined on its particular facts, providing little certainty for those involved. Indeed, the Government have not even made any assessment of the number who might be able to get such protection, which seems a little short-sighted. There is also the “indefinite leave to remain” route but, if that looks complicated, the other one is even more byzantine.

Needless to say, UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU are also worried: about pensions, health, employment, education and their residency status and rights. Sandra Stretton, a pensioner in Spain, describes enjoying what she calls, “a very simple life which afforded me serenity and peace of mind until … the Referendum … turned my world upside down”, leaving her “extremely concerned” as to whether she will lose pension increases, and treatment for her health condition, which is helped not just by the treatment in Spain but by the climate that particularly helps her condition. As she says, if she is forced to return to the UK and ask for every benefit available, she would lose her “independence and dignity and become a drain on society”. She has never requested financial assistance, and she has paid taxes and NI throughout her working life, but now she feels very insecure.

Then there is John Owen, who moved to Spain believing that his rights to healthcare, free movement within Europe, and a UK state pension were guaranteed by his European citizenship. Now, he says, “We face uncertainty with a particular concern as guardians of our youngest grandchild whom we have cared for since she was five months old, but we soon face decisions concerning secondary school and higher education. Under ‘Brexit’ scenarios it is difficult to visualise any path that does not involve Spanish citizenship”.

These are real cases, in the here and now, but the Government do not seem to take them seriously. Elizabeth Truss declined to meet the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a choice the committee labelled “unacceptable”, while the Government refused to send a Minister to our committee on acquired rights, looking at the impact of Brexit.

We should also consider the UK economy’s future needs. The NHS is heavily reliant on its 160,000 EU nationals, including 10,000 doctors and 20,000 nurses, overwhelmingly from countries which joined the EU before 2004, with a further 90,000 in social care. No wonder the BMA wonders how the NHS will be staffed after Brexit if it loses 5% of its workforce.

In one of our successful industries, tourism and hospitality, EU nationals are essential in places such as London. ABTA and the BHA worry that any cut in these numbers, together with the omission of foreign language as a skill for any points system, would make recruitment to their industry really difficult—a challenge for the food and drink industry, with 100,000 EU employees. Agriculture is worried: the NFU noted that, even by September, farmers were unable to meet the demand for seasonal workers. Normally they would get them from Romania and Bulgaria. The fall in the pound, added to the Brexit effect of insecurity, is already affecting our farming areas.

The Lords EU Committee heard concerns as to whether financial services would get the specialist labour that they need—we hear today of more possible moves of those services out of the UK. They are worried not only about the numbers and whether they would be able to get them, but whether there would be very bureaucratic and cumbersome procedures for recruiting staff from elsewhere in the EU. The chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association has identified banking as probably more affected by Brexit than any other sector, being the UK’s biggest export industry by far. Its need for high-quality staff has an impact on all of us because of the impact on the economy. The Benn Select Committee on Brexit has called on the Government to take account of the importance of EU workers in these key sectors: health, finance and agriculture, as well as manufacturing, where EU nationals make up 15% of workers, and public services, with a quarter of a million EU staff.

The people have indeed spoken about Brexit, but Brexit now needs to think about people. It needs to be managed in a way that safeguards individuals’ rights and which helps our economy to prosper and grow—for the sake of all our people. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I join the Minister in thanking everybody for their contributions today. He might not like the content of them as much as I did: it was a very strong plea to recognise the rights and expectations of those 3 million people already living here. I regret that he was not able to make any move on that.

The Minister might say that there is no change now, but two years is a very short period, particularly for those with children, making arrangements for their future. As has been said, these are families: they should not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Judd, be seen as pawns, or, in the words of a Home Office letter, as “negotiating capital”. As the right reverend Prelate said, they are not bargaining chips to be used: they are human beings, our friends and colleagues. We urge the Government to make a commitment not to use these people as a negotiating hand. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Chandos said, it is not a good technique: it is not a good tactic in negotiating to start using human beings. It will not be looked at very well by the other side, particularly as it was we who opened this whole negotiation for change.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that the manner of how we leave will say something about us as a country, but it will also be of wider international interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said, it is a matter of honour and of our future good relationships with our EU neighbours. Therefore, while we recognise and welcome the commitment to look after UK nationals living abroad, who are also uncertain of their future, we hope that there will be a grown-up approach to this and that we will recognise the rights of people living here without saying that as something that is a reciprocal tool to be played with. If, as I am sure she is, the Prime Minister is such a good negotiator, she will have other cards up her sleeve that will enable us to get a good deal and other tricks to play to ensure, without trading the rights of people living here already, that UK nationals living abroad will also have their future guaranteed.

