European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Wednesday 3rd April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
Under the terms of the business of the House motion to which the House has just agreed, amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill may now be accepted by the Clerks at the Table. An amendment paper containing all amendments tabled up until 6.15 pm today, and the names of signatories, will be available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website by 7 pm. Members may continue to table amendments up until the start of proceedings in Committee of the whole House. If necessary, an updated amendment paper will be made available as soon as possible during proceedings in Committee. For the benefit of everyone, however, I would encourage Members to table their amendments as soon as possible. The Chairman of Ways and Means will take a provisional decision on selection and grouping on the basis of amendments tabled by 6.15 pm, and that provisional selection list will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website before the start of proceedings in Committee.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order regarding the need for a money resolution under the Standing Orders in respect of the Bill. For example, if the Bill was to result in a very great extension, the cost could be £36 billion of taxpayers’ money. Fifty MPs have written to you, Mr Speaker, in my name and theirs, in the belief that a money resolution is required, particularly as the matter is apparently decided by the Clerks of the House of Commons. That raises a question for the Procedure Committee as to whether or not there should be a money resolution. I therefore ask you, Mr Speaker, first of all, what is your conclusion on that, as advised; and, secondly, whether the matter can be referred to the Procedure Committee, because in my judgment it is completely unacceptable for matters to be decided in this way?
Mr Speaker
I will respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I will first hear the point of order by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The contention of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that the Bill could cost £36 billion is, of course, highly controversial. It could equally be argued that crashing out with no deal would cost as much, if not more. In that case, it seems to me that what has happened hitherto and the advice from the Clerks has been wholly proper.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to get into the argument about what the Bill is going to cost, but as a member of the Procedure Committee I do think it is an arguable contention that when we are indulging in such constitutional innovations the matter should go to the Procedure Committee first. Otherwise, what is the point of the Procedure Committee?
Mr Speaker
I will take a final point of order, but I am quite keen to give a ruling on this matter.
Helen Goodman
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am also a member of the Procedure Committee and we did have some preliminary discussion about this matter, which Sir Edward, unfortunately, did not attend.
Mr Speaker
It is not for the Chair to pronounce judgment on the attendance record of right hon. and hon. Members at Committees. Suffice to say that I have heard points of order from the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and the House has heard what they have had to say. If there are no further points of order—[Interruption.] Oh, very well.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is on another matter.
Mr Speaker
I would rather deal with this matter. I think it is more orderly to deal with it in that way. If there are no further points of order on this matter, I will—[Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought this matter would come at a later stage, because on private Members’ Bill Fridays we do not have money resolutions until Bills need to go into Committee. The money resolution is given at that stage. It is the case that a Bill cannot proceed out of Committee without a money resolution, not Second Reading, is it not?
Mr Speaker
That is true, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no automatic or compelling obstacle to the House treating of the matter now. I judged, in consultation with the hon. Member for Stone, that it might be for the convenience of the House—particularly a relatively full House, at this time—for me to say something about the matter now on the back of what he has said. The alternative was for him to expatiate on this point in the course of any speech that he might make on Second Reading.
Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, but I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Somerset would agree that for me then to interrupt the Second Reading debate to respond to the point would be a rather ungainly way in which to proceed. I thought it better to treat of the matter now, before we embark on Second Reading. I have heard his point, and I respect it, but I do not think it is conclusive.
Mr Vara
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice, because many of the people who wish to have the debate that we are about to have argue that the mandate—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I am trying. They argue that the mandate given by a margin of a million people in a referendum was not sufficient. They also argue that a 4% margin was not sufficient, in percentage terms. Could you therefore advise me as to the appropriateness of carrying on a debate that has got through on one solitary vote?
Mr Speaker
Yes, I can. The answer is that procedural propriety in the House has got absolutely nothing to do with numbers for or against a particular proposition, either in a referendum or in a general election. I say to the hon. Gentleman with great courtesy, because he is among the most courteous Members of this House, that he has made what might be thought by some people to be a very good polemical or campaigning point, but—I think he and I did O-levels, and I say this to him with some trepidation, because he is an extremely intelligent man—in procedural terms, I am afraid his observation would not warrant anything better at O-level than an unclassified. I am sorry. He has made an important campaigning point, but not a procedural one; I do not say that in any spirit of unkindness.
Mr Speaker
I am absolutely certain that the hon. Gentleman got vastly better than unclassified in everything. As I said, he is a very clever man. My point was about this issue, not about his intelligence.
If there are no further points of order on this matter, I will now give a definitive ruling on which, as I have been advised, no further points of order will arise. We will then proceed to the business before us.
As the hon. Member for Stone knows, the view taken by the Clerk of Legislation, who decides these matters in the first instance, is that neither Queen’s consent nor any financial resolution is required for the private Member’s Bill presented by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Under the terms of the Bill, if enacted, the Prime Minister “must” move a motion agreeing that she should seek an extension of the negotiating period under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union to a specified date. The Bill requires the Prime Minister to have the approval of the House before agreeing an extension of the negotiating period. An extension could come into effect only if the European Union 27 decided unanimously to agree an extension with the UK.
As the House will recall, no Queen’s consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under article 50 of the treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same article 50 of the treaty on European Union.
I recognise, colleagues, that extending the period under article 50 would, in effect, continue the UK’s rights and obligations as a member state of the EU for the period of the extension, which would have substantial consequences for both spending and taxation. I am satisfied that the financial resolutions passed on Monday 11 September 2017 give fully adequate cover for the exercise by Ministers of their powers under section 20(3) and (4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to move exit day in order to keep in lockstep with the date for the expiry of the European treaties, which of course is determined by article 50 of the treaty on European Union. This has been demonstrated by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, with which I know the hon. Member for Stone is keenly familiar, and which were laid before this House on 25 March and approved by the House on 27 March. Accordingly, my ruling is that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill does not require either a Ways and Means motion or a money resolution.
Mr Speaker
Order. Forgive me; I have treated the hon. Gentleman with the utmost courtesy, as I always do, and I am happy to discuss the matter further with him. However, that is a ruling on advice, to which very careful thought has been given, and we cannot debate it further. We must now proceed with the business.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by welcoming some of the words of the Prime Minister from yesterday. She said as part of her announcement:
“This is a difficult time for everyone. Passions are running high on all sides of the argument”,
and that debate and division is
“putting Members of Parliament and everyone else under…pressure…and…doing damage to our politics.”
I think we all recognise the pressures that she is talking about and the efforts that Members on both sides of the House, and with all kinds of different views on Brexit, are making to do the right thing in the national interest, to do the right thing whatever their different views on Brexit, and to do the right thing for their constituents. I hope that the very respectful and thoughtful tone of the debate that we had on the programme motion will be continued in this debate.
We have put forward this cross-party Bill to avert no deal on 12 April. We have done so for fear of the damage that no deal would do to all our constituencies. We understand that the Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser to the Government, Sir Mark Sedwill, told the Cabinet yesterday that no deal would make our country “less safe”. The Cabinet has a responsibility to listen to that advice and I am extremely glad that it did. We understand, too, that the Cabinet was warned that food prices would go up by 10% in the event of no deal. Again, I am glad that it listened to that advice because that would have a huge impact on overstretched families across the country.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I endorse and thank the right hon. Lady for the tone in which she has brought in the Bill. However, given that she has been one of the people who has most vociferously argued for long periods of scrutiny over our decision to leave the European Union, why does she think that it is acceptable to take off the table a way out of the EU that very many people who voted to leave it believe to be the way in which we should leave? Given her previous demands for a long scrutiny process, why is this all being done with only a few hours of debate in this place?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a tight timetable for the Bill. That is because there is a tight timetable for the House, facing the deadline of 12 April and the European Council meeting that will take place. I will be honest: I could never have imagined when we started these debates that we would be in a situation where, nine days from Brexit day, nobody knows what is going to happen. That is causing huge concern and anxiety for businesses, families and people across the country. I will come on in a minute to the damage that no deal would do to my constituency and many others. We have a responsibility to ensure that we can avert it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I will give way a couple of times, but I am conscious that I want to make some progress as well on the Bill itself.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I share my right hon. Friend’s frustration that there was no time for more scrutiny, but would it not have come better from someone who had not just voted against an amendment that would have allowed us to discuss the matter again on Monday?
Yvette Cooper
It would have been better to have further discussions on Monday, but we are where we are. What is important today is ensuring that we can debate no deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I will give way just three more times, and then I will make rapid progress.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Lady’s endeavours today and for what she is trying to achieve, but may I draw attention to one of the things that we have to do in the House, which she mentioned at the beginning of her speech? We are all used to battling for our ideologies here, and for our beliefs and for what we want. Is this not one of the rare occasions when it is appropriate for us to think not about what we believe in and what we fight for, but about what is right for the country? Some of us, both remainers and arch-leavers, need to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle.
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree. In fact, I proposed a cross-party commission to oversee the negotiations immediately after the referendum and again after the general election, because I was fearful that we would end up in gridlock, and I thought that the task would be performed best in a way that would build consensus.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Surely we would not be in this position had the Prime Minister not run down the clock, and we would not be in this position had she reached out across the House sooner.
Yvette Cooper
The truth is that we have been trying to squeeze into a few days a process of consensus building that should have taken two years. It should have started a long time ago. That is why I think it so important to ensure that, just at the point at which we are trying to come together and build some consensus, we do not tumble off the edge of a cliff and end up doing unfair damage to our constituents.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way, and I appreciate the manner in which she has introduced the debate, but may I gently remind her that predictions about the consequences of voting to leave or no deal have proved very wrong in the past? We heard dire economic predictions in 2016—for instance, it was predicted that by Christmas that year 500,000 more people would be unemployed—but the economic reality has been very different. The predictions were wrong then, and I suggest to her that they are wrong now.
Yvette Cooper
I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about the assessments of the impact on confidence that were made immediately after the referendum. Those were very different from the assessments of the impact of, for instance, World Trade Organisation tariffs, which are very practical, because it is clear what the impact will be on numbers, or on border capacity if customs checks are necessary. Those practical measures have not yet come into being, and I hope that they will not, because frictionless trade is important to our constituencies.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to co-sponsor my right hon. Friend’s Bill. I am pleased that it has had cross-party sponsorship from all the Members who want to prevent no deal because they have been listening to the CBI, the TUC and all the voices in our constituencies. Whatever our views on where Brexit goes, we all believe that we must avoid that catastrophic no deal, and whatever the progress of the Bill tonight, the House has resolved to avoid that.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Let me quickly tell the House about some of the points that have been made to me about why this is so important. No deal would mean that we would immediately lose access to the European arrest warrant and to crucial criminal databases. A Castleford police officer told me what no deal would mean and said “It is going to be incredibly difficult for me to do my job properly. Obviously with more serious offenders such as sex offenders who will travel, this is going to cause serious concern.”
No deal will also mean the kind of border delays that have led the NHS to stockpile. A friend told me in Pontefract that he is waiting for radiotherapy for his cancer and does not know whether that treatment will be delayed because short-life isotopes cannot be stockpiled. Major manufacturers and producers in our area such as Burberry, Haribo and Teva have told me how hard they would be hit by WTO tariffs, customs checks and border delays. We should be standing up for British manufacturers abroad, not holding them back. Local small businesses in particular have told me how much they fear being dependent on imports. They simply do not have the margins and could end up going bust if their stock is delayed. Local trade unions have warned about the impact on jobs.
Perhaps what I fear most of all is the impact of no deal on some of the most overstretched families in my constituency. We have had to set up “hungry holiday clubs” for kids on free school meals who may go hungry in the Easter holidays. In Airedale, we have had support and free lunches for families and those families are going to struggle if there is a 10% hike in food prices; it is simply not fair on them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I am going to make some progress before giving way again because I have given way many times.
Therefore, I think we have a responsibility. I know that there are Members across this House and people across the country who say they would like to see no deal happen and to see it happen as soon as possible. I simply say that it will hit other people’s lives and it is not fair. For the sake of the Castleford police officer, the Airedale families, the Pontefract and Normanton manufacturers and the small businesses and cancer patients across the country, we have a responsibility to make sure we have a system in place to prevent no deal on 12 April, just nine days away.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
Let me say something about the Prime Minister’s process, and then I will give way again.
The Prime Minister has announced her intention to pursue an extension, but the reason for continuing with this Bill is that there is no clear process for how the decisions will be taken about the length of the extension and the context, and this Bill does the following. It provides some clarity about how those decisions about the length of the extension will be taken. It gives a role for this House in that process. It also ensures we do not just slip back into facing that no-deal cliff edge almost by accident because of the nature of the difficult conversations and the complexity of what we are all facing. Crucially, it will demonstrate to the EU parliamentary support for what the Prime Minister is asking for, and to be fair to the EU, given the turbulence we have had in this House at every stage of this process, it is quite reasonable for it to ask whether the Prime Minister has the support of the House in the things she is asking for.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her Bill and the progress she has made thus far. She speaks clearly, based on evidence, and I am delighted that, as I expected from her, she has clearly listened to business. Does she agree that we can only assume that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has also listened to business, and of course he has looked at the Government’s own impact assessment of no deal and he claims it would be “ruinous” for our country? Does she think he is right?
Yvette Cooper
I think we should take seriously that assessment, and not just from Government Ministers but also from the CBI and the TUC, who have come together in a powerful way to say very strongly the damage that would be caused by us being simply left with no deal. Therefore many of us have been trying to make this process work and trying to come together, whether through proposals we have made through Select Committees for different Brexit policy options or the work we have done calling for consensus or putting forward indicative votes and options. A lot of work has been done but I hope we all share the view that we should avoid a no-deal Brexit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I am conscious of needing to finish. I will take just a final few interventions, as otherwise it would not be fair on those who wish to speak.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady knows I support the broad thrust of this Bill, but I am concerned that it does not say when the Prime Minister has to ask for an extension, and it also does not seem to provide for a situation where Parliament has asked her to go for an extension longer than 22 May but she does not want to do so. It does not seem to have enough teeth. Can the right hon. Lady address those points?
Yvette Cooper
It sets out that:
“On the day after the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Prime Minister must move a motion in the House of Commons”.
It also provides for the Government to be mandated by what the House has voted for. This is a two-clause Bill and that is all it is; it is very simple. It requires the Prime Minister to put the motion to Parliament proposing an extension of article 50. It asks the Prime Minister to define in the motion the length of the extension. Parliament can debate the motion and can seek to amend it in the normal way, and the conclusion is binding on the Government. The Prime Minister has to take that to the EU. If the EU Council agrees, then that is resolved; if the EU Council proposes a different date, the Bill proposes for the Prime Minister to come back to the House with a new motion.
The Bill simply provides for a simple, practical and transparent process to underpin the Prime Minister’s plan. It ensures that the extension has the support of the House of Commons, but also that we keep the parliamentary safeguard in place. So whatever is agreed by any further talks or indicative processes, or by the Prime Minister’s approach, she herself has said nothing can be implemented by 12 April. She has recognised that she cannot implement anything in only nine days, which is why the extension is needed. This is a hugely important Bill.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The right hon. Lady has clearly had conversations with senior police officers about the impact of leaving the European arrest warrant. Apparently, it takes an average of six weeks to process cases now, but that would become an average of six months. Would she like to speculate on the impact of that sort of delay on processing serious cases?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is right. I have also heard that we can access criminal records using the European Criminal Records Information System—ECRIS—in a matter of days at the moment, but that that could take weeks as a result of leaving the EU. That evidence was given to the Select Committee.
Sir William Cash
Can the right hon. Lady tell the House how long the extension will be, because that is also a matter of principle? It is not just a matter of committing to it. What does she expect the words in square brackets in the Bill to be? Three months? Nine months? Two years? Secondly, does she agree that it is extraordinary that such an extended period would cost the British taxpayer billions and billions of pounds?
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently point out that there are three Front-Bench speeches to be heard, and that a number of other hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. There is therefore a premium on brevity.
Yvette Cooper
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Bill deliberately does not specify that, because it should be for the Prime Minister to make a proposal. She has to go into the EU Council and do the negotiating. She also has to lead the process around indicative votes, so I think it is right that she should put this forward and that the House will then decide.
Yvette Cooper
I am conscious that those on the Front Benches need to speak, so I shall make my final point.
It is really important for people to come together, both as part of this process and in how we go forward, because the challenges that we face from the threat of no deal are very significant. Three years on from the referendum, the biggest problem for all of us is that so little has been done to heal the national Brexit divide or to bring people together. This is a major constitutional change, and, to be honest, if we do not make the effort to bring people together, whatever we conclude today, tomorrow or next week will not last because we will not have done the work to build consensus. We all know that there is no consensus on the best way forward at the moment—we hope we can reach it, but at the moment there is no agreement—but let us at least sustain our agreement on ruling out the worst way forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have just had a message chuntered to me from a Government Whip that the Secretary of State is content to wait for a period. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is the beneficiary.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was only just beginning to write my speech, but I shall muddle along. Needless to say, as an almost lifelong Brexit supporter, I shall be speaking against the proposal. I recognise that there are Members across the House who quite genuinely did not want to leave the European Union and who believe that the best interests of our country are served by being a member of that Union. That is a perfectly honourable position. What I find objectionable, however, is that some are quite deliberately seeking to frustrate the will of the British people that was so clearly demonstrated in June 2016. In my constituency, there was a 70% vote to leave. I am pleased about that, because I was one of them. I have campaigned long and hard to achieve this. I know I do not look old enough, but I did actually vote in the 1975 referendum, and of course I voted to leave on that occasion.
Andrew Percy
Is it not the case that many of our constituents, nearly 70% of whom voted to leave the European Union, as my hon. Friend says, now think that there is a stitch-up trying to deny the referendum result? That is a problem with Bills such as this. It is perfectly fine for people to talk about coming together, but when legislation proposed by people on the other side of the campaign would deny a way of leaving the EU, our constituents will only feel that this place is more out of touch with them and that this is all one massive stitch-up.
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right in his analysis.
Moving on, some people argue for a second referendum, or a so-called people’s vote, as if the people did not vote on the first occasion.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I am not my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, but I thank him for letting me intervene. I agree that we had a people’s vote in 2016. I campaigned and voted for remain, but we must respect the vote and get on with leaving the European Union. However, many Labour Members are thwarting that even though they campaigned on a manifesto commitment to leave the European Union.
Martin Vickers
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Although he is not my neighbour, he is of course welcome to visit Cleethorpes at any time. He will be made most welcome.
I was moving on to talk about a second referendum and the uncertainty and division that it would cause. I ask those Members who think that it would resolve the issue what would happen if a rerun with 16.4 million people voting remain led to them winning on a lower turnout. Would that satisfy the 17.4 million who voted to leave in 2016? Of course not. The uncertainty and division would continue, and we would be battling on for another 20 or 30 years about our future in Europe.
We must remember that the 2016 referendum was, to a great extent, an emotional vote. We had “Project Fear” telling the people that they would be worse off and that taxes would rise within days—hours, even—of a decision. However, the people said, “That’s fine. Let’s look at that.” We did not want to leave because of some potential downturn in our economy; it was a cultural issue. Our history, our structure of government, our Parliament and our judicial processes are all different, and we were having to make more and more changes to our established processes.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The vote itself was on our membership of the EU. It was not about our future relationship. All those emotional matters may well have been sold to the people during the campaign, but the vote itself was about our membership, so it cannot be prayed in aid when considering how our future relationship should be shaped.
Martin Vickers
Needless to say, I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend. The people voted to leave the structure of the economic union, and they wanted to slam the door closed. They wanted a clean break. They were not thinking about our future relationship; they said, “We’ve had enough of the existing relationship.”
Mr Baron
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure he will agree that in addition to the emotion the people were proved right, because despite the predictions of doom and gloom in 2016, the economic reality since is that we have had a strong period of growth, and those investment decisions have been made in the full knowledge that we could be leaving with no deal on WTO terms.
Martin Vickers
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
They made that decision to leave, and they expected us to leave—they certainly expected us to be leaving in a lot less than three years. It has been suggested that if we go back and rerun the referendum, people will change their mind because of the economic arguments and so on. The reality is very different. We should recognise, as I recall the Attorney General saying on one of his outings in the House on this issue, that this has now come down to a political decision, and the political decision should follow the result of the referendum. There would be an enormous backlash against not just the party in power but the political classes if we are not seen to walk through the door before us marked “exit.”
I urge the House to vote against Second Reading and to continue the battle. If we end up with no deal, so be it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I encourage colleagues to make speeches not exceeding three minutes. In fact, there will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. The Front Benchers are going to be encouraged to be extremely brief. Lots of people want to speak and there is very little time.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I lend my support to this important Bill, which is a vital safety net to ensure that we do not crash out with no deal next week and that we have enough time to find a constructive way forward.
Many others have already spoken passionately about the impact that a no deal would have on business and on the most vulnerable. Of course, a no deal would hit the poorest communities hardest. I want to say a few words about two things. First, I think we would put the Good Friday agreement at risk if we did not pass this Bill, and we would risk greater insecurity and tension in Northern Ireland, which would be a criminal thing to do. I am inordinately shocked, even knowing what I know, that 14 members of the Cabinet appear to be positively enthusiastic about leaving with no deal—I cannot think of anything more irresponsible.
Secondly, a no deal would be a disaster for our environment. It would lead to a huge governance gap. Not only would we not have the environmental policies that have been key to protecting our environment in this country and that have come from Brussels, but we would also lack the crucial enforcement agencies.
Caroline Lucas
I will not give way because I have been told that I have only three minutes.
There are huge further concerns about a no deal, crossing everything from security to medicines, fissile materials and pharmaceuticals. We often hear from Conservative Members that, somehow, crashing out of the EU would make it easier for us to make trade deals. If other countries are considering whether we are a potentially trustworthy partner, would they really want to conduct a trade deal with a partner that has crashed out of the EU and has presumably not even paid its divorce bill? I think it would make us look incredibly untrustworthy.
Finally, let us not have all this stuff about there being some kind of stitch-up to prevent us from leaving the EU. Conservative Members cannot possibly say what was in the minds of those who voted leave nearly three years ago. What we do know is that, in fact, those who voted leave represented 37% of the electorate, it was nearly three years ago and a no deal was not on the ballot paper. How on earth can we take such far-reaching action, which would cause so much damage to our constituents and our environment, on the basis of little over a third of the electorate nearly three years ago?
At the very least, this has to go back to the people. We cannot possibly pretend to be acting in their name unless we have the courtesy to go back and check that this is what they meant. Frankly, from everything I know from speaking to people across the country, they did not mean for the amount of devastation and destruction that would be caused to this country by crashing out of the EU with no deal, which is why this Bill is so important.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I find it very strange, this condescending view that, “People did not know what they were voting for first time around, so we are going to give them a second vote. If we don’t like that result, we will give them a third and a fourth.” It is complete nonsense.
Mr Baron
No. Mr Speaker has told us to be brief, and I will be brief.
I ask the House to reflect for a moment and use moderation when it comes to this issue of so-called crashing out or falling off a cliff by leaving on no-deal WTO terms. I gently remind the House that in 2016 there were lots of dire predictions about what would happen if we voted to leave. We had predictions from the trade bodies, the business organisations and the Government—the Treasury Front Benchers. We had predictions of 500,000 extra unemployed by Christmas 2016, and the CBI came out with a figure of 950,000 extra unemployed within a couple of years. They all proved to be wrong, so much so that the Bank of England had to apologise.
What has happened since? We have had record low unemployment, record inward investment and record manufacturing output. I suggest to the House that the reason for that is that economic reality, trade and comparative advantage trump predictions. When we talk about comparative advantage, factors such as how low our corporation tax rates are compared with those in other countries, how much more flexible our labour markets are, our financial expertise, which is unrivalled—certainly within Europe—our research and development, and our top universities are more important, in aggregate, than WTO tariffs and leaving with no deal. The proof of the pudding is in the economic reality. We would all agree that a low unemployment rate is terribly important, as high unemployment is one of the social evils in our society, and our unemployment rate is nearly half that of the EU average. That is the issue in point. We trade with many countries outside the EU, very profitably, on WTO, no-deal terms, so I suggest to the House that if we want to respect the referendum result, the triggering of article 50 and our election manifestos, we should be leaving the EU on 12 April on no-deal, WTO terms if we cannot agree a deal before then.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I wish to say a few words about a conversation I had earlier today with business representatives from, among other places, Northern Ireland, who were worried—
Tom Brake
Absolutely. This was specifically about the impact of no deal—this Bill is clearly about ruling out the possibility of no deal—and the concerns of these businesses about the impact of VAT being applied. They went much beyond that in terms of the impact of no deal on Northern Ireland, extending to, for example, security and the issue that I referred to earlier—the European arrest warrant. No deal would have an effect on labelling; there would be uncertainties as to whether a company that manufactures here but also has shops in other parts of Europe would need to change its labelling. Clearly, the impact of no deal goes far beyond some of the issues that have been raised today. I hope that this Bill will provide clarity on the extension. I am open about believing that the extension needs to be a lengthy one, of the sort businesses were talking to me about earlier today. That is one way of ruling out no deal.
Finally, I wish to mention something related to the point made by the spokesperson for the Greens, on the legitimacy of the vote of three years ago. Trade union legislation requires ballots to be rerun after six months to ensure that they are valid and that the views expressed in a ballot six months earlier remain valid six months on. Clearly, that could equally apply to a ballot that took place three years ago. I hope that we will allow this Bill to proceed through its Second Reading. I know that we have a number of amendments in Committee, one of which applies to a people’s vote. I hope that we will get to debate that shortly, too.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I support the Bill for this reason: we are seeing the revisionism of history by European Research Group members, who claim that 17.4 million people voted for no deal. That was not on the ballot paper; what was on the ballot paper was our membership of the EU.
Many of us in the House triggered article 50 on the basis that we were saying to the EU that we would not remain a full member, but wanted a new relationship, one that might look like Norway or Switzerland, or to be in EFTA. That is what Vote Leave campaigned for on the campaign trail, and its electoral registration made it absolutely clear that the decision on the future relationship would be up to Parliament. Voters were voting to leave the political institutions of the EU—out of the European Court of Justice and the ever closer union—but not ruling out the single market or the customs union.
Why has this House ruled out no deal? That is because we have faced the reality of what leaving with no deal would look like. We are due to do that in just over a week, with no process in place. If we are to change that, we need to change the law. Parliament has voted by 400 votes to 160 against no deal. The Bill is not undemocratic; it implements that decision. We have not ruled out leaving the EU, and are still leaving other options open for our future relationship.
I have supported the Prime Minister’s deal three times. I have voted on behalf of my constituents to implement their decision in the referendum. The problem is the hard core of ideological WTO-ers who want to hold this House and the country to ransom. Distressed businesses in my constituency are saying that we must resolve this.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am sorry, my hon. Friend has spoken many times.
Distressed employers in my constituency who are responsible for thousands of employees want a resolution. The Bill will give Parliament a proper say, in the event that we cannot get a resolution in the timeframes currently set out. Far from being undemocratic, this is about putting a process in place that allows us to implement a decision and to have time to look at the best way in which to implement our future relationship with the Europe. That is why I shall be voting for the Bill.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who has been one of the voices of sanity from the Government Benches throughout this debacle. Others, I am afraid, are living in cloud cuckoo land if they still believe that no deal will not be a disaster for the economy of these islands.
My constituency has the second biggest financial sector in the United Kingdom; two major universities, Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh Napier; and many businesses, small and large, which are concerned about the impact of a no-deal Brexit. And of course my constituents did not vote for Brexit at all: 72% of them voted to remain in the European Union.
I therefore support the general principle of the Bill. It has some serious shortcomings, but it is all that we have at the moment—our only insurance policy against a no-deal Brexit. I would have preferred to have seen something with far more teeth in it, such as my proposal on Monday, and I have a number of questions about the Bill that have yet to be answered.
I am worried that the Bill does not say when the Prime Minister has to ask for an extension of time. The European Council is next Wednesday, but the Bill does not state specifically whether she has to ask before then or on the day. What happens if the European Council gives us an extension with conditions attached, such as with a longer extension? Or what happens if the Prime Minister will not contemplate extending beyond 22 May when Parliament has forced her to ask for a longer extension? The Bill seems to imply that she could sit on her hands. The Bill is ripe for a bit of amendment, and the SNP will certainly table some if we get to that stage.
Mr Speaker
I will call both remaining Back-Bench Members, but each will have no more than two minutes. The hon. Gentlemen must be reseated by 6.50 pm.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I shall be very brief indeed; I want to make a point to which I have referred before. As my European Scrutiny Committee report made clear back in March last year, this entire process is being driven by the guidelines and the Government and Prime Minister’s humiliating supplication to the European Union. That is true and clear. Furthermore, I point out the reversal of the position at Chequers, where the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which had been overtaken by events, was, on a pre-planned basis, turned into a new arrangement that became the withdrawal agreement.
My final point is this: there is profound humiliation for the British people in our being required to do what the EU says. The Bill will ensure that the EU dictates the terms. As Sir Paul Lever, I and others have made clear over the years, things will be decided by Germany in the Council of Ministers and the European Council. Sir Paul says, as do I, that this is a German Europe, run by Germany; that is the bottom line, and that will be the case in relation to this decision as well.
Mr Speaker
Well, that is one of the shortest speeches the hon. Gentleman has ever delivered in the Chamber.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I will not support the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, because it means delay without end. Business wants certainty above all. I do not believe all the scare stories; sadly, the Treasury has been proved wrong in most of its assessments of Brexit. This Bill will simply be the water torture of endless delay.
I base my decision on two points. First, we have to honour the referendum result. That means voting for Brexit. I do so because the country voted for it; because my Island, the Isle of Wight, voted for it; and because the best way of improving the reputation of politics is for politicians to do what we said we would. The problem is that we are not doing that. This chaos is self-induced by people who do not want Brexit.
Secondly, we have to live in the real world, and that means accepting that this Parliament has a remain majority. It has been obvious for months that we would not get no deal through, and while I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and many other Brexiteer colleagues, I cannot think of a more perfect example of snatching defeat from the jaws of an acceptable victory. There has never been a chance of getting no deal through, as we are finding out.
We are not theologians. We need to cut a deal, not philosophise on the nature of Brexit perfection.
Mr Seely
Thank you. I am flattered to have been criticised by Members on both sides; I know I am right.
I do not think the deal is too bad, and a vote on alternatives in a Strictly Come Brexit dance-off next week would be another well-meaning shambles. It is truly obvious—at this stage, mind-numbingly, stupefyingly obvious—that if we want to leave with a deal, we should vote for one.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
On 18 July 2018, the SNP became the first party in this Parliament to call for an extension of the article 50 deadline. The need for a real extension is more urgent now than it was then. Although we have a number of concerns about the wording of the Bill, we will compromise on those concerns just now, and support it. Hopefully, we can improve it at the next stage.
The Government are still trying to blackmail the House by insisting that the choice is between the Prime Minister’s rotten deal and no deal at all. That claim is simply not true; revocation is still an option. We hope to amend the Bill to make that perfectly clear. I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for the part she played in confirming that point in a court case on which Her Majesty’s Government spent £150,000 of our money; they sent lawyers to the European Court just to tell it that the Government did not have a view on the matter under discussion, which seemed a good use of money.
Ironically, in the long term, possibly the best way to get the Brexit that people actually voted for would be to stop this insane process and start all over again before it is too late. I was disappointed that Labour did not fully support a motion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) put forward that would have done that. I hope that Labour accepts that that was a mistake, and will support a similar motion if they get the chance. Our concern is that the Bill leaves too much in the hands of a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted to get anything right; we will seek to get that amended as well.
We need a clear reason for the extension, and that will dictate how long the extension has to be. Our preference would be for an extension to allow a people’s vote—not a rerun of the 2016 referendum, but a different vote on a different question. If the Government were confident that their withdrawal agreement had the support of the people, they would not run away so quickly from the chance to give people a say.
Earlier this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber held up a copy of “Scotland’s Place in Europe” in the House, and it was howled down by the Conservatives. They can laugh at it, but Scotland’s place is in Europe, and Scotland will retain its proper place as a full, sovereign member of the family of European nations.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for their work on the Bill, and the way in which they introduced both the business motion and the Bill to the House.
Labour supports the Bill because it is necessary to fulfil the wishes of the House, which has voted down the Prime Minister’s deal on three occasions and has also voted against leaving without a deal on three occasions.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend think of another time when the TUC and the CBI have both been as emphatic as they have been about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit?
Paul Blomfield
I cannot, and that underlines the importance of this Bill, which provides for the further extension of article 50, which is now inevitable. The Bill offers a legislative framework through which the House can have an effective role in the process of determining that extension.
Clearly, the Bill sits in the new context of the Prime Minister’s statement late last night, in which she said that she was seeking talks with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Those talks have now begun. We welcome what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) described as a “late conversion to compromise”, although we regret the damage that has been done to the economy and the credibility of this House by the Prime Minister not compromising sooner. It is an approach that she should have adopted long ago.