The Minister quoted Lord Denning saying how EU laws have flowed up the river into every part of our lives. The Government might find, like the earlier Canute, that waters do not withdraw quite as easily as they think. This very short Bill that we have in our hands today is only the start of the process: I hope that we do not make these EU citizens wait the full two years to know what their future is. In the very short term, I ask him to look at that form. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that my mother got to a military hospital while his mother-in-law was coming back to England, so I was actually born British. I do not have to fill in the form, but lots of others do, so will the Minister look at that and see whether the paperwork can be simplified?

With that, I thank everyone for, I hope, the strong noises that they have left ringing in the Minister’s ears. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

The Process for Triggering Article 50

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I thank also the Supreme Court judges for doing their constitutional job: as they made clear, not commenting on the wisdom or timing of Brexit, but on how UK law—our law—requires the Government to act.

So here we have it. The Government failed to make the referendum binding, leaving it advisory, which helped to fuel the uncertainty that has ended only today. Once we knew the outcome of the referendum, the Government failed to take the sensible route: to get Parliament, effectively, to ratify the outcome by agreeing to trigger Article 50. Then the Government failed to heed the High Court view that it was for Parliament, not Ministers, to take this step. So the Supreme Court has ruled—as we expected—that Parliament must authorise the Prime Minister to start the exit negotiations by invoking Article 50.

So we are today where we should have been on 24 June: with Parliament to take the decision, albeit with the Government determining the timetable. The court has ended the uncertainty over the process for triggering Article 50. However, there is still one large, outstanding matter—the remaining uncertainty. What is the plan? What is the framework which the Government intend should guide their negotiations on our relationship with the EU 27 post exit? What is the plan for how we leave and for our future trading and other relationships with the EU 27?

It is no good saying that the plan is a speech that the Prime Minister gave, not even in Parliament but to ambassadors at Lancaster House. That is not sufficient for Parliament—for this House, the Commons or indeed the Select Committee—to be able to scrutinise whether the Government’s objectives are the right ones for the UK and whether their negotiations are achieving those objectives.

We need to know how the emerging post-Brexit relationship will promote jobs and the economy; how it will protect environmental, social and consumer rights; how it will ensure that all parts of our nation—rural areas as well as cities—will benefit; and how the Government will ensure that our trade with the EU—and beyond—can be free of tariff and non-tariff barriers.

This House needs to examine the Government’s exit plan. Our EU Committees are doing splendid work on the detail of available options. We need to measure the Government against the evidence that they are producing on costs and benefits.

Today simply says how the exit process should be started. Will the Minister say when the Article 50 Bill will be published and whether it will include a plan for how we exit the EU? We will be watching the Government from now on, to ensure that they negotiate in the interests of all our people, and with the consent of this House and the other place.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

We should at least be grateful for the clarity of today’s ruling. This was, however, a completely unnecessary legal procedure. If the Government had brought forward shortly after the referendum the Bill which the court has now forced upon them, it would now be safely enacted and much time, effort and cost saved. It is a sign of the robustness of our constitutional arrangements that a private citizen can require the Government, against their will, to play by the rules, but it is greatly to the Government’s discredit that this was ever necessary.

Now we have the Bill, I should make clear what the stance of these Benches will be. On 23 June, the British people did not vote for a particular version of Brexit, and the majority of people certainly did not support leaving the single market—a course on which the Government are now firmly set. We will therefore seek to amend the Bill to provide for a referendum to be held when we know the terms the Government have been able to negotiate. The Government may have a mandate to start Brexit negotiations; they certainly do not have a mandate to impose harsh Brexit terms on the country.

Can the Minister give us any further information about the planned timetable of the Bill through your Lordships’ House? It will clearly not be possible to maintain the normal minimum intervals between stages of the Bill if we are to deal with it by the end of March. We understand that but can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not attempt to ram the Bill through in a few days, as appears to be the case in the Commons?

The Government say that the timetable for invoking Article 50 by 31 March,

“has given valuable certainty to citizens and businesses in the UK and across Europe”.

Can the Minister explain precisely what certainty has been given to the millions of EU citizens living in the UK, and those UK citizens living in the EU? The Government’s Statement says that they will,

“work closely with the people and Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as we move forward”.

Can he tell the House exactly what form that commitment will take over the period between now and 31 March?

Finally, in view of the Government’s reluctance to involve Parliament in triggering Article 50, can the Minister confirm that as the negotiations unfold the UK Parliament will, as has been promised, receive information on their content and progress to at least the same extent as the European Parliament will be informed about progress by the EU Commission?

A New Partnership with the EU

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which, regrettably, we saw on TV before it was given in the Commons.

We welcome the commitment to a vote in this House on the final deal—but how much better had the Government committed to a vote on Article 50 rather than having to be dragged to the courts. We also welcome the objective of ending up with a fairer Britain—it would have been strange if they had asked to get to a less fair Britain. Our worry is the sting in the tail of saying that “no deal” and a new economic model was better than a bad deal. That sounds like lower taxes, which means fewer public services and therefore a price to be paid by exactly those ordinary working people whom the Prime Minister claims to prioritise.

However, I do not want to dwell on the possibility of failure in negotiations. I want to welcome the commitment to as free trade as possible with the European Union—our major market, our closest neighbours, our security partners. I welcome the Government’s use of the word “partnership” as a grown-up relationship which benefits both sides. My concern is whether this is possible, since the Government are contemplating leaving the customs union. Without that, we are in WTO territory, with no protection for services, a poor deal for agriculture —the future of which got no reference at all in the speech—and higher prices for consumers as tariffs are imposed. The NFU estimates that there would be cheese and meat tariffs of up to 30%, with extra red tape adding a further 6%.

More than this, if we are not fully in the customs union, we will not be able to import and export finished products or components without “country of origin” rules and checks. That is costly and time-consuming. If costs to business increase, how can we expect them to invest and innovate? Outside of the customs union, our financial services would also be at a disadvantage—a cost to industry as well as the services themselves. If our insolvency regime does not work, investors will think twice about locating here and putting their money at risk. If our insurance, hedging, clearing and other major services are weaker, so is the chance of entrepreneurs and investors risking their capital.

We of course welcome the commitment to maintaining workers’ rights and hope that the Government will therefore support Melanie Onn’s Private Member’s Bill, which entrenches just that. Furthermore, workers are consumers too, yet they did not get a mention in the speech. Their rights to be protected from unsafe goods or food, their ability to travel visa-free, using their domestic car insurance, or to get compensation for delayed air travel—all these also need to be retained but were not mentioned. We were pleased to hear the acknowledgement of the importance of science, but we heard nothing as to whether we would be able to stay within the European Medicines Agency or other similar agencies, which are vital for our trading relationships.

What of the future needs of our economy? The Government, quite rightly, want to protect EU citizens already here, but what of the future? A quarter of a million EU nationals work in public services, but there will be churn and, in care homes as well as hospitals, we may need these people in the future, as with the 100,000 EU nationals working in food and drink.

I leave just three quite simple questions with the Minister. First, what impact assessment have the Government made of the UK being outside the customs union, and will he commit to publishing that? Secondly, does he accept that, even if we come out of the ECJ, any trade agreement requires some sort of dispute adjudication body? So what thought has been given to what might be appropriate for a free trade agreement with the EU? Finally, what response does he envisage from the EU 27 to these objectives?

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We see that the Prime Minister, who pretended that she did not have to choose, has come to the end of her “cake policy” period and has made a choice, and it is the most damaging one possible in response to the referendum result and in terms of the values, vision and alliances that Britain wants to pursue. We do indeed need to take this opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be, but the Prime Minister is deluding the country if she thinks that the UK will emerge stronger, fairer and more united from this Brexit plan.