The Prime Minister could have adopted this approach almost three years ago, after the referendum, when the country decided by a painfully narrow margin to leave the EU, but not to rupture our relations with our closest neighbours, key allies and most important trading partners. She could have done so after the election, when she went to the country saying that Parliament was obstructing her and seeking a mandate for a hard Brexit, but lost her majority and failed to get the mandate. She could also have done so on any of the three occasions when her deal was defeated by the House, but she chose not to. We have consistently called on the Prime Minister to reach out to the sensible majority in the House and to unite the country, recognising that the people of this country include both the 52% and the 48%. But better late than never.
We also welcome the way in which the Prime Minister distanced herself last night from those kamikaze colleagues who, as she said,
“would like to leave with No Deal next week.”
The House has expressed its clear view on leaving without a deal, and this Bill provides the legislative lock to ensure that the will of our sovereign Parliament is not frustrated. It also provides for the flexibility to ensure that we can accommodate whatever comes from the discussions between our parties and across the House over the next few days.
We have set out clearly the framework on which we will be seeking the compromise that the Prime Minister talked about last night: a permanent and comprehensive customs union; close alignment with the single market; dynamic alignment on rights and protections; clear commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements. We have also been clear in our support for a confirmatory public vote on any deal that comes about at this very late stage. We look forward to the further discussions on these issues, and we are pleased to give our full backing to this Bill.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
We will oppose this Bill. It is being passed in haste, and the fact that we have a time limit of two minutes for a number of speeches this evening is an indication of the fact that the Bill is being passed in haste. It is constitutionally irregular and, frankly, it fails to understand the decision-making process by which any discussion of an extension or agreement of an extension at the European Council will be reached. I will come to that in the limited time I have in which to speak.
It is not just me who has concerns about the Bill on behalf of the Government. Objections to the Bill have been raised by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker); and the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). All have raised concerns about the Bill—particularly the fact that it is being rushed through in such short order—and indeed about the precedent it sets for this and successive Governments.
The Bill also calls into question the royal prerogative. It has been a long-standing practice that Heads of Government can enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that would constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. Let me give an example of how such constraints could have adverse effects and, in particular, given that the House has voted against no deal, how the Bill could increase the risk of an accidental no-deal exit. On Wednesday 10 April the European Council could propose an extension of an alternative length, yet under the Bill the Prime Minister would then have to return on Thursday 11 April to put that proposal to the House. However, by 11 April the European Council will have concluded and the leaders will have returned to their member states. We would then need to confirm the UK’s agreement to the European Council’s decision and get its approval for that by 11 pm on 12 April.
At the heart of this is the fact that last Friday the House voted against the withdrawal agreement, which was the only legal right the House had to an extension to 22 May, which, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, was at the heart of your decision to grant that vote, because, as the Attorney General set out, that was an additional right bestowed on the House as a result of the previous European Council. We have no automatic right to a legal extension. That right was forgone as a result of the House’s decision last Friday. Yet the Bill would put the House in the position of having to agree after the European Council has concluded and the leaders have returned to their member states.
Stephen Barclay
It is not usually my practice to quote from The Guardian, but I suspect that it is the right hon. Gentleman’s newspaper of choice. We all remember its front-page headline, “No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No”—it was quoted by many EU leaders—because this House failed to agree on the various options.
The Prime Minister has sought to compromise. Indeed, part of the challenge she has had with her deal is the fact that people on both wings of the debate feel that it is too much of a compromise. She has sought to compromise in the national interest, reflecting the fact, as Members have said, that 48% of the public did not vote to leave. That is why she reached out to the Leader of the Opposition, but for several weeks he refused to meet her. Indeed, he even refused to meet just because the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) happened to be in the room, which was apparently beyond the pale. I am pleased that today I was able to join the Prime Minister at a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition.
The fact that the House has consistently voted for what it is against, rather than what it is for, and indeed its decision on Friday not to approve the withdrawal agreement, is the very essence of running down the clock, because it waived our right to an extension to 22 May and therefore allowed an extension only to 12 April. It is very odd for the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), having voted for that reduction in time, now to complain about it.
We are passing the Bill in haste and do not have adequate time to debate it in the manner that I would like us to—there is only one minute left on the clock. There are problems with the speed of its passage, the constitutional principle of it and the way it will interact with any decision reached by the Council that differs from the earlier decision taken by the House. I hope that the constitutional experts in the other place will address some of the Bill’s flaws. It is because of those defects that the Government will oppose the Bill, and I urge Members to oppose this defective Bill.
Mr Speaker
Under the Order of the House of today we shall now move to Committee of the whole House.
Mr Speaker
Yes, I will take the point of order before we go into Committee.
Sir William Cash
I have just been to the Vote Office and, most unfortunately, for some reason that we cannot understand, the copy of the Bill we should be getting actually malfunctioned in some way or another, so, as I understand it, it cannot be obtained from the Vote Office.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that a Bill is itself capable of malfunction. My imagination, which is quite vivid, is being stretched. It may well be that there has been some malfunction that has caused the absence of the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see and of which he would want a copy. That is unfortunate and I hope the matter can be speedily remedied. [Interruption.] I have just been advised—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—that it was the amendment paper that was not forthcoming. However, I gather that honour is served. The amendment paper is here, the Chairman of Ways and Means is in his place, he has made his selection and the House is going to hear it.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Wednesday 3rd April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
21:54 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 400 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:26 - The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 123 / Noes: 488 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:47 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 509 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I must inform the Committee that I have selected the amendments and new clauses as grouped with clauses stand part on the selection paper available in the Vote Office. My provisional grouping and selection of amendments is now available. There will be one group with votes at the end, by 10 pm at the latest, on the lead amendment on which the question has been proposed from the Chair; other amendments to clause 1 selected for separate decision; clause 1 stand part; any amendments to clause 2 selected for separate decision; clause 2 stand part; and any new clauses selected for separate decision.
I am not going to enter into a debate about my reasons for selecting or not selecting amendments and new clauses to this very narrow, single-topic Bill. We start with amendment 13, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendments to clause 1, clause 1 stand part, amendments to clause 2, clause 2 stand part and new clauses.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. Unfortunately, with the noise of people entering and leaving the Chamber, I did not catch which amendments had been selected, and I wonder whether you could clarify that for the Committee.
The Chairman
They are amendment 13, amendment 20, amendment 21, Government amendment 22, amendment 1, clause 1 stand part, amendment 14, amendment 6, clause 2 stand part, new clause 4, new clause 5, new clause 7 and Government new clause 13. I hope that that helps the Committee. [Interruption.] Somebody just won the bingo call.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. For the benefit of the Committee, is the grouping available for Members?
The Chairman
I thought it was available, and it should be available. If not, it is still being done. I think the problem we have got is that with the tight timescale, we are trying to play catch-up a little bit. That is why I am trying to help.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. Thank you for repeating the list of amendments that have been selected. Could I ask you to repeat them again a little bit more slowly, because we could not get through the amendment paper fast enough?
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. Would it not make sense to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes to make sure that all Members present can have a copy of the amendments and the selection list that you have spoken about?
The Chairman
I am just trying to see if we can get an indication of where we are up to with the printing and duplication, and why the lists have not been handed out. Nothing is yet forthcoming. Rather than suspend, I will repeat the list and see whether we can make progress with the numbers. The amendments that have been selected are 13, 20—
The Chairman
We have already had that joke, Mr Linden. Repeat jokes do not count. The other items on the selection list are amendment 21, Government amendment 22, amendment 1, clause 1 stand part, amendment 14, amendment 6, clause 2 stand part, new clause 4, new clause 5, new clause 7 and Government new clause 13. For the benefit of the Committee, I will run through it once more: amendment 13, amendment 20, amendment 21, Government amendment 22, amendment 1, clause 1 stand part, amendment 14, amendment 6, clause 2 stand part, new clause 4, new clause 5, new clause 7 and Government new clause 13. Does that help Members?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. Thank you for clarifying which amendments you have selected. Will you just be absolutely clear on how they have been grouped? Are we debating them all as one large group or in separate groups?
The Chairman
As one single group and, as I said, we will take all the votes at the end. That should help the Committee. Are there any other issues?
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. There are no more lists of amendments available from the Vote Office. Can you ask that more are made available urgently so that Members are able to have some?
The Chairman
Yes, we are trying to get the lists as quickly as possible, and we are playing a bit of catch-up. We know where we need to start and we could make a start while the documents are being distributed. We are up against it a bit with time. I want to see who wishes to speak, so I am looking around the Chamber to see who will stand.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. In the spirit of the new regime of bringing the whole House together on these difficult matters, and while you are waiting to get these amendments circulated, I thought it would be helpful if I was to let the House know that the Grand National will be won by a horse called Tiger Roll. [Laughter.]
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. To be helpful and while we are awaiting the formal written list, could you advise us at what stage you will take Third Reading before 10 o’clock? It would be interesting to know how long we have to discuss the amendments, which will be forthcoming shortly.
The Chairman
If the Committee takes up all the time, there will be no Third Reading. That is up to the Committee, which is why I want to make progress and get to some of the speeches. I am looking around to see who wishes to speak.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. I think you just called amendment 13. In the selection list, it says “Yvette Cooper”. As it happens, I have here a list of tabled amendments and amendment 13 is in my name.
The Chairman
Just to help the House, on my sheet of paper, which we are working to, amendment 13 is in the name of Yvette Cooper.
With amendment 13 it will be convenient to consider:
Amendment 20, page 1, line 11, at end add
“, and that date shall be no later than 30 June 2019.”
Amendment 21, page 1, line 21, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
Amendment 22, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“() Nothing in this section prevents a Minister of the Crown from seeking, or agreeing to, an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union otherwise than in accordance with this section.”
This amendment ensures that the Bill does not limit the powers that a Minister of the Crown would otherwise have to seek, or agree to, an extension of the Article 50(3) period.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(8) But the Prime Minister may not agree to any extension of the Article 50 period proposed by the European Council which is later than 22 May 2019.”
Clause stand part.
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “2018 Act” and insert
“the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.
This clarifies the title of the previous Act being referred to.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 7, leave out from “force” to end of line 7 and insert
“subject to the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales, on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint.”
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 4—Amendability of motions—
‘Any motion brought forward under section 1(1) in the form set out in section 1(2) may be amended in line with section 1(3) only to include a date.’
This new Clause would prevent further amendments to standing orders etc.
New clause 5—Amendability of motions (No. 2)—
‘Any motion brought forward under section 1(1) in the form set out in section 1(2) may be amended in line with section 1(3) only to include a date no later than 22 May 2019.’
This new Clause would prevent further amendments to standing orders or business of the House of Commons etc and impose a maximum duration of the extension period.
New clause 7—European Elections—
‘No extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union may be agreed by the Prime Minister if as a result the United Kingdom would be required to prepare for or to hold elections to the European Parliament.’
New clause 13—Procedure for ensuring domestic legislation matches Article 50 extension—
‘In paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (regulations amending the definition of “exit day” to be subject to approval by each House of Parliament) for the words from “may” to “each” substitute “is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either”.’
This new clause changes the procedure for regulations, under section 20(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, altering the definition of “exit day” from affirmative to negative procedure.
Yvette Cooper
If I may, I will briefly speak to the drafting amendments in my name and that of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I will respond to the other amendments at a later stage in the debate, once other hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak to their amendments.
These are two minor drafting amendments. The first simply corrects something in clause 1, page 1, line 6—instead of referring to “section 2”, it should refer to “section 1”. The second amendment—amendment 14—would ensure that rather than referring to the “2018 Act”, the Bill would properly refer to
“the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.
These are simply for clarification.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I looked through the right hon. Lady’s Bill last night and at the drafting of clause 1(2). I had not seen her proposed amendment, but is this not the difficulty of trying to make law on the hoof? We have had only 55 minutes for Second Reading and there is a most obvious drafting error in her original Bill. There was a simple mistake, getting the section wrong, and reading through it I simply did not understand at all which Bill she was referring to. Does this not show the danger, with such an important constitutional change, of trying to make law on the hoof?
Yvette Cooper
Sadly, this is the consequence of us being nine days away from Brexit day. That is not a situation that any of us wanted to be in—to have the clock run down this far—with no agreement in place. The Prime Minister did not put any withdrawal agreement to Parliament until January, and it has been put back several times since then, so we have not had a clear plan. That is the situation we are in.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. It may help the House. I have just inquired in the Vote Office, and the correct amendment paper, the one that we should be looking at, is the one with 15 printed pages. There has been some confusion, which would explain the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
Stephen Doughty
I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend was saying before the point of order. Have we not all been in Committees dealing with Government legislation when the Government have tabled at every stage, every day, tens or even hundreds of amendments, even before that legislation goes to the other place? Does she agree that the couple of minor things that have been spotted and are being addressed on this occasion are nothing in comparison with what the Government normally do?
Yvette Cooper
I do agree, and I would add that the intent and provisions of this Bill are extremely simple. We understand that, because of the timescale, the Government will ask us to make decisions on some very big things in the next couple of days before the European Council.
Sir William Cash
Not only is the numbering of the amendments wrong, but I am afraid that the amendment to which the right hon. Lady seems to be referring now—her amendment 13—is itself rubbish. It reads:
“leave out ‘section 2’ and insert ‘section 1’”.
Unfortunately, that does not help anyone, for a very simple reason. The Bill refers to section 2. If the amendment is passed, that will be referred to as section 1
“of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019”.
What is that Act? I thought that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act was passed in 2018.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would recognise that that is a reference to the Act that the Bill will become should it pass into law.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Let me clarify the position. There are two references to two different Acts. There is one reference in clause 1(2) to the 2019 Act that this Bill will become, and another reference in clause 2(1), to the Act passed last year.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Ind)
In a way, I rise to speak to all the amendments, which are supposed to relate to the duties to be exercised under the Bill. However, one duty in particular has been omitted from both the Bill and all the selected amendments.
I know that the views that I shall express are supported by the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and others. We argue that there should be attached to the intention of the Bill the purpose for which it is sought. The European Council has made it absolutely clear that the UK will not necessarily be granted an extension for a general purpose, and that we shall need to specify what we wish to have the extension for. On a number of occasions, senior officials of the various EU institutions have made it clear that they would grant an extension for the purpose of a people’s vote, but no such purpose is referred to in any of the amendments that have been selected, or in the Bill itself.
It is all well and good to argue against no deal—and that, we have been told, lies behind the Bill—but it is clear that if Members wish to be sure of securing the extension to stop no deal, particularly those who will not entertain revocation of article 50, there needs to be a duty not only to request an extension, but to request it for the purpose of what will lead to our being granted the extension that we require, namely a people’s vote.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)
Is this not even more serious given that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are cooking up some plan today that also does not refer to the people’s vote?
Chuka Umunna
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This is so important and we have been brought to this point because our democracy is deadlocked. We are faced with a perfect storm created by a clash of mandates: we are trying to work our way through dealing with a clash of mandates between views expressed by a majority of people who participated in a referendum in 2016 and views expressed in a general election which has led to a hung Parliament and the chaos in this House of Commons.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that we would have to produce a reason for wanting an extension, but does he agree that the reason that would command wide support here is so that we could clarify the political declaration and develop the ideas of some sort of customs arrangement and some sort of regulatory alignment mapping out our future relationship? Does he agree that most of the European nations would welcome that development, and probably a very long extension to the end of 2021 would be quite readily available?
Chuka Umunna
I do not disagree at all with the Father of the House. I think a long extension would be preferable. I do not think there is anything for us to fear in terms of European elections. After all that is called democracy and at least it means more of our constituents can get involved in this process. In terms of the different elements of this Bill and the duties we are seeking to impose on the Government, it has been said that to find a way forward through all of this requires compromise. As I have said, I believe there should be a duty in this Bill for the Government to seek an extension in order to provide for a people’s vote. Why do those of us who argue for a people’s vote want a people’s vote? We do so because we want to give the British people the ability to take a different course, and in so doing there is compromise. The easy thing to do if we wanted to stop Brexit from happening would be to simply ignore the 2016 result.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Obviously the scope of this debate is quite tight and I am going to allow some flexibility in the discussion, but we do not want to concentrate on something that is not even down on the Order Paper tonight. So by all means I will allow some freedom, but we should not open up the debate too far.
Chuka Umunna
I take your point, Sir Lindsay, but all this goes to the duties in the Bill, and there is a glaring omission from the Bill and the selected amendments.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)
My hon. Friend’s points are particularly relevant to new clauses 4 and 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) which seek, I believe artificially, to restrict the nature of amendments that could be placed in relation to any motion on an extension. It is very relevant to new clauses 4 and 5 for us on this side of the House to say “No, there should be greater latitude for the sort of issues to come into that.”
The Chairman
Order. I think in fairness that it is my judgment that we will take. Thank you for your advice, but actually it will be the opposite way, not the way the hon. Gentleman is trying to open up. I have said I will allow flexibility, but I am not going to allow discussion on matters that are not part of tonight’s debate.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman realises something about his amendment: I would be very happy to see it inserted because I think it would immediately mean a money resolution would be needed, so I give him good encouragement.
Chuka Umunna
I wish my amendment had been selected, but my point is that the purpose for which the extension is sought is not stated as being necessary in the duties of this Bill.
I apologise, Sir Lindsay, if you do not believe I am speaking strictly to the amendments. Part of the challenge raised is the way we are conducting this debate given the fact that we are trying to do justice to the Committee stage of this Bill having only discovered your selection shortly before.
The Chairman
I should say to the hon. Gentleman that, in fairness, I too only got it minutes before, so it is much harder for both of us to try to deal with this.
Chuka Umunna
Absolutely; I was just making an observation.
Ultimately, there is a need for compromise, and we are at that stage in the process where I think that that is what the public expects. Introducing a provision within the duties in the Bill for the Government to seek an extension for the purpose of a people’s vote is, I would argue, a compromise, in part because there are ways of carrying out a people’s vote that would take account of all the different views in this House. That would involve compromise. For example, we do not like the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement or the framework for the future relationship, but we would be prepared not to stand in the way of them if they were put to a confirmatory vote.
I shall finish by explaining why I was so keen to crowbar these points into the debate. If we do not address these points, and if, through a backroom deal, we ignore the fact that a people’s vote is not provided for in the duties of the Bill, what are we saying to the 1 million people who marched on the streets of this city? What are we saying to the 2 million young people who now have a say on this whole issue but did not have a say three years ago? What are we saying to the 6 million people who signed a parliamentary petition arguing for a revocation, in frustration that a people’s vote might not happen? And what are we saying to the majority of people in this country who certainly did not vote for this mess? That is why it is important, if we are going to seek an extension, that we make it clear that we want to do so primarily to give those people a voice so that they get a final say on whether we go ahead with this disaster or whether we seek to change our country in a different fashion.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I thank the House of Commons Clerks for the immense amount of work they have put in to ensure that we have these amendments in order and ready to be debated. This is clearly a rather unprecedented type of Bill to bring before Parliament. In common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), I have been somewhat supportive of the attempts by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to create space on the House’s agenda to discuss indicative votes. Indeed, I have tabled amendments of my own during the debates on those votes, and I abstained on a business of the House motion to enable those votes to take place. I did not do that today, however, because like my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I believe that this is a very different reason for taking control of the House.
I rise to speak to my two amendments: amendments 20 and 21. Amendment 20 seeks to add to subsection (3) of clause 1 a maximum date of 30 June 2019 to that elected by the Government. Amendment 21 would delete altogether subsections (6) and (7) of clause 1, which make provision for how the House would deal with a situation in which the European Union had rejected an approach by the Government to seek an extension and had instead made a counter-offer. My reason for tabling both those amendments is that, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, this legislation is indeed rushed. We all have our views on the reason for that, and we are indeed at the eleventh hour of the process of leaving the European Union. That means that this is an unusual Bill, in that it seeks to bind the hands of the Government on a decision that would normally be a matter of prerogative power and a matter for the Executive to take to negotiations in international forums. Both amendments recognise the fact that the Bill has now had its Second Reading and is therefore in play, but they nevertheless seek to place a restriction on its scope and power.
While any date can be placed in a motion under clause 1(2), amendment 20 seeks a maximum of 30 June 2019, making it impossible for the Government, or someone else by amendment, to set a date beyond that. That is an important principle given the rushed nature of this legislation. It would enable both this House or the Government to seek a short extension, as the Prime Minister has already indicated she would, but it would prevent this House or the Government from electing for a long extension, which might effectively lead to the revocation of article 50.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I want to pick up on a comment the hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. As I understand it, amendment 21 would delete subsections (6) and (7) and amendment 20 seeks a maximum extension length of 30 June 2019, but subsection (5) would remain. On my reading of the Bill, that would allow the House to amend the 30 June date that he seeks to insist is the latest date that the Prime Minister could put in any motion provided for under subsection (2). Will he just clarify whether that would be the result of his amendments?
George Eustice
Well, we have all had a little time to look at the Bill, but my understanding is that amendment 20 would insert a maximum time limit and that subsection (5) would then be subject to it. Subsection (3) makes explicit reference to subsection (2), which relates to the motion that would be before the House. I think the consequence of amendment 20 would be to include a limit of the 30 June, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman says about subsection (5).
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. That would not be my interpretation, because subsection (5) states:
“If the motion in the form set out in subsection (2) for the purposes of subsection(1) is agreed to with an amendment”,
meaning an amendment to the date that the Prime Minister has asked for, which clearly shows that the motion that the Prime Minister would move is amendable. Therefore, if the House decided to include a date different from 30 June 2019, that is what the Prime Minister would have to seek in her discussions with the European Union.
George Eustice
I do not agree, because subsection (3), as amended by amendment 20, would mean that it would not be possible to have a date in a motion under subsection (2) that went beyond 30 June, because subsection (3) would make it explicit that the date could be no later.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Without wishing to cause a row with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I agree with the interpretation of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It has always been the case in this place that a motion cannot trump legislation, so the Bill would have primacy if the motion included a date that was later than that on the face of the Bill. While I understand my right hon. Friend’s misinterpretation, I would interpret the Bill in the same way as the hon. Gentleman.
George Eustice
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Subsection (3) would have to not exist for the point of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to be valid. Amendment 20 would amend subsection (3) and therefore change the terms under which subsection (2) could be exercised, which would in turn have a direct impact on the reading of subsection (5).
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I want to test amendment 20 slightly, because it is not dissimilar to an amendment that has been selected in my name. How did my hon. Friend pick 30 June 2019? How does that offer clarity on what he wants to achieve?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think I chose that date primarily because the Prime Minister initially suggested that she may seek a short extension until, say, June. We all recognise the issues with the European elections and that if we were to go for a long extension, we would have to consider whether to fight those elections and start fielding candidates. My own view is that, by selecting 30 June as a maximum, the amendment would not preclude the Government from choosing a date of, say, 22 May, but if, for instance, it were thought necessary to go slightly longer, to go to 30 June, it would be open to all parties, both the UK Government and the European Union, to have a conversation about whether it is indeed necessary to hold European elections in this country, given it would be only a short extension for another month.
I am aware that the British civil service has considered whether, in a short-term, interim arrangement, it might be possible to send delegates from this House to represent the UK in the European Parliament.
Mike Gapes
Is it not a fact that the European Union has made it absolutely clear that the maximum extension available—an extension has to be agreed, unlike a revocation—is to 22 May, unless there is a long extension of potentially 21 months or more? In those circumstances, we would have to fight the European elections. If the hon. Gentleman’s proposal were agreed, it is unlikely to be accepted by the European Union, which could lead to us crashing out with no deal.
George Eustice
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that amendment 20 is generous to the Government and would give them the option, should they believe it necessary under EU law, to set a date of 22 May under subsection (2), but if it were felt necessary by all parties, including the European Union, that—in order to get a withdrawal agreement over the line—an extra month would be needed beyond May, it is not beyond the wit of man to do so and to put arrangements in place so it would not be necessary for us to hold European elections in this country.
I would further contend that one of the biggest problems we have had throughout this negotiation is a tendency to get over-obsessed with the intricacies of so-called European law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently told me of a meeting he had had with Ministers from other European countries, at which they made the point that, if the politics require it, it is always possible to amend or disapply European law for the short term, should it be necessary and expedient for all parties, to get a sensible resolution to a difficult crisis.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that in treaty, in international law, EU citizens are entitled to vote in European elections and to be represented in the European Parliament. Although I agree that, often, where there’s a will there’s a way, especially with the European Union, my understanding is that a change to an international treaty would be required to extend the date to 30 June without holding those elections. That is why the EU is very keen that, if the date is extended, the extension should be much longer.
George Eustice
I understand the right hon. Lady’s point. I simply say that Sweden, unlike Denmark and the UK, never had an opt-out from joining the euro, but it held a referendum that decided it should not join the euro. As a result, technically speaking, Sweden has been in breach of international law and European law ever since.
It is simply the case that if it were felt necessary to find a way of extending our membership to get the withdrawal agreement through—for a period of one month under amendment 20—I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of man for that to be accommodated, notwithstanding what might be said in some treaty or other. It would not be the first time that the European Union has done this.
As I pointed out earlier, if the Government believe that the treaties are, indeed, inviolable and cannot be changed, even for a period of four weeks, it would be open to them to select a date of 22 May. My amendment is generous in giving them the option, should it be possible to get agreement with the European Union and other parties, to go for a slightly later date.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Let me assist my hon. Friend. This question of the date has been a vexed one. Obviously, we are not in favour of any extension, but the Commission tends to think that 22 May is a key date. I had a meeting with Guy Verhofstadt in Brussels and he tends to recognise the 30th as a cut-off date, so I think we are into a period of ambiguity and my hon. Friend is right to give this sort of latitude.
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for all that. One problem with this whole negotiation is getting hung up over some clause or other in some EU treaty when we all—we or the EU—face a much bigger dilemma: how do we settle this political crisis? We have to consider how we find a resolution to this dispute, and achieve a reconciliation in our country and an outcome to this debate that can settle the Brexit argument and deliver the referendum result from 2016.
David Hanson
Does the Bill, as drafted, not give the Prime Minister—I am surprised at myself for saying this—the flexibility to discuss with Opposition parties and come to a conclusion as to the best date, in the interests of achieving the very objectives the hon. Gentleman has set?
George Eustice
Yes, but it does so through a Bill and it gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to make her case to Parliament, but without any constraint on that at all. Given that this is a very novel legal approach—a rushed piece of legislation, with a Bill being driven through the House in one day—we should be cautious about the scope we attach to that Bill. Attaching an ability to go for a very long extension of several years—potentially five years if Parliament decided that is what it wanted—is worthy of further deliberation.
Seema Malhotra
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s perspective on the politics of this and the policy outcome, which would be a limit of 30 June in terms of what this Bill could achieve. I want to clarify something with him, because my interpretation of his amendment is more in line with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Amendment 20 would put a date of
“no later than 30 June 2019”
in clause 1(3). It seems to me that that is superseded by subsection (5), and if the hon. Gentleman wanted to achieve his intended outcome he should have tabled a further amendment, proposing another date in subsection (5). He has not done that, so it would override and be able to amend a date in a motion tabled under subsection (2).
George Eustice
I strongly disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading, as subsection (3) sets out the terms in which anything can be offered under subsection (2) and amendment 20 places a clear limit in subsection (3) of 30 June. Subsection (5) then says:
“If the motion in the form set out in subsection (2) for the purposes of subsection (1) is agreed to with an amendment to change the date”
and so on. The issue I have is that subsection (3) says that the date has a time limit, so it would not be legally possibly under subsection (2) to have a date that contradicted the requirements set out in subsection (3). That is my contention and I disagree with the hon. Lady. If she and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central were right, they would not have had subsection (3) at all.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend made a remark that goes to the issue of the money resolution that I raised earlier. He said, and I am going to take his word for it, because no doubt as a recent former Minister he has followed this carefully, that the extension in question could be as long as five years. Let us think about that. If we multiply five by £18 billion of taxpayers’ money, which is the amount we pay every year in gross contributions to the EU, we find that it works out at £90 billion. That is his assessment, and I am simply asking him to ask the Minister vicariously whether he is aware that this Bill could cost £90 billion of taxpayers’ money? I think—I hope—the media will pick up on that.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is why, given the rushed nature of the Bill—we all understand the reasons for that—it is necessary to place constraints on the scope of its operation, to limit precisely the kind of financial liabilities to which he alludes.
My contention is that any suggestion of a longer extension beyond 30 June, perhaps to 21 months, two years or even longer, should surely be the subject of another Bill. After all, we have demonstrated today that we can introduce Bills of this sort in short order. If the future of this House is to be that any decisions of this sort require a Bill, and that one can be delivered with a day’s debate on the Floor of the House, surely it is right to constrain and restrict the scope of this Bill to delivering us through this immediate crisis—without doubt, this is a crisis—but nevertheless to keep open the option for the House to consider a longer extension if it wished to do so.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in accepting interventions. I fear that the interpretation of his amendment is not what he intends. This is not about the rights or wrongs of the date, but what his amendment seems to do, which is to put a cap and an end date on what the Prime Minister may put to the House, but not on an amendment to her motion that the House could seek. That is the difference between subsections (3) and (5).
George Eustice
Nothing in this Bill prevents the Prime Minister from still exercising royal prerogative powers outside the Bill. Were the Government to recommend to the House a decision to go for a longer extension, and they had a clear rationale for doing so, I still think that they would be able to do so outside the scope of the Bill. What the Bill does not do is say that the prerogative powers of the Executive are vanquished in all areas for all time. Instead, it seeks to establish an ability for the House, on this particular narrow issue, to table a motion. Nothing in the Bill constrains the Government’s ability still to exercise prerogative powers; it clearly requires them to exercise those prerogative powers in accordance with the Bill, if they are indeed exercised in response to motions passed by this House, so I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point.
Michael Tomlinson
I have been wondering about that. My hon. Friend says that the motion in effect will mandate, but does he agree with my reading, which is that under subsection (2) the House simply agrees that the Prime Minister is seeking an extension? It does not mandate or order it. Does that not again make nonsense of swift drafting on such an important issue?
George Eustice
There will always be issues when legislation of this sort is drafted. This is unorthodox legislation, an unusual type of Bill, and that is why the two amendments I tabled seek to place some restrictions on the scope in which the powers may be exercised.
Amendment 21 would simply delete subsections (6) and (7) altogether.
Sir William Cash
On a point of order, Dame Rosie. Given the complete rubbish that the Bill contains, is it possible for us to find out who drafted it? Was it drafted by parliamentary counsel or by some ad hoc person? That is quite important.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Am I to understand that that was a point of order?
Sir William Cash
I am looking for an answer to my question. After all, the House authorities are responsible for bringing forward Bills. We have had nothing but trouble—on the amendments and on other things—since these proceedings began. I am not criticising; I know that things were done at tremendous speed, which is why the Bill is so inappropriate. The question really is what we are trying to legislate for; that is what these Committee proceedings allow us to ask. I am beginning to observe that this Bill is complete rubbish. It is therefore important for us to know who drafted it.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I think the hon. Gentleman is expressing a debatable opinion about the Bill. The Public Bill Office is always available to advise Members on the drafting of the Bill. I think we will leave it there.
George Eustice
I put on record my enormous respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I appreciate that through all the measures that he has tabled, he is trying to deal with the incredibly difficult and complex situation that the country faces. From the time I was first involved with the party, I have worked with him closely. He has been the anchor-man for several leaderships in the Conservative party. Whatever differences Members may have on this issue, he deserves the respect of all Conservative Members.
Amendment 21 would delete subsections (6) and (7) of clause 1, which provide for the House to consider a counter-offer from the European Union. If the Prime Minister were to seek an extension until 30 June 2019 and the European Union made a counter-offer, the question would arise of what should happen next. My contention is that at that point, the Government should bring their own proposals to the House. If the House then felt that it wanted to bind the Government’s hands on what should happen next, that would surely be a matter for a future Bill, given that we have today demonstrated our ability to pass legislation in a speedy and efficient fashion.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind remarks, but I wonder whether he means to remove subsections (6) and (7). If we did not pass the Bill and the Prime Minister went to the European Council, as my hon. Friend envisages, with a request for something less than 30 June, and it said, which I think would not suit him, and might well not suit me, that there should be a 21-month extension, there would be nothing to prevent the Prime Minister accepting that, using the prerogative power. It would of course be necessary, as things stand, for the House to agree a statutory instrument changing the exit date in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to reconcile UK law with the position in international law, but the House would not have much choice about that, because we would be out of kilter with international law if we did not make the change, as we discovered when the original SI was made.
Of course, when the Prime Minister made the original application, she did not seek the approval of the House; she was able to make it, perfectly properly, under the prerogative power. If my hon. Friend removes subsections (6) and (7), the effect is not, as he might imagine, to stop the Prime Minister doing something that he would regard as a mischief—namely accepting then and there a very long extension—but to continue to enable her to do that.