The attempt to rebrand hard Brexit as clean Brexit does not survive a moment’s scrutiny. It will be destructive, messy and antagonistic, as indeed the Government’s contemplation of “no deal” suggests. There is overwhelming public support for free trade with the EU to continue, and the only true free trade is inside the single market. That is why Mrs Thatcher created it, and the Conservative manifesto last year pledged to stay inside it.

Do the Government expect to be thanked by millions of Britons, particularly young ones, who will lose their protection from data-roaming and flight cancellation rip-offs, as well as the freedom to live, work and study where they want? The Government’s claim that we will be a fairer country with workers’ rights enhanced is contradicted by Chancellor Hammond’s threat that we will be the Singapore of Europe, as a tax haven with slashed regulation.

The Prime Minster claims that we need hard Brexit to be more outward-looking and to reach beyond the borders of Europe, but that is perverse. The most obvious example of international co-operation is on our door-step—the very EU on whose single market she is turning her back. The contention that the UK needs to reject the EU to “go global” posits a completely false choice. The EU, with over 50 free trade agreements, is a gateway to the global stage, not an impediment to it, and leaving it risks exposing the UK and its people to the coldest winds of globalisation that the EU helps protect them from.

The Prime Minister is aligning the country with a protectionist incoming US President—ironically while the Chinese leader speaks at Davos in favour of free trade. She says that she wants the EU to succeed and for the UK to be its best friend, but the choice of hard Brexit aligned with Mr Trump and, through him, with President Putin and against Chancellor Merkel is a rejection not only of the single market and the European economic, social and human rights model but, indeed, a pact with those whose declared—not even hidden—objective is to subvert, divide and break up the EU and NATO, and thus the bedrock of our security.

The Prime Minister says that she wants us to be tolerant and a magnet for international talent but, by refusing a unilateral guarantee, she is sending a message of denigration and rejection of the 3 million EU citizens who already contribute so much to Britain’s economy and society, putting them through agonies of insecurity and subjecting them to the most Kafkaesque Home Office bureaucracy.

When the British people voted last year, they did not vote to live in a world where our values are replaced by ones set by Presidents Trump and Putin, so the case for a referendum on the Brexit deal, so that people can decide democratically whether they want a future as portrayed by this Tory Government, has been strengthened even further.

Brexit: Green Paper

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the Minister needs to offer two things to the House. The first is perhaps that he will no longer do what some of his colleagues do. The Secretary of State, Liz Truss, refused to appear before the Joint Committee on Human Rights looking at Brexit, a refusal that the committee described as unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will come to the House with not just the final vote that will happen when Article 50 is triggered, but the detail of what the Government are seeking to achieve out of negotiations when we leave the European Union.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that it remains the Government’s intention to build as strong a national consensus as possible around our negotiation position, to treat this House and the other place with the respect they deserve as the negotiations continue, and to give the information required for scrutiny to be meaningful and worth while.

Brexit: Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, the Government have set out very clearly what they intend to do in terms of the principles as regards leaving the EU, and we have made it clear that we will publish, as we intended, a plan in due course.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the report that has come out today from one of our committees, Brexit: The Options for Trade, says that a clear game plan is needed on trade and that it is unlikely that a bespoke EU trade agreement can be agreed within the two-year period, so a transitional deal will be vital. Could the Minister confirm that the transitional deal, as well as the final one, will be put before both Houses?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I am sorry to say that it is slightly premature for me to start commenting on all these points as regards the negotiations, which have yet to begin. As for transition, I have said at this Dispatch Box, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, the Prime Minister has said and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that we wish to have a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. That is in this country’s interests and in the interests of many right across Europe—and, indeed, that is what I have been hearing up and down the length and breadth of the country. As for our plan, it will be revealed in due course.

Article 50 (Constitution Committee Report)

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lords, Lord Lang and Lord Boswell, and their hard-working committees, for these very thorough, clearly written—always appreciated —and forward-thinking reports. I also thank them for the debate today, although I doubt whether we need to debate Article 50. There should be no need for discussion on it, as the Government—albeit not the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay—accept that, once triggered, there is no going back. There is then the inevitable withdrawal from the EU and the deprivation of certain rights from British citizens. Consequently, it can only be Parliament, not the Crown, which takes the trigger action that leads to that inevitable result. The unanimous, unambiguous High Court ruling was that,

“the Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50”,

of the treaty.

At one level, that is fairly obvious. Had some Prime Minister suddenly woken up one morning, posted off a letter to Brussels invoking Article 50 without a referendum or even a Cabinet decision, it would still have been an irrevocable move. But if the Government’s argument on Crown prerogative is right, it would have been “in accordance with” our “own constitutional requirements”. It would therefore be unstoppable by Parliament—if the Government are right that Article 50 cannot be stopped—so it would happen. We could sack the Prime Minister who had done the deed, but we could not undo the deed. As the judges said, the referendum was only advisory, so in law—albeit not in politics—this Prime Minister, even after the referendum, would be doing something with no statutory authority from the people or from Parliament. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, reminded us, and as was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Bilimoria, the Constitution Committee stated:

“It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval”.

The question is: why on earth are the Government appealing against that decision? It is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, called an unnecessary sideshow, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, called a distraction. Do the Government really want to deny Parliament a say in Article 50, and at what cost to our economy? Increasingly, business is saying, “Please get on and tell us what your negotiating plan is”. Just yesterday, the president of the CBI called on the Government to “minimise the uncertainty”, asking her to set out what the Government will prioritise in their negotiations. As he said, the CBI membership is,

“100 per cent committed to making the best of Brexit”,

which,

“means maintaining tariff-free access to the European market … maintaining … global trade deals … making the best … of talent available globally”.

But, experienced negotiator as it is, the CBI also said:

“We’re not asking for a running commentary—but we are looking for clarity and—above all—a plan”.

It is not surprising that it wants some clarity as, in the Czech Republic, Boris Johnson said,

“probably we will need to leave the customs union”.

That would be a major step with enormous implications for our exporters and consumers. Indeed, falling back on WTO rules would be the most destructive of the settlements available, leading to fewer jobs, less investment and, probably, a poorer population. Can the Minister clarify whether that particular statement of the Foreign Secretary is indeed the settled government view and, if not, what is?

As the CBI recognises, leaving the customs union and reverting to WTO rules could not even be in place within two years. It has asked the Government to commit to transitional arrangements, as it fears a clock striking midnight when the two years are up, and a cliff edge—a sudden, overnight transformation in trading conditions, with firms stranded in a regulatory no-man’s land.

It appeared yesterday that the Prime Minister acknowledges the danger of a cliff edge, although today we hear that she may not after all want an interim deal. Does she acknowledge, as we have learned from our discussions with member states and—yes, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—Members of the European Parliament, both in the Labour Party and from other PES countries, and indeed from sources close to the Commission, that such transitional arrangements would depend on the final departure package?

Indeed, such transitional arrangements would probably require all 27 sets of ratification through perhaps 36 different bodies. Such transitional arrangements anyway would need to cover the journey from the point of exit to the final position. That means that the EU27 would need to know where that final position is—the end of the bridge, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. To agree a bridge, we have to know where exactly on the other side will be our final position. It will also probably mean knowing when we will remove ourselves from the four freedoms which the EU sees as fundamental to the single market.

That is what the Government should now be discussing as they draw up their framework for negotiations, using all the skill and experience, as we have heard, of your Lordships’ House in what are going to be fiendishly difficult talks, with challenging trade-offs to navigate. As the EU Committee stressed, these,

“negotiations ... will be unprecedented in their complexity”,

and it “is inconceivable that” they,

“should be conducted …without active parliamentary scrutiny”.

David Davis said to his party conference last month, when talking about EU partners:

“If we want to be treated with goodwill, we must act with goodwill”.

He might well have been referring to Parliament. If the Government trust us, they will find that we respond positively.

So I revert to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend Lord Davies: why are the Government not bringing Article 50 to Parliament? Why are they taking the appeal to the Supreme Court, wasting valuable energy and time, to say nothing of money or the public’s patience? Is it simply obstinacy on the part of the Prime Minister because it was not the original decision? The focus of her time and effort should be preparing for the very complex—“tortuous” was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor —set of negotiations which will follow. The bargaining will be hard. Tough choices will have to be made. How much more expedient it would be for the Prime Minister to be at that negotiating table with the strength of a parliamentary vote—freely requested—behind her, rather than a resisted vote, dragged out of her by the highest court in the land.