George Eustice
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the reason that I resigned from the Government, which is that I genuinely believe it is right that the Executive should, as a general rule, retain control of these types of decisions. If we got into a position where 650 or so MPs here were trying to participate in a negotiation with the European Union, I would say we were in quite a bit of trouble.
This is a question of the balance of risk. My view is that, confronted with an unpalatable decision—a demand for, say, a two-year extension from the European Union as the only deal on offer—I would still rather take my chances with the Cabinet to show some backbone than take the risk with this House, and I say that having resigned from the Government. That is as simple and as honest as I can be.
Sir Oliver Letwin
In that case, I withdraw what I was saying in the sense that my hon. Friend would be achieving exactly what he wants; he would be leaving the Prime Minister with untrammelled prerogative power, and of course that is a perfectly possible choice to make.
George Eustice
It is very good that my right hon. Friend and I agree on something. If we are not careful, I fear that what will actually happen is that the European Union will make appalling demands for financial contributions and a long extension, and, when it came down to it, this House would not have the courage to resist, having already indicated that it lacks the courage to leave without a deal, which I believe was a mistake. I did not want to leave with no deal—I would like there to be an orderly withdrawal with an agreement—but I believe that taking no deal off the table would fundamentally undermine our position.
Michael Tomlinson
Following on from the intervention by my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is it not the case that in any event, notwithstanding whatever is in the Bill, the Prime Minister would still retain the prerogative power? The Bill may seek that the Prime Minister asks for a certain date, but in fact there is nothing preventing her from adopting a parallel track or making a third request. Even if this Bill is passed unamended, which my right hon. Friend clearly does not want to happen, the Prime Minister could still chart her own course.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the way in which this Bill is crafted—linking back to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, as it does in clause 1(2)—means that it does have legal force. Therefore, it does bind the House and constrain the ability of the Government to exercise those prerogative powers. That is why the two amendments that I have tabled would accept that the Bill has passed Second Reading—and, therefore, that this House has voted to constrain those prerogative powers—but would nevertheless place constraints on the scope within which the House can exercise those powers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, were amendments 20 and 21 agreed to, it would still be open to the Government to use their prerogative powers to make agreements beyond that scope.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I apologise for continuing a triangular discussion through my hon. Friend, but in response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), I think that the answer is actually no. The prerogative power is subject to statutory limitation. This Bill would limit statutorily the prerogative power in that respect. We can know that for sure because that is the view of the Government lawyers. Government amendment 22 seeks to reintroduce the prerogative power because the Government recognise—this is the discussion that I have been having with the Government during the course of the day—that the Bill currently limits the prerogative power.
There is a choice for the House. We may obviously take different views about how to make that choice, but just as a matter of plain fact, there is a choice to be made. One option is the position advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), which is one of reinstating the full prerogative power. That could otherwise be achieved by Government amendment 22, so there are two ways to do that. The other option, which I would prefer, is to limit that prerogative power by statute so that the House has the ability to constrain, to some degree, what the Prime Minister accepts by way of an extension from the EU.
George Eustice
I think my right hon. Friend’s comments were directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), rather than directly at me, so I will not become engaged in this discussion.
Regarding the provisions for subsections (6) and (7), the question still remains of what would happen if there were a counter-offer from the European Union. My contention is that that should then be a matter for the Government to bring before the House in a statement, to be challenged in the usual way. If at that point the House was unsatisfied with the Government’s proposal, it would still be open to it, through an initiative of the sort we have seen today, to introduce a Bill placing a further constraint on the Government, perhaps by requiring them to accept a counter-offer, for instance of a two-year extension, so that we could have a fuller, longer and perhaps more considered debate on what in my view would be a really big decision, because we would have gone five years since the first referendum and achieved nothing. The risk of not leaving the European Union at all and ending up arguing about a second referendum would grow. I believe that opting for such a lengthy extension would a very big decision, and one that would warrant a separate Bill with a separate, much longer and much more detailed discussion.
David Hanson
I hope that the Committee will bear with me, because the amendments were tabled only very recently. However, I think that they deserve exploration. I support the drafting amendments tabled my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Having served on nearly 50 Public Bill Committees during my time in the House, I know that Governments bring forward amendments to correct drafting errors during the course of proceedings, and there will be an opportunity for further such amendments when the Bill is considered in the Lords. What my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman are seeking to do, in principle, is to rule out a no-deal scenario, and that is vital for the House.
The Bill, as currently drafted—in clause 1(2)—leaves open the date for leaving until the Prime Minister brings back a measure. The amendments that I wish to speak against tonight are those indicating that there should be definitive dates for the closure of that discussion by the Prime Minister. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), I find myself in a strange position tonight, in the sense that I want to give the Prime Minister maximum flexibility to join together the House and the British people by achieving a deal that satisfies the British people, the Government and Opposition Members. My constituency voted to leave and I voted to remain. There is a settlement to be made, and the Prime Minister needs maximum flexibility to achieve that settlement. What the House has been very clear about is that no deal should not be an option, and that is what the Bill seeks to rule out.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth would set a date of 30 June, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) would set a date of 22 May. Amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), seeks the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to any settlement being agreed, despite the fact that currently, for reasons I find disappointing, the Northern Ireland Assembly does not meet. There is no definitive date in the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. All those amendments would restrict the Prime Minister’s opportunity to make a difference and achieve a deal in this House.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is it not also true that the Prime Minister has invited the Leader of the Opposition to discuss the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement? The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would effectively curtail those discussions. Should we not pass the Bill cleanly in order to maximise the opportunities for that process?
David Hanson
I accept fully what my hon. Friend says. The Leader of the Opposition has this very afternoon met the Prime Minister in Downing Street, at her request, along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), to set out positions on a customs union and a single market, and potentially even a confirmatory vote, for the Prime Minister to consider. The Bill does not fix a particular date, which provides the flexibility needed to give time for that process. The amendments, which I have only had a cursory look at, fix dates of 30 June and 22 May.
I recognise that there is a problem: the European elections are the elephant in the room. When I was the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, we regularly passed legislation to establish or not establish elections in the Northern Ireland Assembly within a day or two days. The Prime Minister is going to the European Council on 10 April to discuss what the House has decided. The House may well decide that this Bill should have an open date, or we can fetter that discussion by putting a date in place. I want to give the Prime Minister the maximum flexibility.
Mrs Main
I will be speaking to my amendment, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman desires flexibility to deny Brexit altogether, given that he represents a leave constituency. The point of my amendment, which I hope he will look at a little more closely, is to stop the Prime Minister agreeing anything that may be unacceptable to the House. The date I have picked is the one currently being discussed by the European Union. Therefore, should the Prime Minister agree a date that the House finds unacceptable, she would have to come back to the House to suggest it, rather than being able to do what she can at the moment, which is to pick a date that this House may find unacceptable. That is the point of my amendment.
David Hanson
That is an interesting point. The amendments are fresh, but the key thing for me is that the House has shown in the last three months—certainly in the last two to three weeks—that it will not accept unilaterally what the Prime Minister wants to bring back to the House, and this House has many ways in which it can check the Executive’s decisions.
The simple point I make is that, in my constituency in north Wales, the manufacturing businesses that make cars have said that no deal would cost them £10 million per day; the farmers who produce lamb would not be able to export in a no-deal scenario; and Airbus, which makes the best planes in the world, would have difficulty exporting in a no-deal scenario. The Cabinet Office has said that prices would rise—it is not me saying that, it is the Government’s own estimation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford mentioned the European arrest warrant and the SIS II agreement on sharing information. We do not know whether those would exist in their current form in a no-deal scenario. In the Select Committee on Justice, on which I sit, neither the Secretary of State for Justice this morning nor the Solicitor General yesterday could give assurances about the future relationship on important matters of security and justice in a no-deal scenario.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case on people’s concerns about what may happen in a Brexit without a withdrawal agreement, but the European Union has explained to us on many occasions that the withdrawal agreement is now basically a hermetically sealed box, and many of the things he discusses in relation to the future relationship, such as trading, are encompassed in the political declaration, which cannot be binding—we have been told that many times. I genuinely fail to understand why, if he is so concerned about our leaving without an agreement, he does not just vote for the withdrawal agreement and then set about making his case for what should be in the political declaration, which cannot be binding until we have formally left the European Union.
David Hanson
With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have had that argument over the last three or four weeks, and the House of Commons has spoken. That is why his party leader has invited my party leader to discuss the next steps. I will wait to hear what the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), says about the Government’s amendments, because we need to be clear about those. However, the fettering of the process by the dates stated in the amendments would cause great difficulty for the objective of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, which is to ensure that next week, whatever happens with our discussions, we have a date determined by the Prime Minister for when we will leave with a deal, rather than crash out without a deal in the future.
Mrs Main
The right hon. Gentleman has been saying that he would like to have certainty—I completely accept the worries about a possible no deal and not knowing what is going on, which is crucial for businesses—but, in relation to the amendments restricting exactly how long the Prime Minister can agree to on her own, how will he feel if the Prime Minister comes back and says, “I have accepted, because I am able to, a two-year extension”, and all the uncertainty for his constituents about what will happen is magnified for two years?
David Hanson
Let me say to the hon. Lady that we have to have some trust in this process now. This House has to compromise and have some trust. The Prime Minister has made a genuine offer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—much to my surprise—to get herself and indeed, with due respect to the hon. Lady, the Conservative party out of a giant hole. Let us leave the Prime Minister unfettered in determining the date, because that is the important matter in discussing our objectives today.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
On the points the right hon. Gentleman has made about amendment 6, does he not agree with me that, as opposed to representing a sincere interest in and respect for the devolved Administrations, it is a very clever way of preventing the quick and effective enactment of this Bill?
David Hanson
The hon. Gentleman will know that I want the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government—and the Scottish Parliament—to be consulted, to have a say and, I hope, to join in with the settlement, in whatever form it takes that can make the situation for my constituents and the country as a whole much calmer and better. He will know, and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will know—I am pleased to see her in her place—that the amendment would be a block in the event of the Northern Ireland Assembly not being restored. It is not even a block simply in relation to the Northern Ireland Government; it is a block even if direct rule is restored, for example, because the amendment refers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have no definitive date for that restoration, and while I would want it to happen tomorrow—it has been 12 years since I was the last direct rule Minister in Northern Ireland, and I would like to see the Assembly restored—ultimately, that is not going to happen.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not been sitting. It has not been sitting since January 2017, and there is no expectation that the Assembly will be sitting any day soon. Further to that point, the right hon. Gentleman, as a former direct rule Minister in Northern Ireland, will know that it would be an unmitigated disaster for Northern Ireland if this country were to leave without a deal. It would be an unmitigated disaster in terms of security—he will know all about the threat from dissident republicans, and he will also know that Sinn Féin would use a no-deal Brexit to campaign for a border poll to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland.
David Hanson
The hon. Lady speaks much more sense about this matter than I could possibly do, because she is up to date on the situation, but that is clear to me. Let me take the example mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford—the European arrest warrant. We use the arrest warrant on numerous occasions to bring people who have committed crimes in the Republic into Northern Ireland and vice versa. If that is not in place, and in a no-deal scenario it would not be in place, the situation would be poorer, and we have no clarity on that whatsoever. The security of Northern Ireland would be in a worse place than it is now, and I am not prepared to vote for that.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the arrest warrant, and I have to say to him that I am well aware of a case in the county of Staffordshire. A person under an arrest warrant was convicted in his absence of murder, but it in fact transpired that he was working in Staffordshire, and he was then found not guilty because he was actually working in a restaurant in England at the time when he was supposed to have committed the murder in Italy.
David Hanson
Well, the hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, because people are found innocent or guilty on different occasions, but, ultimately, if someone has done something, they are convicted. At the moment, if an arrest warrant goes out to a country in the European Union, an individual will speedily be brought back to face justice and a trial, and may face conviction and imprisonment. Any change in the arrest warrant procedure will ensure that the procedure is slower, more cumbersome and clunkier.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to see that, he should listen to what the Deputy Chief Constable of Northern Ireland said only this weekend. He said that not having the arrest warrant would be clunkier, more difficult, more bureaucratic and slower, and would lead to a worse position. With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will take no lessons on the arrest warrant, which is about protecting my constituents and all citizens in this country, and ensuring that criminals are brought to justice. If we have a no-deal scenario, which this Bill is trying to stop, that will become more difficult.
I have said my piece; I hope that Government Members will reflect on the position. This Bill is about protecting us against no deal and ensuring a positive future on the range of issues involved—agriculture, business, transport, crime and security. Any fettering of the Prime Minister’s discretion on that will make it more difficult to achieve the consensus that I understand she is trying to achieve with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to ensure that we achieve a better settlement in this House than we have managed in the last few weeks and months.
Mrs Main
I would like to speak to amendment 1, standing in my name, which addresses similar themes to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who spoke earlier.
I was quite horrified when I read this brief Bill, because it mandates the Prime Minister to seek an extension, but there is no date associated with that extension, as other Members have mentioned. On top of that, as we know, article 50 enshrined the date on which we would be leaving: 29 March. The Prime Minister, as was quite within her rights—my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said it was her untrammelled prerogative—decided, when she went into her negotiations, that she would accept a new date, which was offered to her by the European Union, having been agreed in a room, in a debate in which she did not participate. She accepted a date that was not of her choosing.
My concern is that, whatever date this House considers to give the right amount of time, if the Prime Minister is not fettered, as the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) mentioned, she is quite within her rights—nobody here is seeking in any way, shape or form to curtail those rights—to accept another date that is offered to her and which might be the only date on offer. Whatever date this House might choose, for whatever associated reasons or purposes, the Prime Minister is quite within her rights to accept—or reject—the date on offer from the European Union.
I find that incredibly worrying. Depending on which side of the argument hon. Members find themselves, they could have the Prime Minister seeking a date in line with the House’s instructions, but not having to agree the date, even if the EU says that she can have it. That would be a rather bizarre scenario, but the Bill would not stop it, so whatever date the House fixed on could, in theory, only be asked for, but then be rejected.
The other side, which worries me far more, is that the Prime Minister could go along with a date—as yet unspecified by this House and with no associated justification—and be offered a date, let us say, two years in the future. I would suggest that at that point most hon. Members would have severe concerns about the legitimacy of whatever was being agreed by the Prime Minister—or any of us in this House—with the date set so far in the future.
Amendment 1, which stands in my name and that of 21 other hon. Members, simply proposes a date that has already been accepted by the European Union—I know that Guy Verhofstadt has talked about the end of June, but the European Union has suggested this date on many occasions—as a date that it would be comfortable extending to. It is also a date that would not oblige us, by default, to fight in the European elections. It would mean that the Prime Minister could accept the date offered to her—to the 22nd—but could not arbitrarily accept any other date offered without bringing it back and discussing with the House whether it met what the House wishes to achieve.
The right hon. Member for Delyn talked about not tying the Prime Minister’s hands, but if the House truly wishes to shape the next phase—I really do not like this process, but I am trying to look at it constructively—it is incredibly important that she does not have carte blanche to sit in a room in Brussels, meekly accept a date that is fixed, and then come back to the House, which will not be able to alter that date. I picked the 22 May date, because she can agree anything up until that point. After that date, with which we are all familiar, we will not have the Prime Minister accepting a date that may end up coming to this House and not finding favour. We are then back in the long grass. We are back to arguing about the date. We are back to arguing ad infinitum, to the great uncertainty for the many businesses who feel that what is going on here today is beyond a farce.
Other Members who have a better legal brain than mine—I have no such qualifications whatever—are looking at the Bill line by line and saying it is shoddily and poorly drafted, and that it does not stand up to scrutiny. The argument that comes back—I have heard it a few times this afternoon—is that, “Well, we haven’t had a lot of time and this is to stop no deal.” My amendment does not do anything to harm the Bill’s objectives. It gives the Bill belt and braces to ensure that the Prime Minister, to whom everyone says, “Let’s give her some latitude and trust”, is not able to accept something that is certainly beyond the wishes and scope of this House or the people who voted to leave the European Union.
I hope my amendment is given serious consideration, since we are now supposed to be engaging constructively with the process in a cross-party consensual way to try to get something through. I would be far more comfortable if the Prime Minister was not allowed free rein, or untrammelled prerogative, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said. As the House may have observed, we have already tried that and it has not got us terribly far. I therefore ask Members please to consider this amendment. It is very small. It does not stop anything. It simply might stop what some Members have maybe not thought through too well, which is the date.
Michael Tomlinson
I applaud my hon. Friend’s ingenuity. I am minded to support her amendment this evening and I hope she presses it to a Division. May I ask her about another extension? Clause 1(2), as drafted, does not mandate or order the Prime Minister to do anything—that comes later on in the Bill—but no timeframe is given either. My hon. Friend mentions a timeframe up to 22 May, but, as drafted, the Bill effectively gives no specified time period within which the Prime Minister needs to seek any extension in any event.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Clerks were very helpful when I was trying to draft my amendment. I said, “Surely we can’t have this open-ended situation?” Very helpfully, the Clerks said to me that the Bill can say what it likes, but at the moment the Prime Minister, in the untrammelled way that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, can do what she likes. That is the situation. We are in fact sending off a Prime Minister who will be reluctant to deliver this proposal.
The Bill is supposed to be incredibly flawed, but what I do not want it to be, as we discovered from the Gina Miller challenge, is a nightmare going through the courts. Our businesses deserve better than to have a piece of cobbled together legislation that is rammed through—I gather it will be rammed through the other place, too—just to make sure we avoid no deal. Have hon. Members not done any adding up recently? This House is the tail that is now wagging the dog. There is no pretence on the Government Benches that this is going to be an easy ride—not for this stage, the next stage or any other stages coming down the road. There might be fears from Opposition Members, but they seem to be able to exercise an awful lot more muscle on the political agreement than we can on the Government side of the House; they in effect have the whip hand over the Government. The true nature of the House is that it does not really desire to leave. The House will have masses of opportunities over the coming months to ensure that the political agreement is shaped in a fashion that they would like. That is the one thing about which the European Union has said, “We can open that, no trouble.” What the EU will not open is the withdrawal agreement, and a withdrawal agreement will be required to achieve many of the things that the House wants to achieve. That is why I reluctantly agreed to support the withdrawal agreement when it was separated from the political arrangements.
The Bill that we are considering is poor, and badly drafted. I accept the reasons why, and I accept that we are all scrabbling around to try to improve it, but I am disappointed that the Lords may not have much time to consider any amendments that are made tonight. I hope that the other end of the building does not function like a rubber-stamp machine and say, “It doesn’t matter; this Bill is going through regardless.”
The Bill will come back to haunt the House. If the procedure that we have followed today ends up creating a lawyers’ charter and a nightmare in the courts, it will do huge damage to our industries. Believe me, for every Gina Miller out there launching challenges to make sure that a public vote is listened to in a proper legal fashion, there will be lawyers picking over the Bill and saying that it does not stand up, so can we please ensure that sensible amendments are made tonight?
I would like to think that my amendment is sensible because, as the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) has pointed out, the only date that the European Union will accept is 22 May. I believe that if we put that date in the Bill, we would be picking a date that the European Union was comfortable with. The House would have the security of knowing that the Prime Minister could not unilaterally accept any other date that the EU came up with, but would have to bring it back for Members’ consideration. If the House chooses to adopt it, fine, and if the House says, “Go back and try harder”, fine, but there will be certainty. I hope that Members on both sides of the argument will support this amendment, because it would give them the certainty of knowing there will be no jiggery-pokery and no clever shifting of dates or times. My amendment would oblige the Prime Minister to come back to the House with any new date, and she would not be allowed to accept a date that did not reflect the will of the House. Surely, that is what the House wishes to achieve.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is not in his place, for tabling amendment 20, because it gives me the opportunity to speak against it. In the amendment, he attempts to set 30 June as a date beyond which the Government cannot seek an extension. As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said in an intervention, it is clear that if the UK wants to secure an extension beyond that date, it will have to embark on a general election or a people’s vote, or go to the EU with a concrete, credible proposal that would enable the EU to give us a longer extension.
Frankly, I do not think the Government can do anything that will enable them to hit the date of 22 May, or even 30 June, so it would be regrettable to preclude that possibility. I imagine that every Member here has been contacted by their local authority returning officer to confirm that they have all been asked to start the process of preparing for European elections. Whether the Government like it or not, preparations are being made for that at this very moment.
The amendment would also preclude the Government from responding to business concerns. I mentioned earlier this evening the contact that I had today with businesses in the retail sector. They were adamant that leaving on 12 April would be catastrophic, leaving on 22 May would be catastrophic and even leaving on 30 June would not allow them to make the preparations that they need. They were talking about an extension until at least March 2020 to enable them to prepare properly. Arbitrarily setting a cut-off date of 30 June would be extremely unhelpful.
Mike Gapes
Even if these amendments were passed, the issue surely is that the Government would have to take them to the European Council next week. If the proposal is for 30 June, we know that that will not be acceptable, because the EU made that absolutely clear. Therefore, instead of resolving this issue before the European Council, if we adopted that amendment, we would have to come back next week and vote on 11 or 12 April on the same matters yet again.
Mrs Main
Can the right hon. Gentleman not see the merit in what I am saying, whereby that very scenario would not happen? It is just that the Prime Minister cannot agree the date. I am sure—given that he has just mentioned 20 weeks or so to get together a people’s vote or whatever—each person’s agenda has a timescale associated with it. Therefore, if the Prime Minister is offered a date, surely she ought to bring that date back here and ensure that it meets whatever it is that people wish the date to achieve. We are doing this the other way around in the Bill. We are sending her off with a date and mandating her to seek it. I do not see why—that seems ridiculous.
Tom Brake
The Bill specifically does not include a date, but it enables the Prime Minister to go with a date that she has in effect inserted in the “[…]”, so it is within her control.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth—he is not here, so I would not want to cast aspersions—intended the amendment as a means perhaps of ending up with no deal. We know that seeking an extension until 30 June would not be well received by the EU, because it does not enable anything to happen in the time that is left. I hope that that was not his intention, but if this amendment is pushed to a vote today, I and the Liberal Democrats will oppose it on the basis that it would preclude a people’s vote. It is very clear around the country now that there is a very strong appetite for such a vote to take place.
Sir William Cash
They say that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first turn mad. I have to say, I have never seen a Bill that is more likely to drive everybody mad than this one, particularly if it is enacted and it then has to be construed by the courts. I really am astonished at what rubbish it is. Remember that we were told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Just to offer an alternative, no Bill is better than a bad Bill. This is a classic case of hubris—of overvaulting ambition in the hands of some amateur draftsmen, producing consequences of vast import to the people of this country. Having had an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), I make the point that if he is right that the Bill could create an extension of five years, it would cost the British taxpayer not less than £90 billion. That is an awful lot of money for a private Member’s Bill, an awful lot of money for hubris, and an awful lot of madness that the gods will want to destroy.
Michael Tomlinson
On that figure of £90 billion, has my hon. Friend received any advice recently about whether the Bill would or would not require a money resolution?
Sir William Cash
I certainly have. The Speaker has ruled on the matter, and I take the view that if the Speaker has ruled, even if I am unhappy with the ruling, that means that I need not go into all the details. I could spend the next 20 minutes giving all the reasons that I believe that there should be a money resolution, but I will resist the temptation because I want to get on to the meat of the Bill. The fact that it is known that it could cost as much as £90 billion is, I should have thought, enough to alert a great many people and make them seriously worried about whether they should vote for it, and I hope that they will not.
Clause 1(1) is mandatory, and gives rise to the important constitutional question whether Parliament can direct a Prime Minister to move a motion. That is constitutionally ridiculous. In clause 1(2), to which my new clause 4 refers, the “form of the motion” is not mandatory, stating that the House
“agrees for the purposes of section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 to the Prime Minister seeking an extension”.
If passed, the provision would permit the Prime Minister to seek an extension, but that in itself would not force her to ask for it. However, neither clause 1(4) nor clause 1(5) sets any time limit relating to when the Prime Minister must seek the extension, or explains how that would be achieved. Is enough time available for all this to be done? The answer is clearly no.
I assume that Royal Assent would be given after the Bill had been to the House of Lords. God knows what the House of Lords is going to make of it. The House of Lords has a Standing Order, Standing Order No. 72. What have the Government done, no doubt with the connivance—if that is not an inappropriate expression—of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)? They have simply knocked out Standing Order No. 72, which is an outrageous and completely unconstitutional act.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My hon. Friend has questioned the ability of the Act to be enforced. My Select Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, put that question to Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice. I asked:
“How would this be enforced?”
He replied:
“I think it could only be enforced politically by the House of Commons. Please do not think for one moment that anybody should be able to seek a judicial review. Not only would it be ludicrous for the judiciary to be involved in deciding a political question, but they would have a way out if anybody took that step, by saying that there is an alternative remedy—to go back to the House of Commons. That is the only way it could possibly be enforced, in my view. It would be up to the House.”
Is this not a completely useless piece of legislation?
Sir William Cash
It is not only completely useless, but it is rubbish. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has just come into the Chamber. Let me ask him, if I may, whether he drafted this Bill. He drafted a great many amendments during the passage of the withdrawal Bill itself back in 2017-18, and I noticed that quite a lot of them were so bad that they had to be junked.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I have to tell my hon. Friend that I did not draft the Bill, but I think that it is quite fit for purpose. I also note that there are some Government amendments that relate to “exit day”, and which exactly echo the points that I made in the House last summer about the folly of putting “exit day” on the face of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Sir William Cash
The motion cannot be carried until 12 April at the earliest. That means that the Prime Minister is obliged at some stage to seek an extension, but she is not obliged to do so immediately. Unless she does so on 12 April and it is agreed before 11 pm that day, the United Kingdom is out. It will be “Leave, leave, leave, leave.”
Clause 1(6) and (7) are I suppose intended to deal with a situation where the European Council meets on 10 April and seems to volunteer to offer an extension to a certain date. I mentioned earlier—perhaps in a point of order—the role of the European Council in all this. The reality is that the procedure being followed puts the ball back in the European Council’s court. It is possible that nobody will be sensible enough to veto this extension, although they have the power to do so and I trust that one or other of them, or perhaps several, will.
My objection to this arrangement is contained in the European Scrutiny Committee report we put forward last March—a whole year and one month ago. We raised grave concern because the European Council, which is driving a lot of the negotiations, set out the terms of reference and the guidelines and the sequencing. The fact is that the Government gave in on all that and supplicated and went along on bended knee to the European Council and asked, “How much can you possibly let us get away with? What can we be allowed to do that you will agree with?” There were also all the monstrous negotiations conducted by Olly Robbins, who appeared in front of my Committee, and Tim Barrow and others. The reality is that submitting ourselves under this Bill to the decision-making processes and the cosh of the European Council is not only completely humiliating to this country, but has put us in an impossible situation under the withdrawal agreement.
Article 4 of the agreement—which is directly relevant to everything we are discussing here because it is about the governance of the European Union in relation to the UK on leaving—stipulates in terms of the UK that we will be subjugated to the decision making of the Council of Ministers.
I hope somebody on the Opposition Front Bench will take this on board. The Council of Ministers will be making laws for probably up to four years, when this House, as I said the other day, will be politically castrated in relation to the European treaties, which will have entire competence over us and all laws. We will not be able to pass a single law in contravention of them, and our courts will not be able to defend our voters—our taxpayers—from any of the decisions taken while we are put at the mercy of our competitors during the transitional period, however long that may be.
I have already made the point that the transitional period could cost £90 billion; I do not know the sum, because we do not know what date will be settled on yet. What I do know is that this House will be subjugated—completely neutralised—in the transitional period. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I invite him to appear in front of my Select Committee and answer on that; I would like to cross-examine him on the question of who will be governing this country during that period, because it certainly will not be this Parliament, I can tell him that.
Mrs Main
Does my hon. Friend share my concern, which is why I tabled my amendment, that the House seems to happily think it can put a date on this Bill and the Prime Minister will go off and secure the date, but the House seems to have lost sight of the fact that we will probably have to take what we are offered—or maybe not be offered anything at all? This Bill seems to me to assume that the European Parliament will take notice of what we wish to happen.
Sir William Cash
Absolutely; the idea of our subjecting ourselves to the European Council as well as to the European Parliament is about as humiliating as anybody could imagine. I suppose we are not supposed to say this but it happens to be true: we saved Europe twice in the last 100 years, yet we are now, as a result of this withdrawal agreement and these provisions, subjugating ourselves to the decisions taken by 27 other member states by majority vote.
Sir William Cash
I would love to give way to the person who generated this rubbish.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I thought it might be productive to intervene on my hon. Friend’s remarks, with literally all of which I disagree profoundly. On this one point, I think it might be productive because there is a fact about this that he will see if he looks at the amendment paper. The Government have tabled new clause 13, which many of us feel is a very sensible proposal and whose acceptance we therefore recommend. It specifically provides for a negative resolution statutory instrument to be substituted for an affirmative resolution SI, in order that it could be made immediately upon being deposited, rather than awaiting the approval of the House. That could obviously be subject to revision later under the negative resolution prayer procedure, but we would all have to be a gang of lunatics not to keep the exit day in line with international law if, as a matter of fact and for better or worse, the Prime Minister had agreed a given date of exit.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Alas, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has the floor. There has been a discussion about all this, and the Government’s new clause 13 is a perfectly sensible way of solving the one serious point that he has raised.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. Friend says that I have made one serious point, but he is in serious trouble. Every time he gets up and starts interpreting his Bill, that is likely to be taken into account if there is any judicial review of any of the provisions, as enacted. As all Ministers ought to know—he is the Minister in charge of this day and the various other things that he seemed to have assumed—every time he opines on the question of interpretation, the interpretations that he is making in in a rather fulsome manner could be used as a means of interpreting what is meant by the Bill. He ought to be a little more cautious, but I have waited until this point to say so, because he has said quite enough to put himself in serious difficulty on that account.
Having said that, with regard to new clause 4, any motion brought forward under clause 1(1) in the form set out in clause 1(2) may be amended in line with clause 1(3) only to include a date. In a nutshell, new clause 4 would prevent further amendments to Standing Orders and so on.
Moving on to new clause 5, because I want to get my points on the record—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman moves on to new clause 5, I know that he has a lot to say about the amendments and new clauses, which the House must hear, but I hope that he may do so in an expedited fashion. We do not have a lot of time left, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear what the Minister and others have to say.
Michael Tomlinson
On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. You mentioned the time, and a question was asked earlier about the timing for Third Reading. Are you able to advise the Committee at this stage at what point Third Reading will happen?
The First Deputy Chairman
No. When Third Reading is likely to occur is not up to the Chair, but to the House. Based on how things are going at present, my estimate is that a Third Reading debate will not occur, because the Committee stage is likely to take up all the available time. However, that is entirely up to the House. If the people who still wish to speak do so for a short time, we will have a Third Reading debate. If they speak for a long time, we will not.
Sir William Cash
With respect to you, Dame Eleanor, the Bill’s stages have been truncated. You know what I am talking about. It has been rushed through. Not only is the Bill an abomination in its own right, but it is gravely unconstitutional and offends Standing Order No. 14 and so many other conventions, so I am not going to fail make the points that need to be made. I am so sorry, but I these points must be made. It is only 9.8 pm and we have until 10 o’clock, so although I have great respect for you, Dame Eleanor, I am going to make my points. Furthermore, they are matters that are germane to trying to sort out the rubbish that this Bill is generating for the British public. That is my point.
New clause 5 relates to the amendability of motions. Any motion brought forward under clause 1(1) in the form set out in clause 1(2) may be amended in line with clause 1(3) only to include a date no later than 22 May 2019. The new clause would prevent further amendments to the Standing Orders or to the business of the House of Commons and would impose a maximum duration on the extension period. Given what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth about how this Bill would otherwise cost £90 billion, I think we would be doing a great service not just to the House, which is pretty chaotic these days, but to the taxpayer and our constituents by restricting the length of the extension period. If the extension went to five years, according to the potentiality of this Bill, it would cost £90 billion—that is just a statement of fact—which is a very good reason for voting against the Bill.
New clause 5 would place a maximum duration on the extension period, which would be an enormous step in the right direction. In fact, it would be a fundamentally vital provision in the context of this Bill.
New clause 7 deals with the question of European elections, another hot potato:
“No extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union may be agreed by the Prime Minister if as a result the United Kingdom would be required to prepare for or to hold elections to the European Parliament.”
I would have thought that many Members would be delighted to support this new clause. I am doing the Government’s job for them by seeking to impose a restriction. I see the Minister slightly nodding his head, which I think means he might quite like this amendment. The bottom line is that, yesterday, I heard the Prime Minister say that we would not want to have European elections.
Michael Tomlinson
As my hon. Friend rightly recollects, the Prime Minister herself made this very point. Would it not be a catastrophic failure of our politics if, three years after the vote to leave, we held elections to the very institution we voted to leave? Is that not why this amendment must be pressed and made?