As our own Constitution Committee said before the original court case, it was always going to be better to go to Parliament rather than using the prerogative. That is the best and perhaps the only way to build a national consensus and bring the county together once more on this—having an informed, mature conversation with the British people and their representatives. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, getting a parliamentary and public buy-in to that final deal is why we favour a parliamentary vote.

Even now, at this late hour, we call on the Government to return to Parliament its rightful role in taking this momentous step. I hope that opposite me is a brick wall, in the sense that we get back some answers rather than these questions just being lodged in the hedge.

United Kingdom: Single Market

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. As he and the whole House will know, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we wish to take control of our laws, borders and money, while achieving the best possible access to the single market, and ensuring that we have the means to continue to co-operate and collaborate with our European partners on issues where it remains in our national interest to do so.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Is it not the truth that the Government were so ill prepared for Brexit that the reason they are not revealing their hand is that they do not know what their hand is? They seem to have three hands, with three different Ministers not in agreement and one of them even failing to meet the 27 fellow members of the European Union, whose support we will need in our negotiations. Therefore my question to the Minister is: rather than playing politics, could he—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Listen to the punchline. Could he not treat us all as adults and say that this House and all parties should be involved in this for the sake of the national interest, and that we should have a discussion which incorporates what we want to say rather than saying, “It is all secret and we cannot tell you”? Will the Minister take that approach in the discussions?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I certainly treat everyone in your Lordships’ House as adults and listen to, and respect, the views of those on all sides of the House, whatever their views might be. As I have said all along, the Government’s view on this is to continue to engage as far as possible with this House, the other place and, indeed, groups right across society, including businesses and NGOs, and listen to their views. We are doing so in a measured, calm and reasoned way. We will continue to do so and assess the options open to us.

Brexit: Article 50

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I feel he had no hand in drafting. My guess is that he would have preferred to get on with allowing Parliament to trigger Article 50. Indeed, how much better it would have been if the Government had listened to the wise words of our Constitution Committee in September, when it said that a parliamentary vote would be needed. It is hard to understand why the Government are getting in such a tizzy about this. Rather like after their tax credit defeat, they overreact when faced by any challenge.

In September, I commented that,

“leaving the EU is not a simple step outside but a journey”.—[Official Report, 8/9/16; col. 1131.]

But will we leave Brussels via Dunkirk or Ostend, by train through Calais, by plane via Dublin or, heaven forfend, by the good ship “Titanic” piloted by Boris Johnson?

These are serious matters. In our economy, highly dependent on services, we have to secure a future for our creative, internet, design, legal, engineering and financial services and for intellectual property. We must be sure that our insolvency practitioners, chasing down funds for UK-based creditors, have access to squirrelled wealth in EU countries—currently allowed for under the mutual recognition of appointments—and that our lawyers retain rights of address and legal privilege. We need to safeguard the future of UK nationals living abroad as they lose their EU citizenship. We have to disentangle our competition law from that of the EU, law developed to protect consumers from monopolies and cartels, while helping our exporters, who will still be subject to EU competition rules.

Until we know the terms on which we will leave the EU and our relationship with the remaining 27 member states after we leave, we cannot negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, so the terms on which we disengage from the EU and their consequences should be debated in Parliament. Parliament needs to question whether the Prime Minister has the right negotiating objectives for how we leave the EU. What priority will she give to remaining in the single market? Is she safeguarding—indeed, promoting—our regions, which have done less well from globalisation? Is she seeking to enhance consumer, environmental and workplace protections? Are her objectives grounded in security considerations and promoting human rights and are they acceptable to the electorate?

The British people decided that we should leave the EU, but it is for Parliament, not simply Downing Street, to debate the exit details. Whichever route we take, we have a long journey ahead of us. In that time, my fervent hope is that we see no more of the British press, which ought to recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of our judiciary, printing 72-point headings naming the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice as “Enemies of the people” simply for doing their job and pointing out that, constitutionally, the Government,

“does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 … for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union”.