Sir William Cash
It is axiomatic, and it goes to the very heart of what we are leaving and how we are leaving. The idea that we would hold European elections, which, but for my proposed amendment, are liable to take place, makes me think that this House really ought to vote for new clause 7. I therefore urge the House to consider it as an important, sensible amendment. [Interruption.] I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has left the Chamber. Perhaps my remarks are too unpalatable for him.
Craig Mackinlay
My hon. Friend has ably set out the cost of a potential long extension as being £90 billion, or whatever it might be. Has he considered the cost to the public purse of running European parliamentary elections for what might be a very short time in office for those so elected?
Sir William Cash
I have heard it mentioned that the elections would cost £100 million, which is quite a lot of money for nothing. In some constituencies, as it happens, there have been turnouts of about 19%. European elections are a complete farce anyway. In fact, I think the European Parliament is a complete farce. Frankly, getting rid of the elections altogether would be a massive step in the right direction, and this Bill is the opportunity to do that.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. I could enlarge on the reasons why we would not want to have any European parliamentary elections and why we would not want to have any MEPs—they cost a fortune as well. Furthermore, a lot of them are, by all accounts, engaged in activities that are either useless or very expensive. I will not dilate on that, but it is a matter of fact.
David Hanson
When does the hon. Gentleman expect the Northern Ireland Assembly to meet next?
Sir William Cash
That is a very good question, because it may well be after exit day—on my proposals. That is the point. I am proposing amendments intended to provide that democratic element, which is needed by the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so clear about what is in Scotland’s best interest. Will he remind us as to whether he supported the need for a legislative consent motion or for the consent of the Scottish Parliament before the European Union Referendum Bill was passed, before the article 50 Act was passed or before last year’s great repeal Bill, all of which he supported? It seems to me that he supported an awful lot of EU-related legislation that has been extremely damaging to Scotland, not caring a jot as to what the Scottish Parliament or the other devolved institutions thought about it. Why is it that he now suddenly wants to invoke the right of the Scottish Parliament to be consulted, given that he and his party have trampled over that right ever since the Brexit referendum was thought of?
Sir William Cash
I want to make some trouble. The people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland might well have strong interest in the extent to which they are involved in this process. My amendment is a means to provide them with that opportunity. I will not contradict what the hon. Gentleman says. Under our constitutional settlement, there is a Scottish Parliament, a Northern Ireland Assembly and a National Assembly for Wales, so I would have thought that they will be extremely interested to know whether they were being cut out of the process prescribed in the Bill. It is not my fault that the Government made proposals and had all the joint committees that the various leaders of the devolved Assemblies complained that they had not been properly involved in. I am giving them a chance to be involved. He may be right about the legislative consent point, but I am right to think that in relation to this crazy Bill it would at least be useful for the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to be able to make their contributions in their devolved legislatures. I think that point is worth making, and I therefore intend to press amendment 6 to a vote. Of all the amendments I tabled, that is the one that I want to move most.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will be as brief as I can. I want to speak against clause 1 stand part. The clause is the heart and strategic intent of the Bill. It is trying to put this House in a position to stop the United Kingdom leaving the EU on the date on which the Government might want us to leave. There is no question about that.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) who made the point that the process of attrition in this House to limit the Government’s negotiating freedom in the end very much undermined their ability to get a better deal and to negotiate from a position of strength. If people cannot walk away from a negotiation they are in, and they have to agree something at the end of it, the other party simply calls the shots. That certainly strengthened the hand of those who want us to have a bad deal. I have made some points in the debate on one of the earlier business motions about the constitutional impropriety of this whole process.
I also invite the Committee to reflect on what this House looks like tonight as we discuss such highly technical issues. The British people expect us to be discussing the big principles of whether we should leave without a deal on WTO terms or sign up to the withdrawal agreement. This particular debate, however, seems particularly obscure and unavailable to voters. It will make this House look particularly out of touch, especially because the Bill is somewhat otiose.
I have argued for some time with colleagues on the Conservative Benches that the Prime Minister has demonstrated little intention of ever leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The fact that the Government have spewed out a whole raft of information basically about why they do not want to leave without a deal underlines that point. I therefore think that the Bill is unnecessary.
In my comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I pointed out that the Bill is also unenforceable. Just look at the wording of subsection (4), which is that
“the Prime Minister must seek an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union”.
What does “seek” mean in the circumstances? What happens if the Prime Minister makes a telephone call asking for an extension, says “Thank you very much” to what is offered, and puts the phone down again? How will that process be scrutinised and made accountable? How do we judge what is a serious seeking in good faith, and what is a mere technical seeking? That underlines the total futility of the House attempting to legislate in this way. Our system of government is not set up for Parliament to legislate for detailed instructions on how Ministers should carry out their duties. We tend to make laws on a much more general basis than that. That is why the system just does not work.
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend makes a really important point that builds on other points made during Committee. Has not a further defect been pointed out? There is no timeframe. The Prime Minister is not mandated to “seek” in any manner, or within any particular timeframe, so she could do nothing until 13 April and still intend to comply fully with the Bill.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Yes, and we absolutely know why the Bill is framed in these very vague terms—it is precisely to avoid its falling foul of rules that require a money resolution for a Bill that gives more specific instruction.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend—a good friend—is making very good points. This also gives rise to the question of scrutiny, which he mentioned. My Committee will undoubtedly have to try to work out how to deal with these scrambled eggs; and how will the House of Lords deal with this, given that it has disallowed Standing Order No. 72? Will it truncate its business to such an extent that it will not be able to get this right? Who will get this right?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will not attempt to answer that question, because it answers itself. Nobody will be held accountable for what goes wrong as a result of the Bill.
If the Prime Minister goes to the European Council for an extension—I have long been reconciled to the expectation that she will—what really matters are the conditions that come with it. Where is the accountability for the conditions that will apply? Or will she simply accept an enforceable agreement with conditions, and bring it back to the House as a fait accompli, as she did originally?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will press on, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
I have addressed the enforcement point, but let me come back to the question of legitimacy. The issue is not just the illegitimacy of the whole process, and the concept of the House legislating to instruct Ministers in a way that is outside the control of Ministers. As I said, there has been a huge Government campaign—some might call it a fear campaign—supported by the second referendum campaign and other very well funded lobby groups and business interests. The arguments in favour of leaving without agreement have pretty well been disposed of by default. They do not get a hearing. One can think of one or two broadcast outlets that delight in ridiculing perfectly respectable arguments.
I have a document here called “30 Truths about Leaving on WTO Terms”. It goes through all the canards, and it sets out how leaving without an agreement would leave us with an extra £39 billion to spend on our priorities, which over a couple of years would increase the GDP of this country by about 2%; how it would end uncertainty much more quickly; and how every party involved with the Irish border has said that there will be no infrastructure there in the event of a no-deal Brexit. So it goes on. I shall not detain the Committee with those arguments now, because this is not the time to make them; I just make the point that these arguments have simply not been made. Despite that, a very recent poll conducted by YouGov shows that where an extension is an option, 40% would support no deal. Only 11% would support an extension, though 36% would still support remain. The point is that the most popular option in the polls at the moment is leaving without a deal, so who does the Bill represent? This is despite the deluge of propaganda that has been emptied—[Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh, but no effective leave campaign has been conducted in favour of no deal, and the Government, who pretended to say they agreed that no deal is better than a bad deal, have not conducted a campaign to reassure voters that leaving without a deal is a sensible option. Despite that, the British people want to leave.
Who in this House was elected to put this Bill through Parliament? Who is this House was elected by saying, “When I am elected, I am going to put a Bill through the House to delay article 50”? The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is promoting this Bill, was not elected by saying that. She was elected on a manifesto to leave, and she is now defying that manifesto and voters in her own constituency, who voted to leave. When the extension option is removed in the YouGov poll, the percentage of people in favour of the no-deal option goes up to 44%, against 42% who are in favour of remaining. No leave campaign has been conducted in this country for the past two or three years, yet that is what the British people think.
Peter Grant
Well, how do I sum that up in 10 minutes or so? I think that “a pile of mince” would do it, in a handful of words.
I want to address some of the absolute nonsense that we have heard from the no dealers across the Chamber, but let me first welcome the fact that they are finally coming out for who they really are. These are the people who campaigned for the various leave campaigns, promising us that we would leave with a good deal—that we would still remain part of the customs union and the single market. That is what the leave campaign was saying. As for the story that there has been no leave campaigning recently, has the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) not seen the revelations in the media in the last couple of days about intensive, targeted social media campaigning, funded from who knows where? SNP Members do not know, but I wonder how many people on the Conservative Benches know where that money is coming from.
As for those who complain that we have not had enough time to debate the big issues of Brexit, these are the people who did not want Parliament to have any say at all. They went to court to prevent Parliament from being allowed to see the Prime Minister’s deal before it was too late to change it, and now they come along and complain that there has not been enough time to scrutinise it. These are the people who allowed 19 minutes of debate before the biggest power grab from Scotland ever seen since the introduction of the Scottish Office—19 minutes of listening to one Conservative Minister droning on, and then the measures were pushed through. How many Conservative Members complained about the lack of time then?
I am disappointed—although I obviously accept the decision—that the amendments that would have given some kind of firm reason for extending article 50 have not been selected. The House will need to come back to that in due course. I hope that at some point the House will agree not only that article 50 needs to be extended, but that whatever deal the United Kingdom intends to leave under is put to the people, so that they can confirm whether it is what they thought was meant by Brexit. I can tell the House what most of them did not think was meant by Brexit: they did not think that Brexit meant no deal, because even the leave campaign never said it was campaigning for that.
I will not go through all the individual amendments, but we will oppose anything that says that the extension can only be for a matter of days or weeks, because it is nonsensical to think that the Prime Minister’s bad deal will get significantly better in a matter of weeks. If there is going to be an improvement to the deal, it can come only if we get a longer extension and reset the whole process. The Prime Minister can then do what she should have done almost three years ago, as soon as she became the leader of a minority Government. She can act like a leader of a minority Government, and talk to politicians and parties across the House to find areas of agreement and consensus, before she starts to draw her red lines and paint herself into a corner. Let us remember that the EU has never said that the current agreement is the only one possible; it has said that it is the only one possible given the Prime Minister’s red lines.
The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) was so enthusiastic about his amendment 6 that he spoke to it for over half an hour—and it felt like just as long again when he intervened or raised points of order—but he forgot to mention that its real purpose is not to give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland a chance. If he was that bothered about giving the devolved nations a chance, he would have moved similar amendments to all the legislation that is leading to us being dragged out of the European Union in the first place.
The crux of amendment 6 comes right at the end, when it proposes that, consent having been given by the devolved Assemblies—including the one that does not exist at the moment—the Act will come into force on such a day as a Minister of the Crown may decide. Even if Parliament imposes its will on the Government, the Government could completely ignore the Act simply by not bothering to bring it into force. The amendment has some sugar coating to try to fool the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, but we are not going to be conned by that. We will not support the amendment.
I also have a big problem with new clause 13, which would effectively allow the Government to change the date unilaterally. I hope that the Minister can offer some kind of assurance on the circumstances in which that power would be used. We know that instruments have previously been prayed against by hundreds of right hon. and hon. Members, yet their objections have been ignored and the instruments have been implemented anyway. Can we therefore have an assurance that if the instruments are prayed against by any of the major Opposition parties, or by a given number of individual Members of Parliament, the Minister will guarantee, on his honour and that of the Government, that they will not be proceeded with? We need something as firm as that. It is one thing to get promises from this Prime Minister, but we do not know who will be Prime Minister when the provisions will be considered.
One amendment is intended specifically to ensure that we cannot take part in European parliamentary elections, which have been described as a waste of time. Who on earth is scared of taking part in elections? Who would want the entire nature of our future relationship with the European Union to be defined purely by the fact that we had to get out before—horror of horrors—we gave our people a chance to participate in its democratic processes? Brexiteers have been telling us for 10 years that those democratic processes do not exist, because they deny that the European Union is a democratic institution.
David Linden
Brexiteers say that the 2016 referendum was about giving back control to the people, yet we see the Conservative party running scared of the electorate. Is that not just going against the wishes of the people in 2016?
Peter Grant
Absolutely. As for the idea that we should not take part in the elections because we do not know how long our MEPs will be there, let us remember that some of them are never there anyway. I remember the Scottish regional elections in 1994, which we knew were for councils that would exist for a very limited time, but they actually had a higher turnout than was previously the case, because people were energised and motivated and understood what they were about. If the hard-line Conservatives do not want to take part in European parliamentary elections, that is entirely up to them, but I do not want my constituents to be denied an opportunity to vote for their representatives in Europe, whether that is for two days, two years or a full parliamentary term.
We will certainly support the drafting amendments tabled by the right hon. Members who introduced the Bill—given how many Lords amendments are often required to sort out the mistakes in Government legislation, despite all the resources that the Government have at their disposal, it is a bit much to be nitpicking about the fact that there were a couple of drafting errors in this Bill. It would have been nice not to have to rush the Bill through the House in such a hurry. It would have been nice if the Government had actually listened to what Parliament has been saying, in Back-Bench business debates and Opposition day debates, for the past three years. They have refused to listen, which is why the only way to make them listen is by Act of Parliament. That is why we will support the two amendments I have mentioned, and I hope to see the Bill go through to Third Reading.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will not repeat the general points I made on Second Reading, but I want to briefly outline the Opposition’s views on the amendments.
We will obviously support amendments 13 and 14, which are helpful drafting amendments, and will vote for clauses 1 and 2 to stand part of the Bill. We will support the Government’s new clause 13 with a clarification from the Minister. Normally we would support the affirmative procedure, but we accept the Government’s reasoning in this case, given the fast-moving situation and the need to ensure consistency between EU and UK law. We will support the new clause subject to an assurance from the Minister now that if one of the principal Opposition parties prays against the statutory instrument, the Government will urgently facilitate a debate on the Floor of the House.
We will oppose all the other amendments. Let me explain briefly why. Amendments 20 and 1 and new clause 5 seek to impose different dates. We should have learned from the withdrawal Act that putting exit dates in statute denies the flexibility we might need, and those amendments are clearly designed to frustrate the Bill’s objectives. We oppose amendment 21 because we believe it is right for the Government to come back to the House if the EU offers a different date. We oppose Government amendment 22 because it undermines the purpose of the Bill in relation to parliamentary approval to seek or agree an extension.
We oppose amendment 6 because it is designed to frustrate the process and, as Members have pointed, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting. We oppose new clause 4 because it would limit Parliament’s opportunity to shape decisions. I am surprised that, after his lengthy contribution, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is not here to hear our views on these points.
We oppose new clause 7 because it seeks to put a date in the Bill without saying so. It puts the cart before the horse. We should determine what extension we need and then deal with the consequences—even if that means elections, although that is not ideal—and not limit ourselves in that way. If we need a longer extension, we will presumably want the UK to have a voice in EU institutions—not simply the Parliament, but the Council and the Commission—and a judge in the Court of Justice. On that basis, we oppose that new clause and the other amendments that I have identified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I shall be brief, as this briefest of Committee stages demands. The Government continue to oppose the Bill, but given that it has reached Committee, I will speak to the Government amendments.
As the Secretary of State set out earlier, the Government have no choice but to improve the Bill and limit its most damaging effects. Our amendment 22 addresses the dangerous and perhaps unintended constitutional precedent that could be set by the Bill, which calls into question the Government’s ability to seek and agree an extension with the European Union using the royal prerogative. It is a well-established constitutional principle that Heads of Government are able to enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. The Government’s authority in this matter must not be undermined, as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said.
Exit day in international and domestic law is 12 April. The Bill creates a real risk that we could be timed out and be unable to agree an extension with our European partners and implement it in domestic law. The Bill as drafted actually increases the likelihood of an accidental no deal—an outcome that the House has repeatedly voted against. The new process created by the Bill could mean that we are timed out and no extension could be agreed. For example, on 10 April, the EU could propose an extension of an alternative length. Under the Bill, the Prime Minister must then return to the House to put forward that proposal, but by 11 April—by the time the House has had time to consider that—the Council would be over. We would need to confirm UK agreement to the EU proposal and get an EU Council decision before 11 pm on 12 April, and I struggle to see how we could carry out such a negotiation through correspondence in the 24 hours before we leave. The Bill therefore increases the likelihood of an accidental no deal. We seek to avoid that through amendment 22, which would ensure that the Government can agree an extension, regardless of the process set out in the Bill, in the national interest.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Minister clarify how he intends to use the power under new clause 13? By my reading of it, the Government could negotiate a very long extension, put it through using the negative procedure and then cut it very short indeed using the negative procedure. What reassurances can he give us that this will not become a power that either this Government or some future Government could abuse to undermine the will of the House and force us into a no-deal Brexit?
Mr Walker
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the power, which is simply to reflect in the UK the agreement that would by this stage have been reached with the EU on any extension. It is not about setting a completely different date; it is about reflecting that agreement.
To come to the assurances sought by both the SNP and the Opposition Front Benchers, if a statutory instrument under the negative procedure was prayed against, we would of course facilitate an urgent debate in that context. However, we have to bear in mind the reason why we are seeking this change of moving from the affirmative to the negative procedure, which is simply to provide the speed that I think this House would want in the context of a deal having being agreed.
I do not intend to detain the Committee much longer on this issue, but it is worth bearing in mind that the current arrangements require an SI to be debated and approved in both Houses under the draft affirmative procedure, the time for which could put at risk the critical process of approval. New clause 13 therefore seeks to amend the parliamentary scrutiny procedures applying to the power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that can be used to amend the definition of exit day. The scrutiny will be changed from the draft affirmative to the draft negative procedure. It is only prudent that we are able to make the SI under the negative procedure to ensure that our statute book reflects what is agreed in international law, avoiding a crash-out exit. For those reasons, I urge right hon. and hon. Members across the House to support the new clause.
However, I continue to urge Members to reject this Bill, which is not needed to avoid no deal because the Government have already undertaken to seek an extension to ensure that we avoid no deal. Like many colleagues who have spoken today, I want that extension to be a technical one to ensure that we leave with a deal. With that, I am keen to hear from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.
Yvette Cooper
I want to respond briefly to what has been a thoughtful debate on the detailed amendments that have been tabled.
To pick up where the Minister left off, I am happy to follow the Labour Front-Bench recommendation to accept new clause 13, given the tight timetable that the Minister will be operating on. It is not a core part of the Bill.
I believe that we should oppose amendments 20 and 1 and new clauses 5 and 4. They all, in different ways, attempt to restrict the Prime Minister’s flexibility to put a proposal to this House. Once the Prime Minister has put her proposal to the House, it will at that point be up to the House to reject or amend it. All the points made by hon. Members wanting to restrict the primary legislation can be argued when that motion is put forward. That is the proper time to debate those points.
On new clause 7, I understand the concerns about the European elections, because I personally do not think that it makes much sense for departing member states that are part of the article 50 process to be covered in the same way. However, I draw Members’ attention to the legal opinion drawn up by Lord David Anderson, QC, and five other top lawyers, which says:
“The right to participate in EP elections may be derogated from under EU law,”
and lists a series of other points. I understand that there will be political debates about that; I also think that all hon. Members will consider that the most important thing is for us to get this right, rather than be constrained by this issue. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate to accept new clause 7. Nevertheless, Members and the Government should take seriously that legal opinion, which lists a series of ways in which it is thought possible, short of treaty change, to avert the UK having to participate in European elections.
Let me turn to amendment 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and Government amendment 22, which is an important one. The Minister asked me why a similar provision had been included in previous drafts of the Bill. The reason was that in previous attempts we thought that we would be legislating at a much earlier stage and that therefore there might be a period of weeks in which the Prime Minister should not be restricted from seeking an extension of article 50 in advance, if that was thought necessary in order to prepare. We did not want to restrict the Prime Minister’s hand in that way. Our concern about how the provision is framed now is that it appears to undermine the purpose of the Bill, and I am not sure whether that is the Minister’s intention. Therefore, we should perhaps have further discussions if his amendment is not passed. I would resist it tonight, because I do not want to undermine the purpose of the Bill, although it is obviously important to ensure complete clarity about the Prime Minister’s flexibility to take decisions in the European Council, which of course she has.
Mr Robin Walker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that clarification. The Government will still press amendment 22, and we feel it right to do so to protect the powers under the royal prerogative. I can assure her that it is about providing that flexibility. Of course, the process that those on her party’s Front Bench and our Front Bench are engaged with might require that flexibility, whatever the House chooses to do on this legislation. We obviously continue to oppose the Bill, and I should also mention, as I did not mention it in my speech, that we encourage colleagues to support amendment 21.
Yvette Cooper
I would argue that Government amendment 22 and amendment 21 should both be opposed at this stage, but if they do not pass and the Bill passes to the other place, I would be keen to have further discussions with the Minister about how we can ensure appropriate clarity for something that I think we all want to see and ensure that the Government can do this in an orderly way.
On that basis, I hope that we can support the drafting amendments to which I have referred. I will personally support new clause 13, but would urge the Committee to resist the other amendments and hope that there can be further constructive discussions to ensure that the Bill does what we want it to do, which is simply to support the Prime Minister’s work to avert no deal and to ensure that we do not end up putting our constituents at risk during the important process that the Prime Minister has instigated, which we hope can successfully achieve agreement on a way forward.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 21, page 1, line 21, leave out subsections (6) and (7)—(George Eustice.)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House of Commons is about to pass a major piece of legislation without a Report stage or a substantive Third Reading. If the Government did this, the House would rightly be deeply irritated with them, so the House should find no virtue in its actions this evening.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way and with his usual sincerity. The matter of virtue is not to be adjudicated by the Chair, but his point is on the record.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are our defender of the rights of this Parliament. Surely it is within your gift to make this farce stop and say there can be no Third Reading—no more votes!
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman invests me with powers that I do not possess. I do not know whether I should be grateful to him. If he were right, perhaps I would be, but he isn’t, so I can’t. I fear we will have to leave it there, but I have heard his dulcet tones, and they will ring in my ears for some considerable time to come. I thank him for what he has said.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Question put forthwith (Order, this day), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the strong feelings that there are on this issue and the tightness of the vote, it is important to say how welcome it is that this has been a very considered and thoughtful debate throughout today. I am sure that that is the way that we want all the debates on this to take place.
The House has tonight voted again to make clear the real concern that there would be about a chaotic and damaging no deal and to support the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensure that we do not end up with no deal on 12 April. I am sure that we will be very keen to work with the Government to make sure that this legislation progresses in a way that is sensible and works in the national interest.
Finally, I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and the hon. Member for Grantham and Sleaford for their work on this Bill and on previous Bills to make sure that we could get this far, and, I hope, to help the Prime Minister to persuade her Cabinet and others how important this is.
Mr Speaker
I note what the right hon. Lady has said and I thank her for it.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have heard what the right hon. Lady has said, but it is difficult to argue that we have had an extremely considered debate when the Bill has been rammed through the House of Commons in barely four hours. That is not a considered debate; that is a constitutional outrage. It went through in the end by one vote. That, to me, does not represent the long-term, settled will of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] Someone shouts from a sedentary position “52:48”. There is a difference between a majority of 1.4 million and one. All I would say to hon. Members opposite is that the public will not be impressed by this. Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.
Mr Speaker
I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He speaks for himself and conceivably for others as well, and there are people who take a different view, but he has put it in a perfectly orderly way. There is, however, nothing disorderly about these proceedings. I absolutely understand his point of view, shared by his hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and many others, that this is not a procedure that should be followed, but it is not a disorderly procedure.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course this has been a quality debate, but an altogether too brief one. I know how their Lordships feel about ill-considered and briskly prepared legislation going up to their Lordships’ House in an inadequate state, as I am sure this Bill is, so I place on the record my fervent hope that their Lordships will examine this Bill line by line and explore every possibility for amendment of this legislation for as long as they think is necessary.
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that the other place will become aware of his words and will make its own judgment, as he rightly suggests.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We started the process of voting at 9.54 pm, and it has taken us until nearly half-past 11 to complete it. I am, of course, making my usual point about electronic voting and how much more efficient the process could be, but there is also a serious aspect in that the catering staff, the Clerks and all the other staff of the House have been dragged here and have had to stay until half-past 11. Surely all Members who are present agree that we need to move into the 21st century and introduce electronic voting.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not persistent in making that point. He knows, because I have indicated it on other occasions elsewhere, that I happen to have great sympathy for his point of view: I have said so many times in speeches and lectures around the country. However, I am fully aware of, and very respectful towards, the fact that the judgment would have to be made by the House of Commons as a whole. Each of us can have our own opinion, and the matter may come to be considered in due course. We shall see.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if I can invite the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to correct what I believe that I just heard her say. She thanked those who had supported the passing of her Bill, mentioning my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and “the hon. Member for Grantham and Sleaford”. I am the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and I do not support the Bill.
Mr Speaker
That is a perfectly fair point. The constituency is, in fact, Grantham and Stamford, and the hon. Lady represents Sleaford and North Hykeham. It is a perfectly fair correction, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will happily accept.
Yvette Cooper
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). It is late.
Mr Speaker
That is very gracious, and I trust it will be accepted in the spirit in which it has been proffered.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be in order to place on record the House’s thanks to, in particular, the Clerks and the staff of the Vote Office for the way in which they have received, marshalled, typed up, printed and distributed the papers that enabled us to consider the Bill this evening.
Mr Speaker
That is typically courteous of the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps enables us to conclude the proceedings on a note of some amity. I entirely endorse what he has said, and I think that that other colleagues will do so as well. Extreme professionalism has been required, and it has been provided. I thank all the Clerks at the Table, and many others who are not currently in the Chamber, for the work that they have done.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Thursday 4th April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Thursday 4th April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have been present for every speech today. I was sorely tempted to intervene on the odd one or two, but I kept reminding myself that I have to be diplomatic and brief during Second Reading and not upset anybody. I was always under pressure, thinking that, somewhere in this building—or on the estate—lots of meetings would be going on, trying to sort out or ease our clear difficulties with the Bill’s timetable during the day. Of course, this culminated in the welcome Business Statement by the Government Chief Whip, which I was very pleased about, so I will not make some points and I will not take very long.
I am moving the Motion because this is a Private Member’s Bill—it is a Public Bill and has the same status as any other Bill that happens to be led by a private Member—and I was asked if I would kick it off in this House. It is sponsored by Members of Parliament in the Commons from four political parties; it is not a Labour Party exercise, despite the constant refrain from a couple of noble Lords earlier. We are not in a normal situation; nobody is arguing that. The timetable of Brexit is an internal timetable in the UK but there is an external timetable, which we do not control, in the European Union.
Our role is not to rubber-stamp the elected Commons at any time; I make no apology for saying that. We need to consider what is sent to us. We do that—for example, that is why we do not vote on Second Reading—but we also have to consider the context in which it is sent to us. This is not normal. We are considering not Brexit—I am certainly not—but how now, today, the Commons is dealing with the Bill, because the case is not the same as it was one, two, three or four months ago. It has been forced into this situation. I was a Member there for only 27 years; others were there a lot longer. It is clearly now under extreme pressure, which is why this Bill was promoted. The Commons decided to take responsibility and control of the decision on a no-deal Brexit. We have gone past the stage where many members of the public thought no deal meant not leaving. That was the theme for months. When discussions relating to leaving without any arrangement took place, people assumed we would not leave. That is not the case.
For example, this morning we heard our police leaders in the UK warning about using language on Brexit that inflames a sensitive situation, possibly leading to violence. This is the UK today: police leaders warning us about our language on Brexit because it is potentially leading to violent acts. We heard the odd potential threat subliminally during the filibuster earlier today. This is a really serious situation. In my experience—45 years in Westminster—this has never happened before.
We also know that the Cabinet was last week warned by the National Security Adviser about a substantial rise in food prices as a result of leaving without a deal. Coincidentally, it just so happens that this House was due today to debate the evidence that the EU sub-committee reported as long ago as last May about food price rises due to Brexit. There is abundant evidence, which clearly the National Security Adviser has—he probably has better evidence than we have—that this is potentially a serious problem.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Will my noble friend also remind the House that the Cabinet Secretary warned that there would be direct rule in Northern Ireland if there were no deal?
Lord Rooker
Yes, he did. I have kept away from the debate on Northern Ireland. I had one year there as a direct rule Minister dealing with very much domestic issues. I know the sensitivities of the language used when you are there, what you talk about and how you discuss things with the five political parties. It is pretty serious, but the present situation in Northern Ireland is unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, because they have no democratic structures other than local government, which is what they had during all the Troubles. The councillors in Northern Ireland have carried the democratic burden alone for all these years.
When I do the half a dozen sessions for the Peers in Schools programme for the year, I always preface them by saying that we have two Houses of Parliament but they are not equal. That is the central message I leave. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and sometimes to ask the Commons to think again—that is what happens when we have a defeat of the Government; that is just a message to the Commons—but knowing that the Commons always has the last word. But of course, we are not in normal times. The timescale for what we have facing us next week amounts to a national emergency, which is why the Cabinet received the advice it did last week.
We need to treat the Commons with respect. I watched some of the debate yesterday, particularly towards the close of the evening because I was not certain whether I would be speaking on this subject, if the Bill carried, or, if it failed, on the food debate we were due to have. The Commons, like the country, is split and divided. We should therefore treat it with a degree of respect, not criticise just because it was one vote—a personal comment was made today about one of the individuals who took part in the voting. The nation is divided and the elected House of Parliament is divided; we should take that on board. That is why people welcomed the attempt last Tuesday by the Prime Minister to try to get some kind of consensus. The Commons alone has the legal responsibility on the meaningful vote. Some of them have woken up to the fact that, besides the meaningful vote, every other procedure has to come through this Chamber so that it can be scrutinised and checked. That is why we are doing this Bill today.
It is a simple Bill; I know there is criticism about that. Things that are simple are usually unfair—the poll tax is the example I use—but it is a simple, clear Bill. If Ministers’ words in Hansard could be fully trusted, this Bill would not be needed. I disagreed entirely with the thrust of most of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but her amendment was the one that was actually true in the sense that the Bill is not needed—but it is needed because people do not trust the words of Ministers, even when they are in Hansard. Enough have said repeatedly, “We will not leave without a deal”, but that lack of trust forced the Commons to produce this Bill, which in effect—I am not a lawyer—gives a legal force to that promise. I realise that it is not easy. I was aware early this morning that there were problems with the Bill; there were lots of discussions going on. I was grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its chair, because I had its report in my hands and read it 20 minutes before the chairman made his speech. It is very helpful but makes it quite clear that there are problems over Clause 2. Along with other matters, these have to be dealt with.
We should debate the Bill—we have a bit more time now—and send it back to the Commons, but it has to be done in line with the timescale it is forced to work to. The European Council is on Wednesday. The Bill requires the Prime Minister, a day after Royal Assent, to make the necessary decisions. It is a bit tight. That is why it must go to the Commons on Monday and get Royal Assent that day, so that on Tuesday the Prime Minister can fulfil the obligation placed on her. It says “must”. I was queried earlier today on what the sanction is if she does not. I spoke to someone who has worked with the Prime Minister for the best part of just over 20 years, day in and day out. He told me she is the most law-abiding person he has ever come across and that even when she is late for a meeting she makes sure the car goes at only 29 miles per hour. She will follow it to the letter. If the Act says she must, she will do it. There is every confidence in that, but it is the timescale that she and we are not fully in control of. We have to do our bit for the UK and the Government so that decisions can be made next Wednesday at the Council about the reason for and the length of an extension to Article 50.
I think the Bill actually helps the Prime Minister at this stage in the process, and we should support it at Second Reading—the House does not throw Bills out at Second Reading, otherwise we could never scrutinise them. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble Lord. He and I crossed swords many times in the other place, and I always emerged from those exchanges with a great deal of respect and a touch of affection for the noble Lord—but I regret to say that I disagree what he has said to the House this evening. The House of Commons and this House decided to delegate the decision on the future of our relationship with the European Union to the people of our country in a referendum. They did that without qualification. The question on the referendum paper was not, “Do you want to remain in the European Union if we can get satisfactory terms?” or, “Do you want to leave if we can get satisfactory terms?” Rather it was a clear question: leave or remain? The country delivered its verdict without qualification. It said, by a relatively small but clear margin, that it wanted to leave.
Parliament then voted to trigger Article 50 and did so without qualification. Article 50 meant that we would leave the European Union two years after the article was triggered. There was no qualification. It was not a question of our leaving in two years’ time if we could get a reasonable deal; it was that we should leave. That, I believe, is what we should have done last week, but we did not. That was because Members of both Houses of Parliament did not get the answer they wanted. There was a considerable majority in both Houses for us to remain in the European Union. After the result of the referendum, some Members of both Houses who had been in favour of the UK remaining accepted the verdict of the people in good faith. Some accepted it but tried to limit what they saw as the damage. They were reluctant accepters of the verdict of the people. Others—far too many, I fear—have sought to thwart, obstruct and reverse the decision of the people and have never really accepted the result of the referendum.
I believe we should leave the European Union without, if necessary, any overarching agreement. In the end, I was persuaded of the merits of the proposal put by the Prime Minister to Parliament for a third time and I would have reluctantly voted for it. However, the proposal did not achieve the support of Parliament. In those circumstances, I would leave without a deal, which is why in due course I shall vote against this legislation.
I do not want to repeat the points made very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lilley in his speech today before he was cut off in his prime, but it is the case that we could leave. Preparations have been made on both sides of the channel for us to leave in relatively good order, and that is what I think we should do if the Prime Minister cannot achieve agreement to the terms she has negotiated. The former Governor of the Bank of England has suggested that we should do so with a six-month standstill. After we have left, we should agree with the European Union to trade with each other on the same terms. That is a sensible proposal and I would even go so far as to say that we should give each other 12 months in which to negotiate a satisfactory trading agreement. I have no doubt that if that step were taken, it would be perfectly possible to reach an agreement along those lines.
Given that, I speak against the Bill currently before your Lordships’ House. When the moment comes, I shall vote against it because I think we have to honour the result of the referendum, and the time has come for us to do so.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend saying that he will vote against Second Reading?
Lord Howard of Lympne
No, of course not. I accept the procedures of this House, but there will come an opportunity for us to vote on the merits of the Bill and at that stage I shall vote against it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support the Bill and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for taking up the mantle of introducing it in this House. I also thank Members of the other place, the right honourable Yvette Cooper and the right honourable Sir Oliver Letwin. I was distressed to hear the attacks being made by Members on the Benches opposite on Sir Oliver Letwin because, as far as I am concerned, these colleagues of ours in the other place are doing a great public service.
We need this Bill as an insurance policy against a no-deal Brexit. Even though the Prime Minister has said that she intends to seek a longer extension, it is essential to give the House of Commons a role in that process; namely, mandating the Government and ensuring the accountability of the Government to the House of Commons so that it can take proper control of the process, which is what has been wanted by all sides over the past three years. We should not be in a situation where this country slips off the cliff edge of no deal either through intent or by accident. I am afraid that the Prime Minister has blown hot and cold on no deal, so there is an issue as regards the confidence and indeed the trust that we can have that the policy will not flip-flop. We also need to ensure that the Prime Minister goes on pursuing a straight course.
The impact of no deal would be very severe. We have heard that from the CBI, the TUC and from the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill. We have heard about a 10% increase in food prices, a possible recession, customs delays and bankruptcies among businesses.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, are these not the same people who warned us, when we voted three years ago, that pandemonium would break out? Further, are not some of them, like the CBI, the same people who said that we must join the euro—and continue to say that as well?
Baroness Ludford
I think that the noble Lord is somewhat out of date. There has been a serious impact on the economy. As a result of the Brexit vote, we have lost around 2.5% of GDP, even though we are still in the EU. We are down by around £600 million a week.
As I was saying, there are already shortages of medicines, and that will get worse. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not with us now, suggested in a debate we had a couple of weeks ago that I was wrong to draw attention to the problem of people not getting essential medicines. These stories continue to appear, and they are very real. The NHS has not stockpiled everything because some medicines such as short-life isotopes cannot be stockpiled. It is therefore irresponsible to contemplate no deal. There would also be effects on our security and on Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has talked about the issues as regards the Northern Ireland border and possible direct rule.
Last night, Mr Mark Francois MP said in the other place that the Bill is a “constitutional outrage”, a phrase which was echoed by some speakers to the amendments to the Business Motion this afternoon. What in my opinion would be a constitutional, political, economic and social outrage would be for a Government, any Government, knowingly to inflict avoidable damage on their own citizens through a catastrophic and damaging crash-out from the European Union; hence the need to make sure we avoid a no-deal situation. This Bill assists in that process.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, is it not a question of weighing the short-term inconveniences against the long-term picture? The whole point about the long term, given the appalling economic record of the EU, is that our economy is likely to grow much less while we are part of the EU or closely related to it than if it is free.
Baroness Ludford
That is not the consensus of reputable economists, who all say that we will do worse outside the EU. Some of those who say that we will be fine under no deal are not the vulnerable people who will suffer in a crash-out situation. They do not have millions stashed away.
Clause 2 would enable exit day to be changed by the Government subject only to the negative procedure. We agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it would be better if the clause was removed from the Bill. We dealt expeditiously with the change from 29 March to 12 April in the statutory instrument, and there is no reason to think that we would not be able to do so again if required. It is a domestic law issue; if we get an extension, it is not a question of whether we are in the EU but a question of necessary housekeeping, and it can be done.
I do not want to go on about a people’s vote, but the noble Lord, Lord Howard, referred to the will of the people. It is time to update our knowledge of the will of the people. Three years on, it is not reasonable or reliable to rely on what a different electorate said in 2016. We hope and expect that the Prime Minister will seek an extension, but she should use that extension to get an update of the verdict of the people.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Will the noble Baroness comment on whether she is satisfied that the drafting of the Bill is watertight and will guarantee that, if it is passed in this way, there will be no way for the Government to escape the implications of their responsibilities under the Bill?
Baroness Ludford
It would take a braver woman than I to say that it is watertight. I do not know whether there is anything behind the noble Lord’s question and that he knows something that I do not, so I will rely on the better legal minds which will follow to answer that question. However, I have no reason to think that the drafting has not been carefully looked at.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I had planned to be at the National Theatre tonight, on date night with my wife. We had tickets to see “Follies”. The follies that we have all witnessed in this House today sadly lacked the lyrics and the music of Stephen Sondheim that I will be humming to myself throughout the debate.
I support the Bill, but I am concerned about aspects of its drafting. In particular, your Lordships will have seen that the Bill envisages that, if the Prime Minister is mandated to seek an extension to the Article 50 period and given a specified date, as Clause 1 provides, and if the European Council then says no, that it does not agree to that but makes a counter offer of a different date for the extension, under this Bill the Prime Minister would have no power to agree. She would have to return to the House of Commons—presumably the next day, given the urgency of the matter—and meanwhile the European Council will not be sitting in Brussels waiting for the deliberations of the House of Commons; its members will all have gone home because the European Council meeting ends on Wednesday night.
This is all very unfortunate, because the laudable aim of the proposers of this Bill is to reduce the risk of a no-deal exit. However, there is a risk that, by reason of the drafting, that laudable objective may be damaged by the contents of the Bill, and I am concerned about that. Your Lordships will recollect that Aneurin Bevan told the Labour Party conference in 1957 that it should not send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber. My concern is that this Bill will send the Prime Minister into the Brussels meeting overdressed with legal requirements.
For that reason, I shall be tabling, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, an amendment to the Bill for consideration in Committee on Monday which will address this problem. It will seek to make clear that this legislation does not affect the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers to seek or agree an extension to the Article 50 period to a date not earlier than 22 May of this year. A statutory instrument would still be required to extend exit day under the 2018 Act, as amended by Clause 2 of the Bill.
I very much hope that, over the weekend and when we debate this matter on Monday, the Government, Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches will give careful consideration to the amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with his crystal clear legal mind. I shall study his amendment with great interest when it is tabled.
Most people will agree that we have had a miserable afternoon here—although it ended slightly less unhappily than I feared—but the reason for the muddle into which we all seemed to get earlier is quite clear and direct: in the Commons, Parliament has taken control of the business and the Government from the Ministers of the Crown. We know that Parliament is not a Government and that, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made clear earlier, when Parliament takes control, things always go badly wrong—they always have, every time in history. When we look in our history books, we find that every time Parliament has tried to take control from the Crown and the Executive, disasters usually follow.
Outside my office at the other end of the Royal Gallery there is a cabinet in which there is a document signed by 59 commissioners taking parliamentary control by virtue of deciding to cut off the head of the Crown Executive—namely, the King—in 1649. That was Parliament taking control. How did that end? Disastrously: it ended with the abolition of Parliament and a sticky end for all 59 commissioners who signed the executive order. It has always been so. It is natural that if we cannot sustain an Executive and the Crown prerogative is taken away by Parliament taking control, they cannot govern, negotiate or make treaties. This is the position we are in today.
Why are we in this position? Because of cascades of errors. All this is not recent. We could all spend hours blaming each other and events going back years and years into the middle of the previous century. These errors created the waves on which we are riding today, rather like corks on a wave. We are being blown along by events and the bad decisions taken by our predecessors years ago. When I was banging on about predecessors the other day, my younger son warned me, “Well, you are one of the predecessors, so you are to blame for where we are now”.
This morning, I was speaking to a French official visiting London. He said, “This is all familiar to us”. Alexis de Tocqueville described exactly what is happening now—admittedly more in relation to America—in saying that as the growth of individualism and the concern for individual liberty grew, so it would become more and more expressive and detached from the body politic, the professional politicians and the political institutions, and that huge gaps would arise. That is not very far from where we are now but, in a sense, the whole atmosphere—the whole situation—has been vastly amplified by the electronic revolution and communications technology which, in the words of Madeleine Albright, have given every individual their own echo chamber. The flood, power and volatility of opinion have changed the business of trying to prevent the gap between the government system and the individual from growing vastly wide—and vastly wide it has grown.
Where are we heading? If this Bill goes ahead, which it probably will, one possibility—the one favoured by Mr Corbyn and his wing of the Labour Party—is a permanent customs union. Another very strong possibility is a long delay. It may be short to start with, but it could be long. Another possibility, which would cheer up many people on the Lib Dem Benches, is no Brexit. That possibility is now there.
As far as a permanent customs union is concerned, ironically, if the much-reviled withdrawal agreement were supported, it would provide a temporary 21-month customs union and, after that, the means to get out of it. I know that that is denied by those who talk about permanent entrapment, the backstop never being resolved and being permanently entangled in a customs union, but the reality is that, funnily enough, the people who are arguing that are also arguing—and I believe they are right—that the hard border issue can be resolved in 21 months perfectly well, so it would never happen or, if it did, it would be only temporary. Anyway, that is another story we have debated endlessly. The point is that, on present trends, the prospect of a permanent customs union is looming over the scene, which would be a lot worse for many people, including me, than the temporary customs union in the withdrawal agreement.
There is another dubiety behind the present situation: democracy, a much-bandied word, is not the same as majoritarianism. The idea that a majority vote determines all and the minority can be completely ignored is not democracy. It is a different trend that led to some disastrous outcomes in the 20th century. Compromise is always necessary in democracies. There are no exceptions. The irony of our present situation is that if this Bill goes forward, and if one of the outcomes I mentioned—no Brexit—were to occur, that would be an extraordinary situation: not on denial of minorities, which some of my noble friends, and certainly my honourable friends in the other place, do not quite grasp when they speak about the will of the people and that sort of thing, but on the way the referendum decided absolutely that Brexit was the outcome when in fact a vast minority’s view needed to be taken into account. If we go ahead with Brexit, it will be the other way round. We will be denying the interests of the majority instead of those of the minority, which would be hugely dangerous. There should be no illusions about that. If that is the outcome, it would be deeply unsettling and dangerous—certainly equivalent to anything the country experienced in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Quite simply, rather than having this Bill—it looks as though we are going to have it all the same—I would much prefer the way out that some of us have argued for all along: all of my party should support a version of the withdrawal agreement. It is called Mrs May’s deal or the Prime Minister’s deal, but it is in fact a worked-out agreement with the European Union that it does not want to reopen. If the EU can adjust it or add codicils to it, that is fine, but rather than the dangers of denying the majority in the future and saying goodbye to Brexit altogether, it would be far better for my party to support the withdrawal agreement. To my mind, it always was and will be the best way forward. That is difficult to face—compromise is always difficult to face—but unless we face it, there are grave dangers ahead for us.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is the chair of the International Relations Committee on which I sit. Even when I do not always agree with him in every respect, I always learn a lot from what he says.
I shall pursue my noble friend Lord Pannick’s theatrical image. Sitting here this afternoon, I had a vague presentiment that there was a similarity to the occasion when President Lincoln was assassinated at the theatre and somebody said to Mrs Lincoln afterwards, “And how did you enjoy the play, Mrs Lincoln?”. I think this afternoon’s events might have produced a pretty large raspberry to that, and I find it pretty shameful that not one of the people who kept us here all afternoon in an absolutely obvious filibuster has found the time to participate in the Second Reading of this Bill. Oh—I am sorry; I did not see the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I apologise. But one swallow does not a summer make.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My noble friend Lady Deech did not move an amendment; nor did the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I am talking about noble Lords who moved amendments. That is what I said, and I think it is rather shameful that none of them, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is here.
I will support the Bill. I think that it is both necessary and urgent. I think the reasons for it are the need to send, ahead of the meeting next Wednesday in Brussels, a very clear message to our 27 European Union partners—and they are still our partners. When this Bill becomes an Act, it will send a useful message to them ahead of that meeting. It would have been much better if we could have passed it through all its stages today, but I do not believe that Monday is too late to pass a useful message, and I hope that we will do that in due course.
What is the message that we are passing? First, as other noble Lords who have spoken have said, it is that this House does not share, the other place does not share and the whole British Parliament does not share the view that no deal is better than a bad deal. That appalling mantra, which dominated the negotiations for so many months, even years, is, I think, being laid to rest by this indication—and about time too is all I would say.
The second message we are sending is that both Houses of this Parliament need more time and space to work on a new course for our relationship with the EU in future, whatever that might be. That is a useful message to send. I do not think that we ought to be too specific about how long it will take. It may be that some rather flexible formula can be found in Brussels next Wednesday to cover that, but the idea—
Lord Framlingham (Con)
For the sake of the record, would the noble Lord confirm to the House that he is doing all he possibly can to keep our country in the European Union?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am sorry to say that some of the noble Lord’s friends this afternoon did not even have the courtesy to give way when I tried to speak, so I have no intention of answering his intervention, which is nothing whatever to do with what I have said. I said that we should set a new course in our relationship with the European Union.
The question of the European Parliament elections cannot be completely discounted at this stage, but I do not think that we should allow that complication to be an impediment to a longer extension of the Article 50 period. There is no harm at all to be found in our participating in those elections. Obviously, should we definitively leave after the elections, the result would not be followed through. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he replies to this debate, could confirm reports that I have seen that the Government are in fact making the necessary preparations to hold a vote on 23 May if we are still in the European Union on that date. It would be really helpful to have that point made clearly, because we could then stop fussing too much about it.
I do not think that the issue of a consultation with the electorate will go away. It is not part of this legislation and therefore I will not go into great detail about it. I will say merely that so much has changed and so much is different from what was put to the people in 2016 that it would be little short of shameful if we did not consult them again. Of course, they might give the same answer as they gave before. So be it, if that is their answer—but they ought to be given the opportunity, I hope that in the not too distant future, when there is a clear picture of what Brexit means—not just “Brexit” but what it means in detail—they will have a chance to have their say.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief in making a point that I regard as fundamental. The length of my speech will be in inverse proportion to the importance of what I wish to convey. I am not concerned here with the principle of Brexit. Debate on whether the United Kingdom leaves or remains within the European Union is toxic and I associate myself with neither side in the debate. Proponents on both sides tend to lack not only balance but self-awareness.
My concern covers a matter touched upon earlier today in discussing the various amendments to the procedure Motion, and that is the constitutional implications of the Bill before us. The Bill is constitutionally novel, and some would argue objectionable, inasmuch as it impinges on the established relationship between Parliament and the Executive. I distinguish what the Bill seeks to achieve from the procedure adopted to achieve it.
The claim that the House of Commons is “taking back control” can be utilised only in respect of procedure. The current precedence of government in the business of the other place, as stipulated by Standing Order, derives from the Balfour reforms of 1902. However, wresting from the Government control of a particular policy, or determining how the Government will act in pursuing a policy, is not a case of taking back control. You cannot take back something that you never had.
Our current constitution is grounded in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Bill of Rights 1689 established that the Crown could no longer legislate, suspend laws or raise taxation without the assent of Parliament. However, the position of Parliament in relation to the Executive was and remained reactive. Parliamentarians made it clear that they still looked to the monarch to come forward with a policy. Parliament could and can say no to the Government; it could and can amend a Bill brought forward by the Government, but the onus for the measure continues to rest with the Government. They may come back with a fresh policy of their own, or they may choose to withdraw or not continue with a Bill that has been amended in a way of which they disapprove. As I say, the onus continues to rest with government. The status of each—government and Parliament—is clear and distinct and the relationship well understood. Since the emergence of Parliament in the 13th century, Parliament has been a reactive body, responding to demands of the Crown.
This Bill marks a departure from that clearly understood position. It confuses the relationship. That relationship has a clear, principled rationale. It means a clear line of accountability, with a Government accountable to Parliament and, through parliamentary elections, accountable to electors. We are in danger of engaging in an exercise that, like referendums, is strictly speaking irresponsible. With referendums, there is no means by which electors can hold themselves responsible for the outcomes. Similarly, with policy determined by a transient majority of parliamentarians, there is no single coherent body that stands before the electors to be held responsible for the policy.
If we proceed with this Bill—especially Clause 1(1)—we should not do so in a constitutional haze. I have previously quoted in debate Sir Sidney Low, who in his book The British Constitution, published in 1928, wrote:
“In England we often do a thing first and then discover that we have done it”.
I fear that we may be in danger of doing something without fully grasping what we are doing. We in this House especially should act only when we have understood and fully reflected on the constitutional implications of what we are doing. We need to raise our gaze beyond the immediacy of a toxic and confused debate, and focus on the consequences for our constitutional arrangements.
The House of Commons enjoys primacy and is entitled to get its way, but that does not absolve this House of its responsibility to ensure that legislation is examined thoroughly and as far as possible improved, if necessary inviting the other place to think again about provisions that engage fundamental constitutional principles.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, not only is the procedure relating to this Bill unacceptable and unconventional, but the Bill too has its faults. It is unnecessary because the Prime Minister has said that she will seek a delay, and this ties her hands. It makes us subservient to European Union timing. Clause 1(6) and (7) give any European Union extension priority over what we might want. According to the Bill, if some hypothetical date that the EU puts forward is accepted, there will be a Motion in the Commons taking the form of subsection (2). That subsection has dots where a date would be; it does not refer to subsection (3).
The other thing that puzzles me is the wording in Clause 1(2). It says,
“for the purposes of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019”.
I looked it up, and there is no such Act. After much puzzling, I decided that this was a reference to the Bill, but the Bill is called the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, and presumably, if it becomes an Act, it will be the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Act. Therefore, I hope that that can be corrected, or maybe there is already a European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 that I am unaware of. I found that reference puzzling and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify it or make sure that it is corrected.
I also wonder why this House would not be involved if such a Motion for an extension were passed. Why would only the Commons be involved? I think that subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 1 should be deleted. I do not see why any priority should be given to European Union timings. It should be for our Prime Minister to say that she has received a suggestion from the European Union about certain dates and that is what she wants. I do not see why the European Union should make that decision. I also wonder what European Union procedures there are to make those dates firm. We have already had extension dates bounced on us, and we have been told that they are part of an international treaty. I do not know whether we are part of that, how it came about or whether we ever agreed to it.
The root of the trouble, in retrospect, is the Miller case, where a random member of the public who could afford it brought a case to ensure that Parliament was involved in triggering Article 50. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has now found a good use for the royal prerogative and suggests that Mrs May be allowed to use that in questions relating to the date. However, it may be that in years to come the diminution of the royal prerogative by the Miller case comes to be regretted.
It is also the case that there are problems with Article 50. As I said on Twitter, this is:
“A clue to the source of Brexit trouble”,
and these are not my words but the words of Professor Collier, who wrote in the New Statesman a week or two ago:
“Article 50 was designed (by a clever British civil servant of yesteryear) so as to strip any country wanting to leave of all negotiating power”.
I hope that in years to come the defects in Article 50 will be recognised.
The reason why we are in this trouble is that from day one those who voted remain, or many of them, have done what they can to block an orderly exit. Indeed, Brexiteers in the other House were misguided in refusing to pass the withdrawal agreement—not that I hold any candle for it but I do not think there was anything better, and we would not be in the situation if they had voted for it. I can therefore conclude only that the overriding motive of those who are pushing this Bill is to avoid Brexit or to have a softer Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, helpfully spelled it out in the Times a couple of days ago in an article that he said was addressed to the European authorities. This is what to do, he said to them in his article, if you want to stop Brexit: give Britain a delay. Give it more, more and more delay. Do not impose conditions, just delay and delay, and the whole thing will eventually dribble away in the sand. That is what the noble Lord said.
On the other hand, there is the question of no deal. There might be chaos, although we do not know, but two particular advantages of no deal have emerged recently. First, suddenly Mr Varadkar is talking about sensible ways to get around the Irish hard border issue. Suddenly he has come forward with what he says might be acceptable technical ways to do this—a miracle. Secondly, I think no deal would force the European Union to negotiate. It would jump-start it into negotiating, which is its duty under Article 50 and which it has neglected. All the EU has said is, “No, we will not reopen the withdrawal agreement”, and, “No, we will not change anything”. So one wonders really what the delay is for. If Europe will not reopen the withdrawal agreement, why are we delaying? It will say to us, “What’s your new plan for the future?”. Even if we were to say, which I hope we will not, “A customs union”, what guarantee is there that Europe would agree to it? Probably it will just say no to anything that we ask for so that the delay goes on and on. An extension as mandated in the Bill would not end the possibility of no deal, because if no deal happens because there is no deal then no deal is what we will get. So I do not see that there is any reason for the delay.
Lastly, on the notion of a second referendum and people changing their minds, I rather wonder whether remainers have changed their mind. What did they think they were voting for two or three years ago? Were they voting for what we see now across Europe? Were they voting for the collapse of French security? Were they voting for the high level of Belgian intelligence? Were they voting to see more fiscal indiscipline within Italy, higher unemployment in Greece and less philanthropy and sharing of burdens by Germany? Were they voting to see more authoritarianism in Hungary, less respect for the rule of law in Poland or increasing expenditure, sometimes unaccounted for, in Brussels? Were they voting to see a Europe that is unwilling to support NATO as it should? I hope that they will think again. Facts have indeed changed over the last two years, for the worse.
I hope the Minister will respond to my points about drafting and reply as to why we need the Bill at all.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I have great respect for her, not least because she was until recently chair of the Bar Standards Board. If we do not always agree on matters of constitutional law or indeed attitudes to Europe, and I am afraid we certainly do not, perhaps we should put that down to my not having been a member of the illustrious constitutional law class that she was referring to earlier today.
I welcome the Bill but we must acknowledge that its aims are modest. It allows the House of Commons to ensure that an extension is requested but it does not offer a guarantee against no deal. If it gets to the stage of the Bill being used then I am afraid that that matter remains within the unilateral control of the European Council, or indeed each of the 27 European Governments, who will retain a veto on a matter of extension. It is less powerful in that respect than the indicative Motion placed by Joanna Cherry in the House of Commons last week, though I immediately acknowledge that that Motion did not gain the support of that House, whereas this Bill did.
There is at least one fixable defect in the Bill. I say “at least one” because I am afraid I have not studied the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; it may well be that when I look at what it has to say about Clause 2 I will find myself in agreement with that. The fixable defect that I have in mind is that which was lucidly explained earlier on by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, relating to the procedure following a counterproposal from the European Council. That is alluded to briefly in this morning’s report by the Constitution Committee and covered in more detail by the legal adviser to that committee, Mark Elliott, whose name has been mentioned already today, who sets it out in his blog, Public Law for Everyone. He has done a very thorough job and I think we in Parliament should all be very grateful to him for the work that he has done.
The amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, sounds promising to me. If it can be accommodated in time for this urgent Bill to be useful, I for one will be looking at it positively and with gratitude.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue about the procedure following a counterproposal. My understanding is that discussions that include the Government are under way on this. Perhaps the Minister might be able to indicate to us at the end of the debate whether the Government themselves will be tabling an amendment on Monday. The Minister is shaking his head and saying they will not, so I think the House will take careful note of that in terms of where it might go next.
In his brilliant speech introducing the Bill, my noble friend Lord Rooker said that the Prime Minister had the reputation of being the most law-abiding person in the country who, even when she was late for an engagement, travelled at precisely 29 miles per hour in her official car. As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I am delighted that she observes the speed limit in that way. However, the big problem that we in this country face at the moment is that she is accelerating the country at about 100 miles per hour towards the cliff edge. We are seeking to decelerate the car very rapidly to see that we do not go off the edge of a cliff but stop, take stock as a country and do something far more sane and sensible than that.
If we had complete trust, there would not be a need for the Bill, but I am afraid a pattern of behaviour has grown up over the past year. There was the first meaningful vote, which became meaningless when the Prime Minister lost it, and then the second meaningful vote, which then became meaningless. There was the clock that was not supposed to be run down but is now practically at zero. That pattern of behaviour has led Parliament and responsible parliamentarians to believe quite rightly that without a legal backstop, which is effectively what we are legislating for, there is a real danger that things could go seriously wrong next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is right to say that the procedure in the Bill does not make it absolutely impossible for no deal to take place but makes it much less likely because it imposes a process of parliamentary accountability and debate, both beforehand and afterwards, which makes it extremely unlikely that no deal would happen. The reason it makes it extremely unlikely is that the considered and firmly declared will of Parliament is that we should not have no deal. That has repeatedly been the vote of the House of Commons, by 400 to 200 votes when a view on that specific proposal was last expressed. The majority of one on this Bill is very misleading, because it is due to concerns about whether it is correct to limit the royal prerogative in the way that is being done at the moment. I take careful note of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on that.
It is very important to address the underlying issue, which is the crisis facing the country: does Parliament want no deal? The House of Commons could not have been more emphatic on that. It does not want no deal. However, because it does not have sufficient trust in the Prime Minister to ensure that no deal is removed from the equation, we have this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in unjustly derogatory remarks about Sir Oliver Letwin earlier, missed the point that Sir Oliver has been performing a very valuable public service. He has effectively made himself the leader of a massive parliamentary majority encompassing all sides of the House of Commons and the overwhelming majority of Members of your Lordships’ House, who do not want to see the country trashed next week by an inadvertent move towards no deal. Introducing his Bill yesterday, at the beginning of the debate in the House of Commons, Sir Oliver said,
“there should be a transparent and orderly statutory process or framework within which the House has an opportunity to consider the length of the extension that is asked for and to provide the Prime Minister with backing for her request to the EU in an unequivocal and transparent way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1060.]
That is a laudable and very necessary objective for Parliament to secure, which is why we are attending to these matters so late on a Thursday evening and will not rest until we have enacted the Bill.
The big question which then faces us as a country is: what do we do once we have this long extension? We are in the middle of a very deep political and constitutional crisis, because of our inability to light on a policy which is sustainable for the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, who is no longer in his place, gave a very simplistic answer to the question. I am afraid that, to my mind, that simplicity is born of a fundamentalism I find extremely unattractive. He said the House of Commons voted three years ago to delegate the decision on what we will do as a country to the people. This goes to the fundamental issue facing Parliament and the country at the moment. Three years ago, all that the country was asked to vote on—the only option people were given—was four words: leave the European Union. That was the option on the ballot paper. There was no detail.
As has now become clear, the people behind the leave campaign all had inconsistent and often contradictory objectives about what they wanted. Some said we would stay in the customs union and keep freedom of movement; some said we would not. As the negotiations have proceeded—I give the Prime Minister credit for doing her best in the negotiations—it has become clear that we cannot achieve the objectives set out three years ago. Not only that, but the Prime Minister’s own objectives, set out in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017, cannot be achieved either.
When faced with a situation in which promises made cannot be kept, the country faces a very deep crisis and circumstances have changed radically, what do you do? Do you continue to accelerate at 100 miles an hour towards the edge of a cliff? Or do you decelerate, stop, take stock, be reasonable and—this is highly appropriate—give the country the opportunity to make a judgment on whether it wants to proceed with Brexit on the terms negotiated by the Prime Minister or stay in the European Union?
The situation we face reminds me very much of a Sherlock Holmes novel. I was reminded of it because I have been speaking up and down the country on Brexit recently. Two weeks ago, I was in Crowborough, where Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lived. Indeed, I had my photograph taken next to his statue. I had to get a special angle for the photo, because it is next to a Wetherspoon’s. For reasons noble Lords may understand, I was very keen to have Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the picture, but I was not so delighted to have a Wetherspoon’s in it. I managed to get the right angle, however, and those who follow me on Twitter can see the picture.
In The Sign of the Four, Sherlock says:
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
That is the situation the country now faces. The impossible have been eliminated: no deal; the Prime Minister’s deal; different variations of the Prime Minister’s deal; and supposed alternatives to the backstop, which simply have to be called alternative arrangements because they do not exist and cannot be defined. In a wonderful Orwellian twist, not having any alternative arrangements, what have the Government done? They have set up an alternative arrangements working group. You could not make it up. But there are no alternative arrangements. We will not have a frictionless border in Northern Ireland in the cloud and so on—it does not exist.
In this situation, the only sensible policy for the state that now exists is to take the best deal that can be negotiated, which is the Prime Minister’s existing one—at least that is technically possible to implement, because it has been negotiated—and put that to the people, with the alternative being to remain in the EU. In the conversations taking place between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, I believe it would be possible to forge a compromise on that basis.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is both wrong and right. He is right that the referendum was a simple choice. What did it show? It was not a decisive view either way; it showed that the country was deeply divided and confused. I think Sherlock Holmes or Dr Watson would say that the answer to all this must be a compromise, because the country is divided. Why does the noble Lord think that, in putting a further referendum to the country, things would be any different? We would still have a divided nation, maybe with a slight majority one way or the other, and there would still be a need for compromise. Is that not obvious?
Lord Adonis
I am precisely proposing a compromise, which is to take the Prime Minister’s deal, which is the best deal that can be negotiated if we are to have Brexit, and put it to the nation, with the alternative option being to stay in the European Union. That is a compromise that would bring both sides together. The compromise I do not think it is possible to have, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Howell, hankers after, is some half-bastardised form of Brexit. We have spent month after month searching for that and I am afraid that, like the holy grail, it does not exist.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that people were confused three years ago. Does he agree? Now they are much more informed, so they can make a much more informed decision. It is not fair to compare that with the people’s decision three years ago.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord makes a very powerful further argument for the second referendum. I support his argument; he will make his speech later and I hope he will develop that important point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that, because we have not been able to produce a Brexit that lives up to the promises made three years ago, and because there is not—let us be frank—a parliamentary majority prepared to support it on principle, I think the only compromise that is now viable for the country at large is to put that deal to the people, because it is technically possible to implement it, but with an alternative option to stay in the European Union. It is my view that the majority will vote for the option to stay in the European Union because it is now so obviously preferable to the Prime Minister’s deal, and the £39 billion that we would pay the EU for worse trade and economic terms than we have now—the arguments go on. The people could make that judgment.
I will make one final remark about the situation we now face. One former leader of the Conservative Party, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has spoken and made a very hard-line speech, if I may say so, about how we need to leave with no deal. An equally significant intervention was made this week by another former leader of that party, a Member of this House who, alas, is not in his place and speaking this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. On Tuesday, he wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph and it is very important for those engaged in the Brexit debate to read it. I would particularly recommend it to noble Lords on the Conservative Benches and maybe even more so to Conservative MPs, many of whom, from my watching of debates in the House of Commons, have become extremely hard-line and militant on this issue of the need for a no-deal Brexit.
This is what the noble Lord, Lord Hague, wrote:
“Do not underestimate … the immense danger of continuing to pull apart from each other while the public looks on with an irritation that is now turning to dismay, and at any moment could turn to anger … the Conservatives are inevitably identified with the Brexit project, for good or ill, and slowly, steadily, the case for Brexit is being lost … The Conservatives … face the terrible double prospect of voters shifting away from supporting their central policy, while those who do support it become enraged by the failure to deliver it … My advice to my old colleagues is therefore this: if you don't get Brexit over the line now, it will probably never happen”.
Brexit has not been got over the line; it will probably never happen. The right thing for the nation, and maybe even for the Conservative Party, is for it to be buried, for the nightmare to end and for us then to carry on our national life in a much better prospect.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, always gives a compelling and fascinating speech, but there are not many shades of grey in it. I am sure that he, along with most of us, breathed a sigh of relief when the Chief Whip announced the agreement with the usual channels tonight, because this afternoon was one of the most unpleasant afternoons that I can remember in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford referred to this. There was an almost palpable anger in the air for much of the time. Why? Because some of those in my own party who have been most militantly for Brexit, most of whom belong to the strangely named ERG, are not prepared—to use a word that has come up many times this evening—to compromise.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I can certainly quote my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, who is here. Most of us were fervent remainers who were disappointed at the decision that was taken in June 2016. We thought it was a mistake but, nevertheless, we accepted it. We saw it as our manifest duty to work together to produce a Brexit that did indeed preserve many of the advantages of the European Union—which, I may say, had been promised by the leave campaign—but would, at the same time, turn this country in a slightly different direction, while always preserving, cultivating and deeply valuing our friendships in Europe, because the 27 other nations remain our friends and neighbours, and sharers of a common civilisation.