The High Court ruling will not derail Brexit. However, given that the Government were caught short by the referendum result and none of the preparatory work was done in the case of a Brexit outcome, can the Minister assure the House that they will not find themselves in the same position this time if the judgment is upheld, and that a Bill is in preparation? Our EU committees have already started work on the myriad issues to be addressed. Could the Minister confirm that the Government will listen to the experience and knowledgeable words of these colleagues as they go forward?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I could not agree more with the assertion in it that implementing the decision to leave the EU means following the right processes, including securing the time to develop a detailed negotiating position. The right processes mean implementing the repeated pledge to honour UK parliamentary sovereignty and seeking parliamentary approval for the negotiating position.

By December, the Government will have lost six months in that process. In fact, they seem to be tying themselves up in knots trying to avoid such parliamentary involvement, getting bogged down in their misguided pursuit of executive autonomy over the Article 50 process in an unnecessary and delay-inducing court case. Their incoherence is displayed in having to offer special comfort deals to particular firms such as Nissan instead of being clear in regard to the single market and the customs union. This is creating destabilising uncertainty for all kinds of economic operators and other bodies. Now we hear the Prime Minister talk about putting on the table more visas for Indian nationals, while apparently immigration is treated as a barrier to the single market. That seems somewhat contradictory.

We must rely on leaks in the press to try and read the Government’s mind—or read the tea leaves. Indeed, there is much speculation about a Bill but no such indication in the Statement today. I join the noble Baroness in asking for clarification on that. We need a respectful relationship between Government and Parliament, one indeed sketched out in several reports of our own EU Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and one last month from the Constitution Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton. A lot of work and evidence went into those reports but the Government just brushed them aside.

The Government are not only behaving arrogantly towards Parliament when the political constitutional basis for Parliament’s role was in fact clear without the legal process, but also—to the dismay of people across the political spectrum—indulging in populist and xenophobic language, culminating in the failure to properly defend the institution of the judiciary. Freedom of the press may incorporate a freedom to criticise a particular judgment but not to indulge in scurrilous personal and institutional abuse of judges and the judiciary. It is very disappointing that neither in the days since the High Court judgment nor today have the Government rebuked the nature of the press comments notably in the Daily Mail and rather more shockingly in the Daily Telegraph, including the famous “enemies of the people” slogan evocative of Nazi Germany. It would be good to hear from the Government a condemnation of that kind of press coverage, and of the incitement to rioting in the streets from the former leader of UKIP, Mr Farage.

The Government say they intend to act on the decision to leave but it is on the character of that action that we need clarity since there are many different varieties of Brexit—probably more than 57. It is necessary to be respectful to those who voted remain if the Prime Minister genuinely wants to unite the country. The phrase in the Statement about giving no quarter is a rather disturbing signal.

Liberal Democrats in no way seek to undermine the negotiating position of the Government. Parliament having an overview of the objectives would not do so. Indeed, having the backing of Parliament, as was mentioned in our several reports, would strengthen the Government’s hand in those negotiations. We are not asking for details of particular trade-offs or red lines.

Any delay is down to the Government. If they act in good faith, there is no reason not to meet a March timetable. This does not mean a series of interesting but essentially purposeless general debates in which the Government stonewall, but an opportunity to get to grips with a concrete plan and a substantive strategy. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Government are planning to inform Parliament about their negotiating objectives in a White Paper, as is rumoured, and what kind of Bill they are planning to produce? The Government need to stop waffling and sidestepping and give us enough meat to be able to vote for the triggering of Article 50.

Brexit

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I had expected that question. The Government are clearly disappointed by the court’s judgment. The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by an Act of Parliament, and the Government remain determined to respect the vote of the referendum. We will appeal this judgment. I have nothing further to say at this precise juncture. I am sure that more will be said in due course.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is interesting that Brexit was all about parliamentary sovereignty. We regret that the Government will now appeal against the judgment to give this decision back to Parliament. In fact, if the Government do not like the Supreme Court’s decision, perhaps they will try the European Court of Justice. We accept that we will trigger Article 50, but what is important now are the terms of that. Parliament can help to shape the basis on which we leave. It would be better to welcome this decision—and I ask the Minister to do that—to work with the judgment of the court and to take this important decision to Parliament.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I have nothing further to add to what I said a moment ago. The Government’s decision is to appeal this judgment. The referendum result was clear. Some 17.4 million people voted to leave, and the Government have made it clear that they wish to deliver on that.