I make those few remarks as a preface, because what I want to do is briefly to say how much I admire those whose names are on the face of this Bill. They are men and women of four parties in the other place, led by notable members of the Labour and Conservative parties, who, realising that compromise was absolutely essential, came together. For many months now, in spite of vilification, some of which was repeated this afternoon, Sir Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve and Dame Caroline Spelman—who I must admit is a cousin of mine—of my party have worked tirelessly along with people such as Hilary Benn and Jack Dromey from the Labour Party, trying to come together.
I always felt, from the word go, that it was necessary to try to come together. I proposed in June 2016 a Grand Committee of both Houses and all parties. That was turned down—I have made similar suggestions since—but this is the nearest to an enactment, as it were, of that suggestion. They were able to come together and stand firm, and we must remember that this Bill predates, in its conception and indeed in its drawing up, the recent welcome developments to reach across the parties that we have seen in the last few days.
I can well understand why my honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin, and Yvette Cooper, a woman of great courage and stature, persisted with the Bill. It is now before your Lordships’ House. It was created in a vacuum, and the vacuum was created by a lack of leadership. What we have to recognise is that this is, as has been said, a public Bill. It is not a private Bill. It is a public Bill that has commanded a majority—albeit the smallest of majorities—in the other place and, because it has commanded that majority, it comes before us. Our constitutional duty is to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and then to look at it with care and diligence on Monday. I am glad that we will be doing that after a little refreshment over the weekend, rather than when we are tired, exhausted and tetchy in the middle of the night. We would all have been all of those things, and we would have got progressively worse as the night had gone on. Now we can come to it fresh on Monday.
Of course there are amendments that we should look at. I was much taken by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and glad to hear of the amendment that he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are intending to place before us on Monday. It may well be an amendment that will be accepted without Division. I hope that it will, because I hope we will be able on Monday to bring people together. I hope that we will be able to send this Bill back to the other place with constructive and improving amendments that it can accept. Then it does no harm because, although this is a constitutional innovation—my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was right to indicate some of the problems and potential pitfalls—we must all nevertheless always remember that it is the Executive who are answerable to Parliament, and not Parliament that is answerable to the Executive. We live in a parliamentary democracy, where we have parliamentary sovereignty.
We also have to heed the wise words of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford—he has disappeared now—who talked about the difference between democracy and majorities. There is a definition of democracy that I always like: a proper democracy is one that has regard for all minorities. A proper democracy therefore has to have abundant regard for the largest recorded minority in British history. People are always talking about the 17.4 million, but the 16-plus million were the largest recorded minority in British history. We have to come out of the difficult slough of despond in which we have wallowed for far too long with something that recognises that, particularly as the majority of those who voted remain were not of our generation. There are exceptions in the Chamber tonight, I know, but for the most part they were of the younger generation. Those of the generation that is most represented in this House this evening were on the leave side.
If we are to create a new relationship with Europe—I look at it in that way: not as the severing of a relationship but the creation of a new one—it has to be one that fires the imagination of the young and gives them the opportunity to partake in many of the benefits that we have enjoyed. We debated one such benefit on Monday night of this week when we talked about the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 projects.
It is good that there is a quieter, more sober atmosphere in the House this evening. It is good that we are not going in for too many recriminations. We are not all of one mind and one view, but we have to respect each other’s views. In parenthesis I will say how delighted I have been this week to see my noble friend Lord Spicer back in his place. He has suffered from grievous illness and shown enormous courage and bravery. I never agree with a word he says on Europe, but we have been firm friends since he first entered the other place a year or two after I did. We must remember that, only two or three years ago, although we very often had differences of opinion on Europe, most of us who were members of the same party—and indeed of the same Chamber—respected and liked each other. I have seen an erosion of respect and a diminishing of liking. It is our duty to reverse that unfortunate trend. I hope we can begin that tonight and continue it on Monday.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I am not going to give the speech that I had planned to give at this late stage of the evening. I was nearly goaded into picking it up again by the typically hard-line speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I will leave my speech with my other papers down there, and just say that I would have said a lot more about the B-word. Instead, I will just associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, because I agreed with what he said about it.
I have stayed in the House to speak in this debate because, while I cared passionately about the issues that we debated during the day, and the constitutional issues raised by the way in which the Bill has been put through the House, I believe that there are aspects of the Bill that are worth debating. We should be very wary of restricting the scope of the Government to negotiate international treaties, and that is what this Bill does. It further restricts the royal prerogative. Of course, the royal prerogative has been restricted in many ways over many years, but this is a further restriction in the area of the Government having the effective power to negotiate internationally, which I believe is important. The royal prerogative is part of how our constitution works. It is important in enabling the Government to govern effectively.
So I regret that this Bill has come to us. It passed by one vote in the other place—but we have to accept that and move on. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is no longer in his place, about the way in which the Bill is over-restrictive in this area. I hope that he will return on Monday, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to explain further what he means in an amendment there.
I accept that this Bill will come. We just need to concentrate on improving it—from my point of view because encroaching on the royal prerogative is so serious. The most important thing that we should do is ensure that the powers that have been created for Parliament are time-limited. In any event, it should only be needed for next week—or perhaps slightly longer—but we should look at putting some restrictions in the Bill on how the powers that have been created could be used. Whether we do that by time-binding the powers that are created in Clause 1 or by way of a sunset clause is something that I shall reflect on and return to in Committee. I do not believe that this is a statute that should be left for ever and a day on the statute book. I do not think that it is a good precedent, but I accept that we need to send it forward in a workable way.
I was also interested in the speeches earlier today of two of my noble friends, Lord Hunt, as a member of the Constitution Committee, and Lord Blencathra, chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Both of them indicated that this Bill should be improved through the process of scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, which we will now be able to do on Monday. I join my noble friend Lord Cormack in rejoicing in the agreement that was reached through the usual channels today. Now we can tackle this Bill in the civilised way in which we normally conduct our work of scrutinising legislation. I thank the usual channels for coming to that arrangement, and, for my part, I look forward to resuming discussion on the Bill on Monday.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, the Brexit debate has increasingly reminded me of the film that shot James Dean to fame, “Rebel Without a Cause”. Noble Lords who are old enough will remember that the high spot of the film is James Dean and his arch rival driving their cars towards a cliff edge. The idea is to be the one with the most nerve, and to jump out of the car as near to the cliff edge as possible. For some time, I have been wondering who from the ERG we could cast in the James Dean role. It seems to me that that is what they have been doing over the past few months.
I want to make one simple point. Whatever may have happened previously on this issue, it has now become a matter of trust and confidence. The Government’s behaviour over a period of time means that it is extremely difficult to rely on their word or their assurances. We have been though many stages: “No deal is better than a bad deal”; “The Government’s deal is the only deal that can prevent no deal”. The Government’s deal and no deal have, however, been rejected pretty consistently by the House of Commons, and with substantial majorities. No clear picture has been presented to Parliament or the public about the sunny uplands that are supposed to appear after we have left the EU. No picture has been painted for the public or Parliament to understand. Very late in the day, a document was cobbled together, with no statutory responsibility attached to it.
The Prime Minister has been forced, very late in the day, to seek help from the leader of the Opposition—to many in her party the great Satan, to use the Iranian mullahs’ phrase about the United States. Her decision belatedly to reach across the aisle has been extremely badly received by a substantial proportion of her party and her Cabinet, so there is now huge uncertainty as to what will happen in the next week. That is the actual position we are confronted with at this time. Whatever arguments there may have been in the past about the merits or demerits of the case for the remainers or the leavers, that is where we are today, and we have to face up to it.
The date with destiny is approaching on 12 April, whether we like it or not. In this situation, the British people can place little confidence in what an uncertain Prime Minister will do next week. We cannot be sure what will happen; we have no certainty whatever. I suggest that the House of Commons is right to try to get some grip on this situation and to create, through the Bill, at least a possibility that the British people will have a chance to create some space to think further about the issue of Brexit. With some sensible use of the Bill, they would at least be presented with an opportunity not to experience the chaos of no deal, and not to experience a deal, not having given their approval to it, negotiated by the Prime Minister with the EU and with little clarity about the future.
This kind of legislation is necessary because there is plenty of evidence that the one thing all remainers and leavers now agree on is that the Government have made a great hash of the negotiations. Those groups may be in that position for different reasons, but they both agree that this has been an unsatisfactory use of two years. Both sides of this argument are not terribly thrilled with the way the Government have handled things in trying to give effect to the referendum result. There is also plenty of evidence, whether we like it or not, that many people—on both sides of the argument, but particularly among those who voted to leave in 2016—have changed their mind after they began to understand what was actually involved in leaving the EU. That uncertainty, and the lack of confidence in the Government which helped create it, is why I support a people’s vote. It is also why I support the Bill.
I would much prefer not to have needed the Bill, for all the constitutional reasons that people have adduced. But we are where we are, as they say: in the very uncomfortable position of the date arriving when, whether we like it or not, some pretty uncomfortable things will be done on behalf of the British people. Let us be absolutely clear: the reason we have got to this position is that the Executive have consistently failed to properly consult parliamentary opinion over the two years, or to convince those in Parliament of the merits of the deal. The Government have brought this serious problem on themselves, and the good guys and girls in all this are those in Parliament who, as we approach the end game, have really tried to create some time and space to produce a more reliable and better outcome to the Brexit issue. That is why I support the Bill, which will provide some possibility of helping this Prime Minister and the Executive rethink how they can proceed in a way that achieves more support for any exit, within Parliament and within the country.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with only two things that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said: one is the lack of trust in the country for this Government; the other is the botched mishandling of all our negotiations with the EU and in Parliament. But the lack of trust is largely due to the way Parliament is seen to have tried to block the result of the referendum.
I remind noble Lords in this House, who seem to have forgotten it, that in June 2016 the people of this country voted to leave the European Union. The turnout for the vote was 72%, which was one of the biggest turnouts for a democratic vote in this country’s history. The result was conclusive: 52% to 48%. The remainers understandably did not like that and said that we did not understand what we voted for. Of course we understood what we voted for: we voted to leave. In fact, each household in the country was sent a leaflet by the Government of David Cameron, who was then Prime Minister, extolling the virtues of remaining in the EU, which said we would be absolutely mad to vote to leave. At a cost of about £9 million, that was a pretty shabby little exercise at the taxpayers’ expense.
The last page of that leaflet was interesting, and I want to remind the House what it said:
“The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union… This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”.
That seemed to be echoed by the current Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. At that point, she clearly accepted that the result of the referendum was a clear out. There would be no single market; no customs union; no part in, part out; and the famous,
“no deal is better than a bad deal”.
Parliament seemed to agree with her on that, and with the vote in June 2016. I remind noble Lords of what the votes were, both in this House and the other place. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was carried in the other place by a majority of 491 votes. The Commons voted to give the Bill its Third Reading by a majority of 263 votes. The Bill received its Second and Third Readings in this Chamber without Division. On the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, the Commons divided, and the amendment was defeated by a majority of 236 votes. The Bill was given its Second Reading by 498 votes to 114; a majority of 384. The Commons gave the Bill its Third Reading by 494 votes to 122; a majority of 372. The same applied to the European Union (Withdrawal Act) 2018, which was passed by majority votes in both Houses. There is this sudden idea that this is somehow unconstitutional.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
Can I ask the noble Lord a question? Had the referendum gone the other way, would he and his friends have accepted it absolutely and stopped campaigning for Britain to withdraw from the European Union?
Lord Willoughby de Broke
Of course we would have accepted the referendum result—we would have had to. We would not have said that the whole thing was illegitimate and that we wanted another referendum; we would have had to accept the result, just as we were forced to accept the result of the 1975 referendum which unfortunately brought us into the clutches of the European Union, or the Common Market, as it then was. We accepted that, so the answer is that we would have accepted this.
Today, we were presented with a wretched Bill that orders the Prime Minister to go to Brussels as a supplicant, on bended knee, to request an extension until an unknown date. That we do not have a date in the Bill is a matter of contention which will be dealt with in Committee. It is a complete negation of the vote at the end of June 2016.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who spoke earlier to introduce the Bill, and other noble Lords, have said there is no appetite for no deal. I must disabuse them of that idea, and tell them that there is an appetite for no deal. Only this morning, a YouGov poll came out—not of Parliament, because we know the flavour of Parliament and have had enough of that for a long time, but of the country at large. Among the Conservatives polled, 72% were in favour of no deal and only 15% against. From the Labour Party, 21% still voted no deal and 34% against. In London, 26% were for no deal and 45% against. In the rest of the south of England, 44% were for no deal and 34% against. In the Midlands, where I come from, 46% were for no deal and 31% against. In the north, 41% were for no deal and 34% against. That was today; it is not imagination.
Lord Bilimoria
Could the noble Lord clarify the results he has just cited? When he says, “against”, is it no deal versus revoking Article 50? If not, what is it against?
Lord Willoughby de Broke
It is no deal versus remain in the EU. That is what the question was in the YouGov poll this morning. I have it on my mobile; I will talk to the noble Lord afterwards and give it to him.
Lord Bilimoria
I have got the figures right here. The latest YouGov poll, which I looked at today, says that 37% were for a second referendum, 26% for no deal and 11% for the PM’s deal. No deal being a bad outcome was 50%, versus 25% for it being a good outcome.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
That is very different from the poll I saw. Perhaps after this debate the noble Lord and I might share a drink and we can compare polls. However, I stand by the figures that I cited from today’s YouGov poll.
Earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who is generally admired, warned this House to be very careful. He was right to say that. The reputation of this House has been damaged by the perception—perhaps no more than that—that it is against leaving the EU and against the result of the referendum voted for by 17.4 million people. If this goes on, and the House continues to thwart and block the result of that historic vote, I fear that the feeling will quickly turn to downright contempt, and deservedly so.
Lord Stern of Brentford (CB)
My Lords, we need the protection provided by the Bill because the potential losses from a no-deal Brexit are so grave. I will not repeat what the House has heard many times about potential short-term disruption, which could indeed be very serious. I will not repeat what it has heard about security and Northern Ireland, although these things are very worrying. As an LSE professor and current president of the Royal Economic Society—though I do not speak tonight for those institutions—I emphasise and understand how threatening a no-deal Brexit would be to our universities and our research, which are among the UK’s greatest assets and comparative advantages.
My basic purpose tonight is to dispose, very quickly, of the fatuous argument that a no-deal Brexit would bring some medium-term sunny uplands. It is assertion without evidence; it is fantasy. Every serious study, by the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, some of my fine colleagues at the LSE, although not myself, the merchant banks JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs—I could go on—points to medium-term losses of 5% to 10% of GDP per annum; that is not tomorrow but in 10 to 15 years. That is £100 billion or £200 billion a year to this country, dwarfing the £10 billion net that we pay to the EU. Where do these calculations on losses come from? They come from rising trading barriers to our major partner and discouraged investment. They take account of possible reduced barriers elsewhere, but the suggestion that these could offset the other losses simply does not stack up. The results are consistent with the currency markets, with clear messages from business and with common sense. There is no pretence at precision here. We are simply understanding, from the serious work that has been done, that the medium-term costs from a no-deal Brexit look very serious.
The evidence for the argument of the medium-term sunny uplands is simply not there. The argument is a tissue of confusions, yet we have heard it today in your Lordships’ House. It cannot be taken seriously by those who take evidence seriously. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is grave in the short, medium and long run: that is why we need the protection afforded by this Bill.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stern, whose informed comments about the effects of no deal none of us should dismiss.
Earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reminded us of the film career of James Dean. I was reminded of another James Dean performance: “The Dark, Dark Hours”. We have been through the dark, dark hours—not least this afternoon. I feel that at last, with this Bill, we are beginning to see the light. When the country so desperately needs cross-party co-operation, as even my right honourable friend the Prime Minister now seems to accept, it is a huge relief that in the other place Sir Oliver Letwin has been able to work with colleagues from across that House to bring us this important piece of legislation. My noble friend Lord Cormack pointed out just what hostility some of these individuals in the Commons have had to face. They have been incredibly brave and I am full of admiration for them.
It is now clear that after three years of limping towards Brexit, the country needs significant time to plot a sensible course ahead. That is certainly not the Prime Minister’s deal, which has little to recommend it; nor is it to simply leave without a deal—we have already heard just how bad that would be. Business has been yelling from the rafters that no deal would be a disaster for this country. So we need time to come to a consensus on what the country could accept as its future relationship with the EU. The 27 have consistently said that they need the UK to say what it wants, not what it does not want. We have spent nearly three years establishing what we do not want; it is going to take us a bit of time to work out what we do want.
We have heard much today about the dangers of Parliament taking control. In normal times I would join that chorus urging caution, but if our unwritten constitution were working effectively, there would have been no need for such radical action. If the constitution were functioning, the Executive would have been listening to Parliament. Instead, they have consistently tried to ignore Parliament, from the start of this process until the recent attempts, over and over again, to bludgeon the Commons into accepting a flawed deal. This Bill gives Parliament the ammunition to require an extension to Article 50, which gives us time to plot an acceptable course. I always pay attention to what the noble and noble and learned Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Judge—and sometimes Lord Hope—have to say and I shall study their amendments, but in principle I support the Bill, which provides an insurance policy against our crashing out without a deal.
Earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, accused those of us who support the Bill of suggesting that we do not trust Mrs May. It is not about not trusting Mrs May; it is that Mrs May has to respond to changing events, and therefore what she says changes as events change. She may not even be there when D-day comes, so we need an insurance policy to avoid crashing out without a deal. I continue to believe that the best use of an extension would be to thrash out a deal that is acceptable to Parliament and then to put it to the people. Three years on from the 2016 referendum, such a major step as changing our relationship with Europe seems to me to require the informed consent of the public, and this is our opportunity to get it.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is misconceived in every aspect. It mandates the Prime Minister to seek an Article 50 extension, and in so doing its authors are pursuing what we used to call a chimera. I think we now call it a unicorn; the unicorn of soft Brexit. Where sovereignty is concerned there is no such thing, and it is sovereignty that is essentially at issue in Brexit. By sovereignty I do not mean power; the power of a nation is always circumscribed. I mean our right to make our own laws in our own democratic institutions, accountable to our own people and interpreted by our own courts. On that there should be no compromise. The choice in 2016 was between leaving and remaining. That is still the choice.
The people of this country took a robust view in 2016. They were warned of the possibility of economic disruption—indeed, they were warned in lurid terms by Project Fear. None the less, they voted as they did. Remainers are wont to say that no one voted to be poorer, but the people of this country voted as they did in full awareness of the potential consequences, including the possibility that leaving might make them poorer, and that was the decision they took. That was what they decreed.
The political parties committed themselves in advance of the referendum to accept the decision of the people, and in the wake of the referendum they committed themselves to respect it. It was therefore incumbent on the Government to pursue a clean Brexit. That meant being willing to leave the European Union and trade in the future on WTO terms, while of course seeking to achieve a free trade agreement as soon as possible—a Canada-plus-plus-plus deal. That would have been possible. Had the Government, following the referendum, stated that they were going to negotiate as soon as possible a free trade deal with the European Union, but that if the European Union was not willing to grant that for some time they would none the less be willing to leave with no deal, then our negotiating position would have been very much stronger. By now, this country would have been psychologically and organisationally much better prepared than it is today.
Remainers often assert that the real reason people voted to leave was fear of immigration. It is true that a minority were very much moved by that consideration, but there is no inconsistency between believing we should leave the European Union and being an internationalist—understanding and valuing the economic, social and cultural benefits of immigration. Reassuring those of our fellow citizens who are apprehensive and nervous about immigration is a very important challenge for our leadership. The best way to do that is to make it clear to them that in future we will have the power to make our own decisions about our own immigration policy. That is among the reasons why membership of the single market and the Norway option are inappropriate for this country.
From the point of view of democracy, no deal is indeed better than a bad deal, a phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to rather contemptuously as “that appalling mantra”. It all depends on your point of view; if you believe that the issue of democracy is paramount in Brexit, then no deal is better than a bad deal. There is no such thing as a soft Brexit. It is not Brexit. Soft Brexit is actually soft remain. The Prime Minister’s withdrawal deal and the political agreement would entail the continuation of very important elements of lawmaking being controlled by the European Union, with the Court of Justice of the European Union hovering over our courts. A softer Brexit still, such as the customs union, would be Brexit in name only.
If as a remainer you believe that economics is what matters above all, you can well contemplate a soft Brexit. Of course there are degrees of separation that you may be willing to consider. However, the remainers paint a lurid picture of what our departure from the EU may mean. They suggest—the noble Lord, Lord Stern, made this case just now in stark terms—that to leave without a deal would be a catastrophe; my noble friend Lord Adonis described how the country would be “trashed” in such circumstances and talked of us driving at 100 miles an hour towards a cliff edge.
I prefer the sensible and calmer language of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, who is a very respectable economist—the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked of reputable economists, but as far as I can see, her definition of a reputable economist is an economist who agrees with her. There are economists who do not. I prefer the view of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, to that of his successor, Mr Mark Carney, who has addressed this issue in rather alarmist terms, and I am amazed at the leaked document in which Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, described the possible consequences of no deal in melodramatic terms. How can he possibly contend that the price of food would rise by 10%? It is of course a possibility that there may be some devaluation of the pound at the moment we leave the European Union, but we will have the great opportunity—this is the crucial point—to abolish the tariffs on food and allow our people to have the choice of cheap food if that is what they want to buy.
It is not Brexit that is damaging our economy at the moment but the uncertainty associated with the Brexit process and the prolonged nature of it, which are paralysing decision-making and investment. Those who argue for a further extension, and that is what the Bill is about, are proposing to perpetuate this period of indecision and economic paralysis. The sooner we extricate ourselves from the close relationship we have with the European Union, the better the chances of our prosperity. Look at the condition of the German and Italian economies and at the structural flaws of the eurozone, with no integrated fiscal or economic policy. The European Union will change, because its present configuration is unsustainable. Either it will proceed to a much more integrated economy, as the President of France wants it to do—which I believe would be, politically, entirely unacceptable to us—or it will begin to disintegrate. The financial and economic consequences of that will be dire, and the more so if we are still in membership.
Lord Judd (Lab)
We all have immense respect for my noble friend, but he has associated concepts and thoughts with the position of remainers on which I simply cannot remain silent. Some of us have always believed with deep conviction that, while politics and economic relationships are the mechanisms that helped to build the European Union, the purpose of the whole European drive has been to build peace and security on the European continent, and it has certainly achieved that. We are anxious that we do not give an example to the world in that, having done that successfully, we are now going into retreat.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I have the greatest respect for my noble friend. He is of course right that that was the founding vision of the European Union, and that has been its great justification. However, I put it to him that today’s European Union is not an agent for peace and social harmony. If he looks at the levels of unemployment across the Mediterranean countries, the rise of neo-fascism in eastern Europe and the palpable tensions and indeed hostilities within the European Union, I fear that the model that attracted his idealism is no longer the European Union we have today.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I must proceed, if my noble friend will allow me. I am grateful to him.
I find it extraordinary that those of us who believe that what is essentially at stake in Brexit is the future of our democracy and say that that is the most important thing should be characterised as hardliners. The fact that this language is used goes some way to explain the disillusion that there is among so many of our fellow citizens with politicians.
The endeavour of Brexit is about the self-respect of a country that has centuries of tradition of parliamentary government but gave away too much of its parliamentary government in 1972. It is significant that older people, who have longer memories of our parliamentary government and democracy, have been more disposed to vote leave, and that younger people, who have been brought up in a culture of cynicism about politics—a cynicism that I think derives from the democratic deficit of the European Union, in which we are implicated—are the main remainers.
The Bill, and the procedures under which it has been introduced and is being treated in Parliament, abrogate important elements of the constitution. It is flawed even in its own terms. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, reminded us, it betrays a profound misunderstanding of the respective roles of the legislature and the Executive. Parliamentary government does not mean Parliament governing, and it is very wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, have intimated, that the Prime Minister should be dispatched by Back-Bench legislation to negotiate with the Council of Ministers with her hands so tied. That is an insult to her and her office. It is not in the gift of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to determine unilaterally the date of our exit.
As the constitutional proprieties have been so comprehensively junked in recent times, we would be well within our rights if we were to reject the Bill and ask the other place to think again. Of course, we will not do that, but I hope that we will seriously amend the Bill on Monday.
Meanwhile, I hope that we will indeed leave on 12 April. Our departure will be more ragged than it need have been because it has not been well prepared for. The House of Commons does not want us to leave with no deal but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked: what would the extension be for? The House of Commons may not like no deal, but the House of Commons has been completely unable to determine what it wants. If we leave on 12 April or shortly afterwards, we can then embrace our birthright, renew our democracy, embark on a politics of reconciliation, address ourselves to the major issues that have been so badly neglected during this Brexit saga and seek a progressive internationalism for our country.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I want to adopt many of his points, which I would have made myself. Speaking in this temple of remain, one often feels like a Spartan facing the 100,000 Persians. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, appreciates the analogy, given the part of the world his family originally comes from.
I must say, Parliament and the majority in this place are out of step with the country. I was going to refer to several statistics, but they have already been referred to by previous speakers so I will not. However, I have one that I think has not been mentioned. A recent poll—in the past week, I think—said that 55% of all voters believe that Parliament is trying to stop Brexit. That is worrying. The reason for that is obviously the great disconnect between the current constitutional make-up—of the House of Commons, in particular—and what happened in the referendum. We all know the referendum numbers but, apparently, about 500 MPs in the House of Commons voted to remain and only about 160 voted to leave. That is the reason for the disconnect we now face. I am afraid to say that, in accordance with that poll, Parliament is perceived as seeking to steal Brexit from the people; that is many people’s perception.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to palpable anger in the context of the earlier debate. There is palpable anger out there, outside this place, from people who believe Brexit that is being stolen from them. In this regard, 15 days ago, Justine Greening—a prominent remainer, of course—said:
“We can do a clean-break, hard Brexit, which I know many MPs want, and I respect that. Indeed, the millions of people who voted to leave had that kind of Brexit as their expectation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/19; col. 1117.]
That supports the point I have been trying to make.
I will also make a point about no deal that is not related to Brexit at all. Anybody in this House with any experience of life, particularly of business or negotiation, would tell you—common sense also tells you—that in any negotiation, your counterparty should always know that you could walk away. Take away that credible threat and—similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said earlier—you are naked in the arena and have effectively raised the white flag of surrender. I am afraid to say that, in my view, this Bill does exactly that.
One or two noble Lords have spoken about the possible economic consequences of a no-deal exit. I will make just a couple of points. No one expects there to be no consequences of a no-deal Brexit—I want to make that clear—but many, including many businessmen, consider them manageable. Also in regard to no-deal planning, I refer to the resignation letter yesterday of Chris Heaton-Harris, the Minister in DExEU responsible for no-deal planning. He said that there has been an awful lot of no-deal planning by the Government and that, if anything, the Prime Minister appeared not to have been properly briefed about the extent of it. By implication, what she was saying in the public domain did not reflect that position.
A few speakers, including some from the Front Benches, have spoken about how a no-deal exit—a WTO exit—would be a disaster for business; the noble Lord, Lord Stern, referred to evidence, and so on. It depends where you choose to take your evidence from. We all know what the CBI, representing big international business, says, but that is not the evidence from the Alliance of British Entrepreneurs or from an entrepreneurial businessman I know, who told me, “Despite some disruption, especially initially, business will sort out its problems pretty quickly. That’s what business does”.
Closer to home, I pray in aid my youngest brother, who employs more than 100 people in manufacturing in the West Midlands. He exports to more than 30 countries worldwide, including several EU countries, and is the recent winner of the Queen’s Award for Enterprise: Innovation. I asked him what he had to say on this subject. He said, “A little short-term inconvenience is a small price to pay for a healthy long-term economic structure”. There are different points of view here; it is quite wrong to suggest that business generally thinks that it will be a disaster. That is a gross misrepresentation and distortion of the position.
I was going to go on and make a point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made before I spoke: in fact, business fears not a no-deal exit but uncertainty. Ask any businessman about that. It is about uncertainty. I am afraid that a prolonged and substantial extension would only aggravate that.
I have just a couple more points to make. I would like to say something about the position of the House of Lords, as one or two speakers in the debate have already touched on. In view of the admitted democratic deficit we have in this House and its delicate constitutional position, you might think that this place would tread carefully in opposing a majority decision of the people in a referendum. However, I am afraid that that does not appear to be the case. As I think someone else said, this place does not appear to have the self-awareness, to use that phrase, to look at itself. Outside this building, the Westminster bubble, central London and so on, everything looks rather different.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that we should take our lead from the House of Commons, which is of course elected and sent this Bill to us?
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
As I tried to say earlier, there is a massive disconnect between the current composition of the House of Commons and the outcome of the referendum. Earlier, someone—the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, I think—quoted the Government’s pamphlet before the referendum; I was not going to repeat it. It said, “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide”.
Lord Adonis
Is the noble Lord saying that the House of Commons should not be expressing a view on the conduct of Brexit either? That is quite a fundamental revision of our parliamentary democracy.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
I am saying that 55% of voters at the moment apparently thinking that Parliament is attempting to steal Brexit or stop it is not surprising in view of some of the things that have been going on recently.
Moving on from what I was saying, the majority of the country feels betrayed by what is happening. The contract between the elected and the electors has been fractured, and the consequences for democracy and the constitution of this country are potentially very serious. The Brexit genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back in again. At the moment, it looks to people like me as though the battle for Brexit may be lost, but as Monsieur Barnier would say, “La lutte continue”. Speaking as a Conservative, I regret to say that the Prime Minister is presiding, and has presided, over a national humiliation. In my view, I am afraid that this Bill will serve only to aggravate that humiliation.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is normally form in this House to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, but on this occasion I am finding it difficult to deal in the normal courtesies. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, is what he has to remember is that he is looking at this completely from the perspective of someone who is a committed leaver.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
I am looking at this from the perspective of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave.
Lord Liddle
I understand that, but you would think that they are the only people who count. What about the 6 million people who in the past two weeks have signed a petition to revoke Article 50? That is one of the biggest demonstrations of support for remaining in the European Union that we have seen. What about the 1 million people who went on the march? Are they just part of the London bubble and do not represent anyone outside London?
Lord Adonis
I thank my noble friend for giving way. How many of the 17.4 million does my noble friend think voted for a no-deal Brexit, six weeks’ worth of medical supplies, the M20 becoming the largest car park in Europe, the ports not working, international driving licences having to be introduced and so on? Does he think that more than perhaps a few hundred thousand voted for those particular horrors?
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
Is the noble Lord inviting me to respond? Of course I will if he wishes me to do so.
Lord Liddle
My noble friend, as always, has taken the best parts of my speech. However, he is right.
We are in the gravest political and constitutional crisis that this country has seen since the Second World War. I am troubled by the tone of the debate this afternoon. There seems to be—certainly on one side of the argument—little realisation of how serious the crisis is. This might be a flawed Bill, brought here by an extraordinary process, but nevertheless it is part of the solution to the crisis in which we find ourselves, and that is why it should be supported.
The idea that Britain could leave the European Union credibly with no deal has always been a fantasy. The popular view was that coming out of Europe would be like bargaining about buying a house or a second-hand car and that unless you are prepared to walk away you will never get anything. This is a complete fallacy about the nature of our relationship with the European Union.
We have been in the European Union for 45 years and in that period the depth of integration across whole fields of our national life has been huge. It started mainly as a customs union, developed into a single market and in recent times there have been important developments in the security field which are vital to the safety of people on the streets in this country. The idea that we could simply walk away from all of this without any consequences or massive disruption is a complete nonsense.
I say with a heavy heart that I blame the Prime Minister for the fact that this argument has gained strength. I greatly admire—perhaps it is a false view—her sense of dogged public duty, but she made a terrible mistake in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 when she allowed her chief-of-staff, Nick Timothy, to insert into that speech the populist line that,
“no deal … is better than a bad deal”.
That has been the driving force for the argument that has grown about no deal being a credible alternative for coming out of the European Union.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
Does the noble Lord therefore support a bad deal? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Liddle
I am certainly not saying that. I am saying that you have to recognise the realities of the 45 years of the relationship. It is almost certainly impossible to walk away from that relationship—which is what no deal involves—without massive disruption in all kinds of spheres.
We have heard a lot tonight of evidence from the association of entrepreneurs—or something—that no deal will not do us any harm, but every respectable business organisation takes the view that no deal would be very damaging. We have heard a lot about the views of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury. We have heard very little about the views of Mark Carney, the current Governor of the Bank of England, who was devastating in the Financial Times today in what he said about his predecessor and the rank foolishness of what he was proposing.
Lord Warner
Does the noble Lord recall that the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, is acknowledged to have been rather slow to spot the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008?
Lord Liddle
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, makes a point, but I did not want to get into that.
What has not been mentioned is the extraordinarily frank memorandum which the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, circulated to the Cabinet. Let us remember who he is. He is the personal appointee of the Prime Minister, one of the officials in whom the Prime Minister has the most trust. As we know, the Prime Minister does not get close to many people, but she certainly has become very close to Sir Mark Sedwill, and he has written the most devastating critique of what would happen under no deal.
I think the Prime Minister is in a bad situation. She found herself trapped by no deal. Look at the present situation in the Conservative Party as a result of that foolish statement she made in Lancaster House. There are about 160 Tory MPs saying they prefer no deal to anything else and 75% of Conservative Party members saying they prefer no deal to anything else. About half the Cabinet is saying that. Why is this? It is because the concept of no deal was not knocked on the head early on in these negotiations. It would be ruinous for Britain.
This Bill is a parliamentary response to the grave danger we face. It has to be supported, and I very much hope the House will back it.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I was on the phone at 7 am to one of my fellow directors in Australia. I said to him, “What a mess our country is in. It’s harming the UK so much”, and he said to me, “Karan, Brexit is not just a mess for the UK; it is a mess for all of us around the world”.
There is no question that Brexit was caused by the faction within the Conservative Party that has existed for more than 25 years and is vehemently anti-Europe, as we have seen today, and by UKIP, which polled 14% of the vote in the 2015 elections. Sam Gyimah, the former Minister, recently said in the Evening Standard that ambitious Conservative MPs used to talk about the economy and the big society, but:
“Now ambitious … MPs are saying, ‘I have no fear of no deal’”.
We have heard time and again in this debate that no deal would be a disaster by all accounts. The noble Lord, Lord Stern, a world-renowned economist, has said that the damage could be up to £200 billion—20 times the £8 billion to £10 billion a year that we contribute to the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord True, who is not in his place, said that I have spoken in 40 debates about the European Union. It may be more. We have looked at specific aspects of Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I spoke on Erasmus and Horizon 2020, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I have spoken in many such debates. In consumer rights and every field that you look at, no deal is a disaster for that area. It will be a disaster for our universities, our businesses and our consumers. This Bill is required because we are in a crisis. We are in an emergency and are facing a cliff edge. We have been watching a train crash in slow motion. The train is about to crash and in fact it nearly crashed on 29 March.
The Government and the Prime Minister have lost control. By how much more can you lose control than losing by 230 votes—the biggest loss in history—then 140-plus, then 50-plus? Three times the Prime Minister has gone back to MPs and asked them to change their minds, yet the people of this country are not given one chance to change theirs. That is hypocrisy beyond belief. How many times today, throughout the afternoon and in this debate, have I heard mention of the 17.4 million people? As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said: what about the 16.1 million? A true democracy is one that respects a minority, let alone a large minority. Let us not forget that, in the nationwide referendum in 1975, the number of people who voted to remain in the European Community was—wait for this, my Lords—17.4 million. The difference is that that 17.4 million people made up not 52% but 67% of the number that voted—an overwhelming, definite majority.
We have a divided Parliament, a divided House of Commons and a divided country. The House of Commons has voted more than once to say that no deal is not an option, but the Prime Minister has not been willing to legislate for that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, started this debate by saying that there is a lack of trust. The most important thing that I have learned in business is trust. If there is no trust, there is nothing. How can we now trust the Prime Minister and the Government when they say, “No deal is better than a bad deal”? They refer to “the will of the people”, but which people? They are talking about the people who voted three years ago.
Then they say that the will of the manifesto has now overtaken the will of the people. However, when it suits them, the manifesto is ignored. What about the grammar schools and the dementia tax? What about the fact that people do not read manifestos? There are more than 200 items in every manifesto. First, people do not even know that they exist; secondly, they do not read all 200 items; and, thirdly, they do not vote for the one item in the manifesto that says, “We will implement the result of the referendum”. It is nonsense to say that.
The electorate has changed. We talk about the 17.4 million and the tyranny of the majority, but three years later two of my children are now of voting age, whereas they were not in June 2016. Three years later, there are 2.4 million people of voting age who were not of voting age then. Three years later, the youth who did not turn out to vote regret that they did not. If given another chance, they will mobilise and turn out in droves, and that 1.3 million majority will seem a pittance. This Bill is essential to delay Brexit and prevent no deal.
There is one thing that no one has brought up. In the final stages of Brexit, this House has been left out completely. We should have had all the meaningful votes and indicative votes that have been going on in another place. We should have been doing them side by side in this House to show what we feel about the issue, just as we do with legislation. We were not given the chance, although finally, today, we have been given a chance to have a say through this Bill. Time and again, it has been pointed out in the context of this Bill that the House of Lords is the guardian of our wonderful, special unwritten constitution and that it is a check and balance on the other place, yet time and again the Prime Minister has tried to sideline Parliament. She started by trying to implement Article 50 without coming to Parliament. It took the brave Gina Miller to take on the Government, the law and the whole of our constitution, with the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary being stretched and challenged, and finally we got a say through the courts. The Government then tried to bypass Parliament in not disclosing their legal advice.
Today, after 12 and a half years in this wonderful House, which I absolutely love, I have seen it at its worst. I have seen blatant filibustering by Members of the extreme Brexit wing. Seven Motions took seven and a half hours, but it felt like seven and a half years. They were strung out deliberately; those Motions could have been debated within one hour. In my 12 and a half years, I have never seen anyone use the Motion, “That the Question be now put”, which was moved by my noble Friemd, Lord Pannick, just to put an end to the first round of filibustering, let alone seen it used so many times just to vote to get on with things. The worst part is that a lot of the movers of those Motions had their names down to speak in this debate, but there are only two of them here; the rest have scratched.
Then the Government tried to insert a Motion from the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee, which I have sat on for many years, to do with making tax digital. There were two other debates, one of them to do with Europe, which I was going to speak in but were scratched, but that Motion was left in. And who were the speakers in that debate? People who signed up at the last minute who are Members of that extreme pro-Brexit wing, whom I have never seen in all my years in that Finance Bill Sub-Committee having anything to do with the committee or speaking on anything that it has produced. Luckily, that debate was pulled at the last minute.
Baroness Noakes
I have been a member of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee for many years, though not absolutely every year. I was a member of that committee this year, so I intended to speak. I hope the noble Lord is not referring to me in those remarks.
Lord Bilimoria
Absolutely not. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is here. She was a member of that committee, and I have sat on the committee with her. I was referring to other people. By the way, today’s running order was blessed by the Government. Could the Minister explain how they came to that?
Today, I was not proud of the behaviour of our House. At many stages I felt ashamed of the disgraceful behaviour that I do not think was befitting of the finest, highest-quality debating Chamber in the world. I asked one of our Members who has been here for nearly 50 years, “How bad is this compared with Maastricht?” He said, “Maastricht was a tea party compared with this”.
My noble friend Lord Pannick has clearly said that the Bill is not perfect. None of us says that it is perfect; it was rushed through at the other end. However, he and my noble and learned friend Lord Judge have already found a way of amending the Bill in Committee that will allow it to be effective and will prevent us reaching the cliff edge.
Before I conclude, I want to emphasise how much we need the Bill, because what has been agreed so far is nothing. If my noble friend Lord Kerr were here, he would say, “I wrote Article 50 in order for those two years to be used to agree a future relationship. The withdrawal Bill just becomes part of that, and then you leave after two years having agreed it”. We have not negotiated our future relationship. We have negotiated only three things: people, the backstop and money. And £39 billion out of a £2 trillion economy is absolutely not material in the long run; this big figure is actually not a material figure. What about the political declaration—the wish list of our future? Nothing has been negotiated at all: tariffs, customs, services, market access, regulation, financial services, digital, capital markets, intellectual property, movement of people, aviation, roads, maritime, energy, civil nuclear, data exchange, foreign policy, security, defence, space, cybersecurity or counterterrorism—
Lord Bilimoria
Do not ruin my momentum, please; I will give way in a second. Nothing has been agreed.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I have great sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord. Is it not a fact that it was the European Union that insisted on the sequencing of the negotiations and was not prepared to talk about the future relationship until the withdrawal agreement had been effected, contrary to Article 50?
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord, with all his experience, has pre-empted what I was about to say next. The European Union has played a blinder. Recently, I gave a master class at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, where I am chair of the advisory board, using Brexit as a case study in textbook negotiating techniques. We have made all the mistakes—including on process, which the European Union dictated.
The biggest reason we are in the position we are is that the 27 different, disparate countries of the EU had one very clear mandate and one negotiator. How many times have our negotiators changed? The position of Brexit Secretary is a revolving door. That is why the EU has done so well: it has negotiated brilliantly and with a clear mandate.
Michel Barnier, in his speech on 1 April in Brussels, said clearly that the EU would accept the current deal, a customs union, a relationship similar to that with Norway or no deal, for which it claims it is better prepared than we are, having taken protective measures—though it has not done so willingly. Lastly, Michel Barnier said the EU will accept an extension, but it will need strong justification. What will that justification be? He has been clear that there will be a painful “political cost” for this extension and, if we have not left by 23 May, we will have to take part in the European elections. He also made it very clear that a long extension is for,
“a member on its way out”.
The uncertainty is something the EU will hate.
This evening, I was meant to be giving a lecture for the London Business School about brands. I thought about the brands of Great Britain and the UK—
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The noble Lord should have gone.
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord may not like what I am saying, but it is true. There is lots he has not heard. It is so heartening to see heckling from a sedentary position from a Minister; it makes me even prouder of this House.
I thought about the brands of Great Britain and the UK and the world saying, “What is this great country, at the top of the world table, doing to itself?”
We must pass this Bill. We must extend Article 50. It must be a long extension and we must put it back to the people—today’s people, not the people who voted three years ago. We must put it back to today’s electorate, reflecting today’s world and today’s facts, not those of three years ago. When people are given that chance, it will be a two-thirds majority to remain in the European Union—the best deal by far.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken today, but I will try to be brief. I do not think that I can support this Bill, for the following reasons. We are told that this business is an emergency, but of course it is not. We have had nearly three years to prepare for it and the Government have assured us that they are ready to leave without an agreement if necessary. Indeed, more than half the public now thinks that it is the right thing to do. I am rather nervous about using YouGov, but it did a study and asked voters:
“If Britain has not agreed a deal by April 12th, what do you think should happen?”.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Adonis and Lord Bilimoria, but every English and Welsh region outside the M25 would be happy to leave the EU without a deal if no agreement has been reached by the end of next week.
Lord Bilimoria
The overall result for the whole country, if you include Scotland and Northern Ireland, was 44% to 42%—a very narrow margin. It was not as stark as the noble Lord said.
Earl Cathcart
The result was still in favour of leaving with no deal. We are told that emergency legislation is necessary, but the reality is that the Prime Minister has already said that she will seek an extension beyond 12 April—so where is the emergency? The convention is that emergency legislation passed in one day has the consent of both Houses before being brought forward: in other words, it is not contentious. This clearly is not the case with this Bill, as could be seen in the voting last night in another place.
Not only is this Bill not an emergency but: it is not necessary. As I said, the Prime Minister has already agreed to seek a further extension, which is what this Bill seeks to achieve. If passed, it will become UK law. When the Prime Minister recently sought an extension to 30 June, the EU came back with the two dates of 12 April and 22 May. The withdrawal agreement said that extensions could be made if passed by a statutory instrument in both Houses. However, the Prime Minister circumvented that by getting Sir Tim Barrow, our man in Brussels, to write to Brussels accepting their offer. Hey presto—we were told that that was sufficient to be an international agreement, and that international agreements trumped UK law, so the SI was just a tidying-up exercise. So what is to stop the Prime Minister seeking another extension by getting our man in Brussels to write another letter? Then, hey presto, we would have another international agreement that would trump this Bill if passed.
I have another point: traditionally, only a Minister may move a money resolution in support of legislation that requires expenditure of public funds. There is a very good reason for that: it is because the Government have responsibility for the Budget. If they want to spend more, they have to raise more money through taxes or borrowing. This Bill could have very significant financial consequences indeed. Staying in the EU for any length of time would be an extremely expensive thing to do and I believe that it would need a money resolution, which must be moved by a Minister of the Crown in the other place. I understand that a report from the other place says that, if we extended our stay in the EU for two more years, it would cost the UK taxpayer some £36 billion—a huge sum of money.
I was quite taken by something that my noble friend the Leader of the House said in her remarks earlier today. She said:
“Because of the speed at which this legislation is being considered, we have genuine concerns that this Bill could tie the hands of government and, in fact, be contrary to its stated objectives”,
and could lock us into leaving without a deal. My noble friend then gave the example of the Prime Minister going to Brussels next Wednesday. She might ask for a further extension to, say, Friday 31 May. Brussels might say no but, late at night—as it has done previously—come back with a counter offer of, say, Monday 22 May. All the leaders of the 27 would then go home. This Bill would then allow Sir Oliver Letwin and his friends in the Labour Party to consider this offer on the Thursday and either agree it or not. That would leave the EU 27 only until Friday 12 April to agree the date or, indeed, a new date chosen by the Commons. We know that, if all the 27 have not agreed by 11pm on the 12th, we will leave with no deal. That, presumably, is not something that the movers of this Bill would want.
I do not think that that will happen. I do not believe that this Bill will have any teeth if it is passed. If the Prime Minister wants to accept the offer of a new date from the EU, she will just get her man in Brussels to write another letter. This will again create an international agreement, which will trump anything that the Commons proposes through this Bill.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, I declare, as before, my various European interests, as detailed in the register. I have been on holiday for the last week, as I had thought when I planned it that we would be out of the EU by now. While away, I have watched with dismay the way the other place has rejected yet again the Government’s deal. I really think that this Parliament has demeaned itself, and it has again failed. So it is unsurprising that, with the Government unable to carry their own deal through the House of Commons, Parliament should wish to legislate to prevent the country leaving without a deal.
In view of some of the comments made this evening, it seems necessary to repeat what I have said before. I have long since accepted that we are leaving the European Union, and would support the Prime Minister’s deal time and again, but we cannot leave on 12 April without a deal. If the Government cannot get their deal agreed by next Wednesday, we must try to agree a further extension with the EU 27. The Prime Minister has agreed to seek such an extension. The reason this Bill is necessary is that we cannot be sure that certain elements of the Government—or the Conservative Party—will not seek to prevent her carrying out her intention. In fact, I think that the passing of this Bill will strengthen her hand within the Government. With the help of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I am sure that the Bill can be improved on Monday, and that will also strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand in her negotiations with the European Union.
The Prime Minister has said that she will seek only a short extension. I would support this. I have always thought that it would almost certainly be necessary to request a short extension. However, I am clear on this. Given the choice between a longer delay and leaving with no deal, it would, to my mind, undoubtedly be in the national interest to agree a longer delay. Only those driven by ideology still believe in a no-deal Brexit. We should all take serious notice of what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, who is no longer in his seat. A much-respected economist from the London School of Economics, he did not in any way exaggerate the dangers of a no-deal Brexit.
It worries me that those from all parties who seek to deliver Brexit but at the same time to minimise economic damage—those who are trying to seek cross-party agreement to get us out of this difficult situation—should be vilified from both the political extremes. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other noble Lords, in applauding the efforts of those people—Sir Oliver Letwin, Yvette Cooper, Dame Caroline Spelman, Hilary Benn and others. This is surely a moment for moderation and pragmatism. In this House, and in the other place, we serve the country, not political parties or ideologies.
To my great and profound sadness, we are leaving the European Union. However, it is in that spirit that I support this Bill. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for taking over the Bill—I think it a pity that the Government did not take it over themselves—and I very much hope that on Monday we will pass it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the gap and to follow the words of wisdom of my roommate and noble friend Lord Cathcart and someone as experienced in EU matters as my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. I speak as someone who voted remain. However, I am not convinced that the Bill is the right approach and, like my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, I will vote against it should the opportunity arise. I have dealt with the EU all my career and I do not believe that the EU 27 will let us leave without a deal in the short term. I fear that the Bill plays into their hands.
Frankly and first, it is an attempt that will make the negotiation by the UK with the EU 27 of an acceptable deal more difficult or even impossible. It also goes against the past promises of both main parties. Those who advocate this week’s takeover of Parliament have, I suggest, become more impudent. I believe that this abuse of the constitutional norms could bring Parliament into disrepute and set the Parliament against many of the people, with potential damage to the constitution. There is the added point that if everything goes wrong with the Bill, we do not know who to hold to account.
Secondly, as a businesswoman and former member of the Government—and indeed the bureaucracy—I very much dislike the increasingly last-minute nature of business in the UK Parliament and the UK Government. Looking at the Bill, I have several questions of detail such as about how the dates work, what happens about our European elections and what is to be done about any conditions that the EU may impose, notably on our reason for any extension.
I believe that this country would be much better served if we had proper preparatory paperwork and explanatory notes on the Bill, particularly given its constitutional significance. However, I appreciate the acceleration of work by the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee, allowing the usual channels to find a way forward and therefore agree to a Committee stage on Monday. The fact that there was a special report on concerns about rushed legislation and amendments as HL Paper 116–I, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hunt, shows the scale of the problems that we can have with rushed legislation.
Finally, I was astonished when I heard the House of Commons Speaker ruling that this is not a money Bill. I will as usual be probing on the financial implications and impact of the Bill—both positive and negative, because they go both ways as a result of any delay—even though I have not been able to persuade the parliamentary authorities to agree to having amendments to require the necessary impact assessments or a sensible post hoc review on such a very important issue.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to share the gap with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I will say a few words briefly and I make clear my support for the Bill in general terms. But my concern, which I flagged up in my intervention earlier, is that it fails to cover one key circumstance which could well arise during the coming days.
The Bill as it stands requires House of Commons approval of a new date as specified in Article 50(3) of the treaty but the Bill does not apply if no withdrawal agreement has been ratified under Section 13 of the withdrawal Act, and if no agreement has been reached under Article 50(3) of the treaty to extend the date at which the treaty ceases to apply to the UK. In these circumstances of possibly ongoing negotiations, there is the very real danger of the UK crashing out without a withdrawal agreement. That point has been referred to a number of times in the last few speeches. If that is the wish of the House of Commons, so be it; but the votes of the Commons indicate a strong rejection of such a course, with some 400 MPs voting accordingly. It is therefore my opinion that the Bill should be amended to tidy up that loophole, and it is my hope to present an amendment in Committee to remedy that defect.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to support the Bill from these Benches, and I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for bringing it to this House. I share the view that has been expressed that it would have been better if the Government had brought it, but we are where we are. I look forward to seeing it pass.
The purpose of the Bill was expressed quite shortly by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper in the other place. I will quote what she said, which seems so right:
“The Bill simply provides for a simple, practical and transparent process to underpin the Prime Minister’s plan. It ensures that the extension has the support of the House of Commons, but also that we keep the parliamentary safeguard in place… She has recognised that she cannot implement anything in only nine days, which is why the extension is needed. This is a hugely important Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1135.]
I agree with that. It was described by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as a modest Bill. Modest it may be and, in certain respects, that is much to its credit, but it is an important Bill because of the issues that so many noble Lords have spoken about this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said:
“It was created in a vacuum, and the vacuum was created by a lack of leadership”,
because of uncertain times.
In listening to this debate, three points came across to me. The first was objection to the Bill from those who either view a no-deal Brexit with insouciance or actually welcome it. A number of noble Lords spoke in that way, such as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who knows the high respect in which I hold him, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, for whom I also have great respect. I profoundly disagree with their view that a no-deal Brexit is not a great problem.
This evening we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stern of Brentford, important evidence-based concerns about what a no-deal Brexit would do. Other noble Lords have spoken about that in detail, and I want to add the reference that has already been made, although belatedly, to what Sir Mark Sedwill has said about the risks. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, described it, “a little short-term inconvenience”. Those are the merits of the principal point that has been debated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, rightly described the problem not so much as not trusting the Prime Minister, but not trusting the circumstances in which she finds herself and the people she finds around her. It is therefore an insurance policy. It may well be that, without this, the Prime Minister is able to achieve what she now wants, but it is important to have an insurance policy, as my noble friend Lord Liddle described it.
That took up most of the debate this evening. The second main point was the question of constitutionality. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, referred to that. I was privileged to sit on the Constitution Committee when he chaired it, so I always listen to what he says with great respect. The problem is that we are in, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said, perhaps the gravest crisis since the Second World War and exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures. They are exceptional in a number of respects, not just because of the gravity of the situation with which we are faced but because of the apparent lack of ability of the present Government to solve it. That has led to the other place taking the view that it must step in to help resolve the problem.
There is a need for the Bill. It is important that we respect the other place, which has sent it to us. We will be giving it scrutiny, and I am glad that we will now continue this debate in Committee next week, although I have something to say about the critical need to get it done on Monday.
I am also glad, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, that we have been able to have this Second Reading debate in a much better atmosphere than we had earlier in the day. It was an unpleasant afternoon for all of us. The comments made about Sir Oliver Letwin were uncalled for. He did not deserve them, given what he has been trying to do in the interests of the country, having been a loyal servant of the public. Although he did not come up so much in this debate, I also mention Dominic Grieve, who was my shadow when I was Attorney-General. A more honourable and honest man I do not know. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that it was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, back in his place.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to the importance of compromise. The Bill at least provides an opportunity for that to take place. Whether it happens is another matter.
I am very conscious that the House has been debating this, one way or another, for a number of hours, so I will wind up quite quickly. On the detail of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised the most important point about the royal prerogative. Following on what the Leader of the House said, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised the danger of the Prime Minister finding herself in a situation where something is offered which she would want to accept but which is not actually covered by the Motion that has been passed by the House. Does she have to come back? That ought to be looked at and, for our part, we will look at it before this matter comes back next week.
I want to underline, and end on, the importance of getting this done. Noble Lords will be aware, because they will all have read the Bill carefully, of the way it works. The day after Royal Assent is given, a Motion needs to be presented to the House of Commons—which it might or might not accept—setting out the time for the extension. That gives rise to two issues. One is that it is proposed by the Government—I would anticipate, by the Prime Minister—for the other place to consider. It is not the European Union setting out the timetable, but the Prime Minister must be given the date in time to pass it to the members of the European Council so that they can consider it before they meet on Wednesday. They will not thank anybody, I understand, if they are given it with very short notice. It is obviously an important decision for them and they will want to discuss it among themselves. That is why we must reach the position on Monday where we have dealt with all amendments in time for the other place to also deal with them that day and Royal Assent be given, so that the following day, Tuesday—only one day before the Council meeting—a decision can be reached on the timing.
A number of noble Lords have expressed happiness that we have been able to reach an agreement so that this does not go through the night tonight, but that was on the basis that we will conclude this on Monday—the Chief Whip talked about 8 pm. I hope all noble Lords will be able to co-operate on that. We have our work cut out, but not if we do it efficiently. At the end of the day it remains quite a straightforward and simple Bill, which we will be supporting.
Baroness Deech
The noble and learned Lord referred to this as the greatest crisis since the Second World War. Briefly, that brought to mind the famous case of Liversidge v Anderson, the facts of which I need not remind him of. There were emergency powers and the majority of the court held, “Yes, that’s all right, let’s lock this chap up”. The judgment we remember now, and it was famous even then, was the judgment of Lord Atkin, who said:
“In England, amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace”.
We stick to the principles we have always had. His reference to Second World War reminded me of that: when you have an emergency—and I would not compare this with the Second World War—it is all the more important to use the proper constitutional principles.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I remember that case very well, of course, though I did not have the pleasure of being one of her constitutional class. Of course, what the House of Lords decided in that case was that it was not for individual Ministers to make decisions; that is what the case was about. It was about control of executive power: they were not to make determinations themselves. In this case, the Bill seeks to give primacy to the House of Commons to enable its decision, perhaps in the face of the wishes of the Executive, to be effected.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, as this is not, of course, a government Bill, I am sure noble Lords will be delighted to know that I can keep my remarks brief. Legislation has been debated, scrutinised and passed by this House since July 2016 to prepare for our exit from the EU, including many statutory instruments that noble Lords have scrutinised thoroughly to ensure that in any scenario, our statute book will function properly and appropriately. At the most recent count, more than 500 statutory instruments have been considered by the SLSC and more than 200 SIs debated by this House under the affirmative procedure. However, the Bill before us today in the name of the right honourable Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford offers little but constitutional ambiguity and greater, not less, uncertainty. The Government strongly oppose the Bill.
I agree with many of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, my noble friends Lord Howard of Lympne, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The approach to this Bill risks setting an unhealthy and constitutionally irregular precedent for this and future Governments. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked me a simple question: do we need this Bill at all? The simple answer is no. Most importantly, the fundamental flaws in its drafting not only undermine what it seeks to achieve but may even increase the risk of an accidental no deal next week. I also note the Lords Constitution Committee’s report and thank it for its efforts to produce its report so quickly.
Noble Lords will recognise the ambiguity that would arise should the Bill pass, particularly regarding the royal prerogative and the long-established convention that the Government of the day lead on our international negotiations. Heads of Government are able to enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. This Bill not only calls that ability into question, it does nothing to provide any clarity on what we should, in fact, seek.
The other place has consistently demanded greater certainty for businesses and for citizens. Despite this, noble Lords will no doubt be very alive to the risk that the conditions imposed by the Bill bring to life the very real possibility that we cannot agree an extension in time, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, by my noble friend Lord Cathcart and at the end by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. This is because the Bill creates a new parliamentary process whereby any counteroffer on the extension of the Article 50 period by the EU must be put to Parliament and agreed on the day after the offer is made by the EU. As we saw at the European Council on 21 and 22 March, when the original extension was agreed, it requires a request by the UK, a decision by the 27 EU member states and then agreement from the UK.
I am pleased to say that yesterday the other place approved a government amendment to the Bill to change the parliamentary scrutiny procedure that applies to an SI, amending the definition of “exit day” from affirmative to negative.
The Bill creates processes that increase the risk of us being timed out, but, even if agreement were possible in time, we would still need to ensure that any extension agreed in international law was reflected in our domestic statute book. The Government considered it prudent to seek to amend the Bill to make the SI needed for this purpose subject to the negative procedure to ensure that our statute book reflects international law.
However, I regret that the other place did not pass the amendment that the Government put forward to address the dangerous constitutional precedent set by this Bill overall. It would have protected the Government’s ability to reach an agreement with the EU on an extension to Article 50. In doing so, it would have clarified the position on the royal prerogative to ensure that nothing in the Bill would prevent the Government being able to seek and agree an extension.
The Bill therefore remains fundamentally flawed. It could tie the hands of the Government and bring about a situation contrary to the purpose expressed by its movers. This legislation is not a sensible or desirable approach to take and I urge noble Lords not to support it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Before he sits down, could the Minister answer two questions? I asked the first earlier, and I would be grateful for an answer. Have the Government taken the necessary steps to prepare for a European election should the extension go beyond 23 May? Secondly, I found missing in his remarks any recognition that the elected House had actually taken a decision—that it had adopted this Bill and sent it to us. If we adopt it on Monday, is he seriously saying that the Government consider themselves to be somehow above decisions taken by the two Houses? If so, that is a very peculiar constitutional suggestion.
Lord Callanan
Of course we do not. I can answer both his questions with the same statement. The Government will abide by the law of this country in all circumstances—both European Parliament election law and any law made by this Parliament—in the appropriate fashion.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I did not hear much compromise in that last speech. The only reason we are here discussing this Bill is lack of trust and compromise throughout the whole process. We have just heard the embodiment of it, which was different from many of the other speeches over the last three and a half hours—they have been, as someone said, much pleasanter than what we might call the afternoon session, where it got pretty het up.
I will not try to wind up, but I will also not fall out with the staff of the House, so I might need some help. One of the early speeches that made me think was the very sharp speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. There is a lesson for us all in what he said not just about this Bill but beyond it about changes. I was really taken with that, as I was with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that there was a vacuum which the Commons started to fill. That is the reality. People may not like it, but a vacuum was left there.
Many noble Lords—I will not list them all—supported a second vote. I did not mention that in my opening speech, but I certainly support putting whatever decision is finally taken back to the people. It is preposterous to argue that we can all change our minds three or four times in both Houses but the people are not allowed to change their minds or think again when they know more facts.
First of all, criminal offences were committed by the leave campaign—no one has mentioned that. The fact is that a whole series of court cases is probably coming up, and I certainly hope that a few people will be locked up as a result of them. However, the fact is that things went wrong there. It is not relevant to the Bill, but it is there in the system, and it is partly that which has caused the lack of trust, as well as some of the bitterness around on both aspects of it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, what about Russian money, for instance, which is another example?
Lord Rooker
Dirty Russian money flooding into London, which allegedly funded part of the campaign on digital media, is a serious issue. We in this country have not taken it as seriously as the Americans have started to take it. One only has to look at the material that comes out of the Khodorkovsky Center and what happens in parts of London. We have taken legal powers, but we have not taken enough action about the money that is swilling around.
The noble Lord, Lord Stern, also made a powerful speech. Economics has never been my strong point, but, to be honest, what he said scared the hell out of me. The consequences of walking out without any arrangements in place are very worrying.
I will touch on another aspect: the food issue, which my noble friend Lord Howarth mentioned. We were due to have a debate on Brexit-related food prices and on the effects of leaving without a deal. Some 30% of our food comes from the EU, 50% is made here, and 20% comes from elsewhere. A 22% average increase in tariffs will not lead to a 22% increase in food prices, but, when you talk to industry, you realise that the 10% that the National Security Adviser scared the hell out of the Cabinet with is realistic. That is a 10% increase at the checkout as a result of no deal. You cannot gainsay that—the facts and the evidence are there. It is no good saying, “You’ve been a-scaring—it’ll be all right in time”. It will be all right in time for those who can afford to carry the burden in the meantime, but that is one serious problem that the National Security Adviser warned the Cabinet about.
Lord Cormack
Is my friend, the noble Lord, aware also of the frightening predictions that have been made by the extremely able president of the NFU, Minette Batters?
Lord Rooker
Yes. The NFU has been the quiet dog on this issue for three years. It never had a position on Brexit. It did not campaign—it was split. Many took one view and many took another. I know NFU members, ex-presidents, who worked their socks off travelling the country, trying to organise for remain. But the organisation was split—it never put its corporate voice into the debate.
Lord Cormack
That may be so, and I agree, but the president has recently come out very clearly on this, and it is terribly important that that is put on the record. Does the noble Lord not agree?
Lord Rooker
Yes, I absolutely agree, and I applaud the role that the new president has taken.
Lord Newby (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord’s peroration. He may be aware that, contrary to what a number of noble Lords said, many people who, like myself, live hundreds of miles outside London, are very aware that the majority of farmers, particularly upland farmers in the Yorkshire Dales, voted leave—frankly, they do not like people from Leeds, far less people in Brussels; the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, appreciates the strength of that view. They voted leave, not carelessly, but not thinking that it would have any personal consequences for them. Now, they very much realise that leaving without a deal could mean the end of their careers. Therefore, when the extremely impressive group North Yorkshire for Europe held a stall at the Leyburn cattle market a couple of months ago, expecting to be nearly lynched by all these farmers who voted leave, much to their surprise they were if not physically embraced, mentally embraced, by people who said, “My goodness! We now realise that our livelihood is seriously at risk”.
Is this not just one example of the many we have heard from noble Lords today of the potential economic consequences—not minor but visceral—of crashing out without a deal for the livelihoods and lives of people we respect for the contribution they make not just to the economy but to the environment, and who, as we speak, are going to bed worried about what is happening to our country?
Lord Rooker
I am grateful to the noble Lord. My very last point—it is my very last point, because it follows from what I said earlier—is about the warning from police chiefs this morning about the language being used. We have heard it here today: “betrayal” and “stealing”. The police have warned us not to use that kind of language because, in this sensitive area, it is almost inciting people to violence. Those words have been used, as have some others this afternoon, but I did not list them all. We either listen to what the police say or we do not. It is absolutely preposterous that language like that is used in Parliament, given the official advice this morning.
With that off my chest, and given the announcement that we are not having a recess next week—I am damn clear that I am keeping to my short family holiday, and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen will be here on Monday to carry the burden of Committee—I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Monday 8th April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 April 2019 - (8 Apr 2019)
16:53 - Division on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 46 - Clause 2 agreed.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, who is not here today, and with his agreement, I beg to move.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
My Lords, along with Amendment 1, I shall also speak to Amendments 2 and 3. As the Leader of the House has outlined—more eloquently than I could—this is a technical amendment designed to ensure that the other place can debate the Bill tomorrow. It arises from a confusion between parliamentary days and calendar days. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 4 seeks to insert a restriction on the date referred to in line 10:
“which must not be later than the end of the 2019/20 financial year”.
This may in practice be a variation on the provision proposed by my noble friend Lady Noakes in her amendment, but, as I explained at Second Reading, it is born out of frustration at not being able to table specific amendments on financial impact.
I want to draw attention to the fact that this Bill—agreed by all to be a constitutional innovation—is not the subject of a money resolution, as the Speaker decided in the other place. Equally pertinently, it has no impact assessment, and yet it could bring about a delay in Brexit without end or resolution, which could be extremely costly to this country.
Whatever one’s views on Brexit, it must surely be common ground that altering the date of the event will have financial consequences. I accept that some of the costs will be negative and some will be positive, but the longer Brexit drags on, the more the cost of uncertainty for all economic players and the extra cost to the Treasury in payments to Brussels will weigh against the benefits of avoiding no deal.
Although we cannot persuade the Speaker of the House of Commons to change his mind on a money resolution, I believe that the promoters of the Bill should work up an impact assessment, which would cover some of the same ground. I also believe that adding a date gives the Government an incentive finally to resolve matters. Alternatively, if the promoters will not produce an assessment today, one should be required when the Government use the power to define the length of an extension in their statutory Motion.
Let us look at some of the costs of the new approach, as the costs of no deal, now threatened for 12 April, have been well articulated already and are well understood. As a businesswoman, I know that they are real worries and that they are especially acute in farming, the motor industry and industries such as food which depend on just-in-time supply chains and mutual recognition of labelling. But there is also a huge cost to uncertainty. There are literally billions of pounds which business is waiting to invest once, but only once, the Brexit uncertainty disappears. This could be a great driver of growth and productivity, because the combination of low capital investment and cheap, flexible labour from the EU is a key reason why productivity is flatlining, despite an increase in infrastructure, digital and R&D investment by this Government.
In other sectors such as financial services, which now represent a very large percentage of GDP, the critical thing is to turn the political declaration into a free trade agreement with the EU 27. Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted could allow the EU 27 to delay negotiations to the point where the resulting uncertainty has allowed it to steal more and more of our market. The beauty parade to attract investment which would have taken place in the UK to go to Paris or Milan is very energetic. We heard in the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee last week how jobs and work are moving, never to return, to Frankfurt, Dublin, Amsterdam, Brussels and elsewhere, even if we stay in the EU.
I feel that the Brexit process has lacked transparency from day one. If there was a fuller and more honest discussion of the complexities of what is planned when and of the likely implications, more dynamic analysis, objective pros and cons, both economic and political, and less of Project Fear, the country would be less divided and perhaps less critical of what we in Parliament have achieved.
There is another reason why a system of financial assessment and timetable constraints is desirable. We will have let the genie out of the bottle if this rushed, defective and uncosted Bill is passed. I fear very much that it will act as a precedent for future Private Members’ Bills even more financially damaging, such as on the regulation of utilities or whatever. This is a constitutional revolution and, as I said last week, there will be no way to hold Back-Bench sponsors to account if the mechanism in such a Bill causes damage.
As my noble friend the Leader of the House just said, it is important not to set a precedent. The Bill is about stopping a premature no deal, for which I have some sympathy, but for the reasons I have stated the Bill needs amendment. I would be glad to hear from someone among the opposition promoters—although I am not sure who; perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who has always supported impact assessments, or another of her colleagues—on how we might meet some of these concerns about proper assessment. My noble friend the Brexit Minister may also be able to think of a way to do so.
Given our often tedious scrutiny role—I am afraid that this is a technical point, and some may feel it is tedious—it was cheering to hear the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union express the expectation that this House would correct the flaws in the Bill. That is what we need to do today. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I oppose the amendment. It would frustrate the very purpose of the Bill, which is to leave it to the House of Commons to identify what it thinks is the appropriate date.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment for two reasons. First, this remains a wretched Bill, taking power away from the Government and their ability to use the royal prerogative. Therefore, I would support any restriction on that measure being put into the Bill. Secondly, I support the points made by my noble friend in respect of the financial impact of different variants of a delay in leaving the EU. The fact that the Bill was not treated as a money Bill in the other place is beyond my comprehension, as is the fact that my noble friend was unable to table an amendment explicitly calling for an impact assessment or something else—but the ways of the Public Bill Office are strange on occasion. I support my noble friend.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, there may be some flaws in the Bill—hence the support from these Benches for some of the other amendments. However, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this amendment is unnecessary and that it should be for the other place to set a date.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords are saying that it is for the other place to set a date. My understanding is that it will have one hour to consider our amendments and every aspect of the Bill. It is apparent from the speech made by my noble friend that there is an issue here. As I raised on Thursday, I do not understand why the Bill did not have a money resolution. It is perfectly possible that, in return for agreeing a date, the European Union could demand even more than the £39 billion already offered by the Prime Minister, and that the financial consequences could be considerable. This amendment seeks some kind of time limit on the process, which is sensible.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her amendment and for inviting us to consider the issues she identified. Any damage our economy is experiencing at the moment is on account not of the people’s decision in the 2016 referendum but of the highly protracted process and continuing uncertainty that is paralysing economic decision-making, particularly in investment and consumer decisions. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we need the best objective assessment available as to the damage that the continuation of this uncertainty would cause. The proponents of a long extension of Article 50 must address the question of their responsibility for the continuing economic damage that would result.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend, I am somewhat confused because this is a Private Member’s Bill that was absolutely pushed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who is not here today, from the Labour Front Bench only on Thursday. It was then taken forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is not here today, and now it is being taken forward by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I am sure that that is all normal, but this is a huge constitutional step which seems to have, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, no parents. This is a very important step and we seem to be drifting into it without any considered thought at all.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, what has just been demonstrated is that the Bill has many parents and very wide support across the House. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is completely conclusive. It is for the House of Commons to decide what the date should be. The Commons have invited us to give them this power, and I think that we should get on with it.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for having failed to speak in the debate on Second Reading. I had to leave London early on Friday to attend a memorial service the following day. I was pleased to see that the normal operation of the usual channels was restored on Thursday, although I deplore the fact that the closure Motion procedure was excessively and improperly used. Indeed, I would guess that it was used more times than in the previous decade or more—I would like to know. The result was that I was unable to speak either in the debate on the amendment to the business Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth or in the debate on that tabled by my noble friend Lord True. Of rather more significance than my ability to speak, however, is the fact that the use of the closure procedure denied both my noble friends the right to reply to the debates on the amendments that they had moved.
As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe illustrated so well at Second Reading, the nature of business in the UK Parliament and the UK Government seems to be increasingly last minute. It is simply unacceptable to try to rush through a Bill of such huge importance without proper time to consider its implications. It makes a mockery of our parliamentary democracy. The Bill received a Second Reading in the other place by the narrowest of majorities: just one vote. It is deplorable that many noble Lords thought it was nevertheless appropriate to suspend the normal procedural rules of this House—
Lord Pannick
My Lords, may I respectfully remind the noble Viscount that we are debating Amendment 4?
Viscount Trenchard
I am well aware, and I thank the noble Lord for his advice.
However, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the report from his committee and on the fact that he so quickly responded.
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is much needed. In her speech at Second Reading and again today, she has made the very good point that the Bill has profound financial implications. My noble friend Lord Cathcart also made this point most clearly in his powerful speech. It is reasonable to say that the terms of withdrawal should require the UK to honour its commitments during the current EU spending round, provided of course that the UK is not disadvantaged by its decision to leave the EU in terms of the amounts that UK projects and companies would otherwise have received from EU programmes.
Besides that, any extension beyond 22 May would require us to participate in the European Parliament elections, and that requirement would of course have financial implications. It is therefore strange that the Speaker has ruled that this is not a money Bill, but it is not surprising given his increasing willingness to allow his own political views and prejudices—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Viscount, I was not able to be here for the debate on Second Reading. I am therefore sure that he will agree with me that neither of us should intervene.
Viscount Trenchard
I hear that the noble Lord thinks that, but I regret that I take a different opinion. I have apologised for not having been present at the debate on Second Reading for the reason I have given, but this morning I took the trouble to read virtually the whole of the debate.
Viscount Trenchard
No, I would like to finish so I will not give way to the noble Lord again. It is therefore strange—
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I rise purely in a spirit of helpfulness. Perhaps the noble Viscount could keep in mind the difference between a money Bill and a Bill that requires a money resolution. It is quite a profound difference.
Viscount Trenchard
I thank the noble Lord for his helpful advice. Nevertheless, I find it strange that the Speaker made the ruling he did, as the—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I must remind my noble friend that, under paragraph 4.45, it is incorrect for Members of this House to criticise proceedings in another place or rulings of the Speaker. I make this point only to help the debate to move on.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I take the place of my noble friend Lady Hayter today. She, like my noble friend Lord Rooker, is not able to be here.
To those, including the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who have said we have to ensure there is not a precedent, I say that of course this is not a precedent, because the circumstances are exceptional. They are exceptional because, unless something is done, we risk leaving the European Union without a deal on Friday. It is in these circumstances that the other place took the decision that this Bill should be presented to us; we have been dealing with it. As I said at the conclusion of Second Reading, I very much hope we will be able to conclude it in time today.
As this is the first time I have spoken, I add my thanks to the Chief Whip for the work he did on Thursday to enable us to get to this stage. I remind noble Lords that we need to get to the end of this Bill, as he has said.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
If the circumstances are exceptional, why does that mean it has not created a precedent?
Lord Goldsmith
I think it speaks for itself. We have not found ourselves in this sort of situation before. Others in the House can deal with this, if they would like, through the Procedure Committee later.
So far as the amendment itself is concerned—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Could the noble Lord help us understand what the word “exceptional” means? On Thursday we had five closure Motions, where the Lord Speaker had to read out a text that says this should be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goldsmith
That was the view the House took on each of those closure Motions.
To deal with the substance, we oppose the amendment, essentially for the reason put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—that we should not send this Bill back with constraints on the other place. What will then happen is for the Prime Minister and the other House to determine, but I urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
The noble Lord says we should not put constraints on the other place when we consider these amendments. Has not the argument been put forward many times from the Benches on which he sits that we should take into account the extent of the majority in the other place for any legislation we are considering? I cannot recall a narrower majority than the one by which this Bill was passed in the other place.
Lord Goldsmith
I will not attempt definitions of words; I am a lawyer, not a grammarian.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
The Government distinguished by the leadership of Lady Thatcher came into office on the basis of one vote, as I remember. All of us, including my noble friend—and he is a friend—benefited from that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful for the support I have had for my amendment and for the echo that uncertainty in the Brexit process is a problem for business and for citizens of this country. We really need to resolve this.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
Given that my noble friend has put uncertainty at the heart of her remarks, does she not think that at least some credence should be given to the idea of coming out and leaving Europe this Friday, which would give the certainty that everyone craves? There may be difficulties, but given that certainty is one of the overriding factors, surely that should be considered.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I will move on, rather than try to be Prime Minister for the afternoon. Clearly, I was concerned that it was not possible to look properly at the financial and business impacts in this Bill. I have heard it said that we would not take this as a precedent because of the special circumstances, which certainly gives me some comfort. I have to accept that the date is a matter that needs to be decided by a combination of the other place, the Prime Minister—and, of course, the EU, which I am afraid will also have a bearing on what date we eventually leave the EU.
In the circumstances and with thanks to those who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords in moving this amendment, with the permission of the House I will also comment on Amendment 7 because the two are connected. I start with two realities. The first is that the most important purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we do not crash out or leave on Friday without a deal. It is critically important, therefore, that an extension is agreed before Friday. The second—
Lord Goldsmith
I will not give way because the noble Lord has not even heard what I am trying to say.
The second point is that it is very clear that we are running out of time—or running out of road, to go back to the Question in Oral Questions. If we can pass the Bill today, as I explained at the conclusion of Second Reading, it can return to the other place and be agreed and a Motion can then be passed to inform what the Prime Minister does on Wednesday.
When the Prime Minister puts forward a resolution, it may be agreed by the other place but other possibilities arise. One is that the request is put to the Council but the Council comes back with a counter proposal—a different date. I doubt from my experience of European negotiations that it will be quite as neat as that, because these things tend to happen in discussions and something will emerge. That will be important when I come to explain one issue about the Bill as it stands.
The point was also made powerfully at Second Reading that it is necessary to give the Prime Minister the flexibility to be able to agree to something put to her by the European Council if that emerges in the course of debate. Amendment 7 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and myself is designed to deal with that possibility. There was strong support at Second Reading for being able to use the royal prerogative so that the Prime Minister would be able to make such an agreement. Amendment 7 would enable that to take place and avoid a situation where we might accidentally end up with no deal because there simply has not been time to go through all the processes.
So what does that have to do with this amendment? This amendment would remove subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 1, which would require a Motion being put to the other place in the event that the European Council comes up with a proposal. The reason for removing those subsections is twofold—for simplicity and to promote legal certainty. It promotes simplicity because it does not require there to be another stage of backwards and forwards in the very limited time before Friday. If the proposal had to go back to the other place and be agreed and then something was then put forward, we could find ourselves in a situation where we accidentally dropped out of the European Union without having reached the point that we wanted to.
Lord Goldsmith
I will give way to the noble Lord, but this will be the last time.
Lord Framlingham
It may be the only time I ask. The noble and learned Lord started his remarks by using the phrase “crashing out”. Everybody talks about crashing out. The BBC talks about crashing out. Sky News talks about crashing out. It has been part of the propaganda all along. Precisely what problems will be caused if we leave this coming Friday?
Lord Goldsmith
I respectfully invite the noble Lord to read fully the debate at Second Reading, where that was explained by a number of noble Lords.
Amendment 5 would take out subsections (5) and (6). The first reason to do that is to avoid the problem which could result in us running out of time; that is, the matter having to go to the other place and then come back. We have the safeguard that that amendment would require that the extension agreed by the Prime Minister could not end earlier than 22 May 2019. That is an important part of the amendment that is about to be proposed. We are safeguarding ourselves against leaving without a deal.
Legal certainty comes into it for several reasons. First, if noble Lords look at the Bill, they will see that subsection (6) refers to the condition in subsection (7) being operated because,
“the European Council proposes an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3)”.
There may be a question about whether there has in fact been a proposal.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
If the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 5 is carried and Amendment 7 is carried as well, is it not possible for the Prime Minister to agree a date which is never subject to parliamentary ratification?
Lord Goldsmith
So far as domestic law is concerned, in any event there will need to be a statutory instrument to change the exit day. I accept that in relation to domestic law, and we have had the debate about international law. A Motion will be put to the other place, which will have a full opportunity to express its views about the date, and in that way it is the subject of careful consideration. We accept that the Prime Minister needs the flexibility to be able to agree what is proposed by the European Council. The mood music we hear, if we read what is going on in the press, seems to be much more that we are likely to find that there is some meeting of minds—that there is some accommodation from the European Council—and I am less concerned about that. I am concerned about the risk of legal uncertainty, which I was just explaining.
Part of it is that we may find it difficult to be sure whether the condition in subsection (6) has been satisfied. It requires that the European Council has proposed an extension, but that may not be the way it works because in discussion and negotiation it may be questionable whether the proposal has come from the European Council or from the Prime Minister herself in the course of negotiations. Secondly, if the condition is triggered, under subsection (7) the Prime Minister must move a Motion in the House of Commons in the form set out in subsection (2) stating that that House agrees to the Prime Minister seeking an extension. How is this going to work in circumstances where as a result of a negotiation the Prime Minister has in effect reached an agreement with the European Council about what the extension should be? How does she then receive an instruction to agree a date that has already been agreed? It creates those difficulties of legal certainty.
Lord Goldsmith
I give way to whoever would like to speak on the opposite Benches.
Lord Faulks
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is most important that there should be as much legal certainty as there can be, but also that the Prime Minister should have the proper role and authority to negotiate. However, does he agree that the royal prerogative exists to allow the Prime Minister to negotiate on our behalf in international and foreign relations unless Parliament actually restricts that authority? That of course was the subject of the Gina Miller case and the reason behind that decision. If we say nothing about the restrictions on the Prime Minister, she will be able to rely on the royal prerogative.
Lord Goldsmith
The noble Lord is quite right that that is a very important point. It was raised at Second Reading that the Government felt strongly, and I understand why, that the royal prerogative should not be subject to at least inadvertent erosion. Of course it has been eroded in certain respects over the years; we do not need to go into what they are but they include treaty making and waging war.
I take from the noble Lord’s point this observation: one great benefit of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is that it makes clear that the royal prerogative is being maintained. I want to avoid seeing that apparently contradicted by other provisions in the Bill.
I have one other observation to make. I said a few moments ago that there were certain things that could happen: the European Council might accept the proposal or it might come up with another one. However, there is a risk that there might be no agreement at all; that needs to be considered. We have had discussions with the Government. I look to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Callanan—I am sorry, the noble Lord. He should be noble and learned as he has had to deal with so much of this Bill already; we will see if we can arrange that. I anticipate that he will give an assurance that, in the event that there is no agreement, the matter will be brought to the other place as soon as possible. Indeed, we expect it to be brought there this week, otherwise it might simply be too late.
When the noble Lord comes to respond on this amendment, I look forward to hearing what he says about that, and I hope he will give us sufficient assurance that if there is in fact a failure to agree at the European Council meeting then the matter will come back to the other place, which will therefore be able to debate what should happen next. It should do so on an amendable Motion so that it can put forward and support its view on what should take place. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House if the noble Lord could tell us now what he will be able to say but, if not, I look forward to hearing what he says when he comes to respond to the debate.
Baroness Deech
I would be the mover of Amendment 6. I originally proposed with the Public Bill Office precisely the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, tabled. I am sorry that we were not able to communicate about it. However, it shows how wise it was for this House to have had the weekend to think about things. Not only has the temperature cooled a bit but it has given us the chance to read two very important reports that were hastily brought out over the weekend. I congratulate the members of the two Select Committees—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—and all those who worked to achieve this on getting the reports published. They raised an important issue and, to some extent, answered my question. My amendment would have been a probing amendment.
I tabled this amendment for clarification. After we have debated all the amendments, it will demonstrate even further just how toothless and pointless this Bill is. I was minded to put this amendment down for the following reason, which has also been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Let us suppose that the Prime Minister picks up the phone to Brussels, or goes there, and it says that it will give an extension for however many months, provided we pay more, or enter into discussions with Spain about Gibraltar, for example. I am glad to see the return of the royal prerogative because I assume that that will mean that she can simply say no and put the receiver down. As drafted, the Bill concerns only the date; it has nothing about conditions. The date may well be inextricably mixed up with conditions.
As things stand, there would be nothing to get either House involved, or to stop the Prime Minister rejecting or accepting such a condition. Moreover, if you look at the drafting—of course, you draft in haste and repent at leisure—Clause 1(2) requires her only to seek an extension, not to achieve or accept it, or anything like that. Going back to my phone call metaphor, if she seeks an extension, and picks up the phone to Monsieur Barnier and says whatever, and he says no or she does not like what he says, she puts the phone down—end of. I maintain that this Bill does not wholly achieve what it sets out to do, which is to stop no deal, but I am happy to see a return of the royal prerogative. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that those two final clauses should be removed because they simply confuse the issue.
How wise we were to wait for those reports. The one from the Constitution Committee explains exactly what I have said. Paragraph 5(c) says:
“The European Council might agree to the extension but subject to certain conditions (e.g. UK participation in elections to the European Parliament)”.
I add in brackets that our human rights will be broken if we are still members of the EU and cannot vote—there was a case on this a few years ago. The report continues:
“If such a situation were to arise, the Bill would have no further application—that is, it would not impose any further duties on the Prime Minister nor make any relevant further provision”.
I am glad to hear that. In other words, if Monsieur Barnier says we have to enter into talks with Spain about Gibraltar, the Prime Minister can put down the phone and say no. We will come to the other report later in this discussion.
In sum, no deal is not blocked by this Bill, but the House of Lords is relegated, as has happened quite often, I am afraid, in all our interesting and productive debates about withdrawal. We do not get reported in the media and we are completely sidelined from future decisions by this Bill. If the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is accepted, then mine will of course be withdrawn, but I am glad to get this clarification on the record.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am rather confused as to what is going on here. Who is answering these important points?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No, it is not for the Minister to answer them, as it is not a Government Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is going to deal with these points, because we have the Opposition criticising the Bill, and seeking to amend it as we go along in Committee. To my mind—I am blessed with not being a lawyer—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is riding two horses at once. On the one hand, he is saying that it is important that we retain the royal prerogative, because the Prime Minister has to be able to deal with the situation as it arises, and on the other hand, he says that we need this Bill in order to prevent the Prime Minister doing what she thinks is appropriate. If the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is the sponsor of this Bill, perhaps he could enlighten us and deal with the important points which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just made.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, accepted that Amendments 5 and 7 remove the concern that she otherwise had—that is what she told the House.
I support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, and I also want to speak to Amendment 7, which has, as I understand it, now been grouped with Amendment 5.
Lord Pannick
It is not on the list, but as I understand it, there have been suggestions that it would be helpful to the House if it debated Amendment 7 together with Amendment 5; that was what we were told by the Table Office. In any event, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has referred to Amendment 7, and it may be helpful if I make my remarks as the person who has tabled Amendment 7.
Lord Pannick
They are not grouped on the Marshalled List, but I was informed that the Table Office had been invited to list Amendment 7 with Amendment 5. I am entirely in your Lordships’ hands as to what is of most assistance.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I will do whatever the Chief Whip thinks is most appropriate in these circumstances, as I always do.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord. The papers for today were prepared when, at a rather late hour, someone arrived to suggest that these two amendments be taken together. I have no comment to make on that matter—it is for the House to decide. If the House decides that they should be taken together, they can be.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
As the sponsor of the Bill, I suggest that they are taken together.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I can sense the mood of the House, and I am grateful to all noble Lords, particularly the Chief Whip.
The noble and learned Lord has already mentioned Amendment 7, which goes with Amendment 5. It addresses a practical concern that may arise at the European Council meeting on Wednesday night. The problem is that Clause 1 envisages that, if the Prime Minister is mandated by the House of Commons to seek an extension to a specified date, and the European Council then makes a counteroffer of a different date, the Prime Minister would have no power under Clause 1 to agree to that counteroffer. She would have to say to our European partners that she is required to return to the House of Commons on Thursday to seek its approval. She would have to say that notwithstanding the fact that the European Council is not going to remain in session—they are all going to go home. There is therefore a risk that, contrary to the aims of the promoters of this Bill, the restrictions on the Prime Minister’s powers contained in this Bill may cause a no-deal exit on Friday at 11pm. Therefore, Amendment 7 makes it clear that nothing in this Bill prevents the Prime Minister seeking or agreeing on Wednesday night in Brussels an extension of the Article 50 period, provided it is not to a date earlier than 22 May.
Viscount Hailsham
I entirely understand the point about the Prime Minister agreeing to a proposal coming from the European Union. I am a little less certain about the desirability of enabling her to seek a date without prior parliamentary approval.
Lord Pannick
This is a negotiation. It would be very odd to say that she can agree a date but she cannot seek one. There has to be give and take. I think that there is general agreement around the House that the Bill, whether noble Lords are in favour of it or not, ought not to constrain the Prime Minister’s powers when she is conducting an international negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked whether this was really necessary: unless an Act of Parliament expressly takes away the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers, surely they remain. My answer is that there is a danger that it might be said that the Bill, by necessary implication by reason of its contents, takes away the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. I think we would all agree that the worst of all possible worlds would be if the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on Thursday morning was to be instructed by a client to go to court to obtain a declaration that the Prime Minister has acted in breach of her powers, given the Bill’s contents.
Lord Goldsmith
If I may assist, Clause 1(4) would require the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the period required by the House of Commons. We are then dealing with what happens after that.
Lord Pannick
I entirely accept that.
It is necessary to have legal certainty on the retention of the Prime Minister’s powers on such an important matter. That is why the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Goldsmith, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I have all put our names to Amendment 7.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I have listened with care to the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the intervention from my noble friend Lord Hailsham. I do not have my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s advantage because I have the misfortune of having trained and practised as a lawyer, so I am in that difficult circumstance. I am confused by the exchanges that have taken place. I draw only one inference from them: this appalling piece of legislation is totally misconceived. It seeks on the one hand indubitably to constrain the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister. That is its main purpose. Now we have amendment after amendment that seek to persuade us that it is only in some circumstances that the royal prerogative should be constrained and that in others it is absolutely necessary because, as the noble Lord just said, the Prime Minister must be able to make use of the royal prerogative when she is involved in negotiations of this kind. It is negotiations of this kind that the Bill is all about.
The fact is that the Prime Minister will be involved in negotiations about the date on which we exit the European Union, the conditions in which we do so and any terms that might be sought by the European Council to limit the extent to which we might be able to act in accordance with the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister will be engaged in negotiations of that kind. She ought to be able to exercise the royal prerogative when she engages in those negotiations, as the noble Lord said a moment ago. This ludicrous Bill, which seeks in part to restrain the royal prerogative and then to subtract from the extent to which it constrains it, is wholly misconceived and should never reach the statute book.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could assist the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to see this situation in a different light when it comes to the European Council on Wednesday: as a happy blend of parliamentary accountability and government flexibility. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the combination of Amendments 5 and 7 supplies both legal and practical certainty. They perhaps take away the complication that might be in the minds of the Council on Wednesday night about what happens if the Prime Minister proposes or agrees to a different extension to what is being discussed in the other place.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is also right that there could be some discussion about the difference in wording between Clause 1(7), about a proposal, and a scenario of agreement by the Prime Minister at the European Council. We need to remember that the specific context that is being addressed by Amendment 7 is envisaging what happens in those negotiations at the European Council. Like the noble and learned Lord, I look forward to the response from the Minister—
Baroness Ludford
Perhaps if noble Lords listened to the end of a sentence they would understand what the speaker was saying.
I look forward to the response about the wording which the Government have apparently discussed regarding an amendable Motion if there is no deal on Thursday, as well as to the response from the Bill’s sponsor, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I think we should remember that there is no precedent, no parallel, to the situation in which we have found ourselves in recent weeks. As we said at Second Reading last Thursday night, a group of very courageous Members from both sides of the House, and from minority parties, came together to fill a vacuum. After that, the Prime Minister made her welcome overture to other parties, something that should have been done after the general election when we lost our majority.
That changed the situation. Nevertheless, I believe that those who promoted this Bill were entirely justified in so doing. We have had this welcome development from the Prime Minister, so it is entirely sensible that the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should be accepted by this House. They give the Prime Minister, in this, the ultimate hour—because that is what we are talking about—the freedom to be able to negotiate on Wednesday. It would be manifestly absurd if she did not have that freedom.
We should accept these amendments. I think they improve the Bill. I very much hope that those in another place accept them in the spirit in which they have been moved, and then, perhaps, we can all move on.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak. I do not think that this is a good Bill. There have been much better Bills, and the process that we have been through has not been the House at its best, because events have forced the situation on us. Therefore, I apologise to the House. I did not put my name down to speak at Second Reading—I had not intended to speak at all. I support this amendment, because I think it will make a bad Bill rather better.
May I diverge, however? We are setting a precedent. There is no point in pretending that we have not set a precedent by what has happened. If I may, I offer this comfort: sometimes precedents do not have to be followed. This allows a precedent. I suggest to whichever side of the House is in power for the next 20, 30, 40 or 50 years that we do not allow it to be followed again. At least we should communicate our view that this, whether precedent or not—and it was—is a one-off and goes no further.
The point of Amendment 7 is very simple: we want to make the Bill a little better than it is by removing the constraints that are otherwise imposed on the Prime Minister. That, I respectfully suggest to the House, is desirable. As I do not intend to speak or have my speaking taken as support for this—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that, with an unwritten constitution, it is impossible to guarantee that a precedent will be a one-off? It will be used by others when it is convenient for them to do so.
Lord Judge
Of course it will be used by others. Lawyers use bad precedents constantly, but it does not mean that it has to be followed.
I did not intend to speak, for the reason I have given. This amendment will improve the Bill. That is the point of it. Beyond that, I do not wish to say any more, because it may indicate somehow that I am backing off from my concern about the Bill. So in lawyerly fashion I simply say that you have all heard the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I agree with him. I have nothing to add.
Viscount Eccles
The noble and learned Lord tells us that it improves the Bill. Does it not change the Bill so materially that it is not the same Bill after all?
Lord Judge
No, it does not. We have to face the context, which is that the Commons has passed the Bill. So we are not having the first go at it; we are having a go at it after the Commons has resolved it.
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, have helpfully identified a problem with the Bill, in that a counterproposal by the EU could fall between the cracks and result in an accidental no deal, thus frustrating the will of Parliament, in so far as that will is ascertainable.
In the event of a counterproposal, which seems likely, the amendment suggests that the Prime Minister has the power to seek or agree an extension to a date not earlier than 22 May. At col. 337, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested that approval would still have to be sought for that new date.
I wholly understand the thinking behind the amendment, but the apparent need for it underlines the strange constitutional waters in which we are now swimming. My understanding of the Gina Miller case is that the Government argued that Article 50 could be triggered without parliamentary involvement, whereas the opposing argument, advanced by the noble Lord among others, was that Parliament had legislated in such a way that the royal prerogative was enough on its own and that Parliament need not be involved. By a majority this argument prevailed, although there were three dissenting speeches.
The prerogative, however, allows Ministers, and in this case the Prime Minister, to make or unmake treaties unless Parliament has legislated to restrict that power. It rarely does, hence the paucity of useful precedents in the Gina Miller case. It seems to me that the Prime Minister would be allowed to agree a counterproposal as a matter of law. Whether that would be politically sound is a different matter.
The response of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is that it is or might be uncertain, but it seems to me that this amendment in fact fetters the royal prerogative. We have a dualist system of law in this country, which has worked well, and I wonder if it is wise to undermine the royal prerogative in this way. To make a constitutional change of this sort needs prolonged and serious thought. A Private Member’s Bill that went through all its stages in the House of Commons in four hours, that was not given pre-legislative scrutiny and that, for good reasons, is hurrying through this House, is surely not the context in which to make significant constitutional changes.
Lord Goldsmith
Could the noble Lord enlighten me, at least, as to which amendment he is referring to?
Lord Faulks
The amendment says, “nothing … prevents”, which I suppose could be said to be saying that the royal prerogative exists—so to that extent it is unnecessary—but it restricts what the Prime Minister can do in its final words. That is my answer to my noble and learned friend.
The wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, at Second Reading about the constitution are particularly relevant in this context. One of the repeated observations from the EU is that it wants to know what the UK wants. In the context of this Bill, it will ask the reasons for the extension. What answer is the Prime Minister supposed to give, acting as an agent for this disunited Parliament?
This amendment is a worthwhile attempt to clarify the mandate, which apparently the Prime Minister has by virtue of this Bill, but I doubt it is necessary, for the reasons I have given, and I suggest that the House thinks long and hard before making such an important change.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Will the noble Lord answer the points of concern of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as to why Amendment 7 is needed?
Lord Faulks
I do not want to misrepresent what the noble Lord said, but he suggested that there might be some legal uncertainty and that, theoretically at least, I or some other barrister might be instructed to argue something in court, and this is to avoid legal uncertainty. I am all for avoiding legal uncertainty, but the existence of the royal prerogative can surely not be in doubt, and this is, I suggest, an attempt to fetter that royal prerogative.
I finish with this observation. Lord Reed, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, said in the Gina Miller case of the royal prerogative that the,
“the value of unanimity, strength and dispatch in the conduct of foreign affairs are as evident in the 21st century as they were in the 18th”.
This Bill and this amendment substantially undermine that strength.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, I am yet another lawyer. I apologise for that. I will not detain the House for long.
I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that this came to the House as a bad Bill—I would say a very bad Bill. It sought to send the Prime Minister into the conference chamber not naked but wearing a straitjacket, and that was clearly inappropriate given the very delicate negotiations that are going to have to take place this week. As it stood, it was not proper legislation but, in the words of Nye Bevan, “an emotional spasm”.
I fully support the amendments proposed by the noble and noble and learned Lords. They are obviously necessary, bizarrely, to prevent the Bill having the inadvertent effect of increasing the risk of an accidental no-deal exit, so I fully support them. However, I am concerned that, if these amendments pass, the Bill will appear to be, and be, a bit of a mess. The Prime Minister has already, as I recall, made one request for an extension, which is outstanding; I doubt whether it will be accepted. After the Motion is passed in the House of Commons, a further date will be introduced and she will have to write another letter, I think, to the EU specifying another date. That will presumably displace application number one for an extension.
The amendments, which I support, would make it open to her to make a further, third, application for an extension, specifying a further date. That will displace, as I see it, the second application made pursuant to the Motion in the House of Commons. What is left of the Bill, as I see it, is nothing more than this: an edict from Parliament that the extension that the Prime Minister is able to seek cannot end earlier than 22 May 2019. If it had been restricted to that, we would have saved a lot of time.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I should like to pick up on something the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said about agreement on dates. As I understand it, the Prime Minister is asking to go to the end of June. Presumably she has Cabinet approval to do that.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I agree, nobody knows. Let us hypothesise that she cannot go beyond that date. She goes to Brussels and says: “I would like to extend until the end of June”. Suppose that Brussels says: “No, we are frightfully sorry but we have agreed two dates with you already. One is in the context of no agreement and the other is in the context of the agreement being agreed by Parliament. We are not prepared to move from that”. I presume that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, will be answering on these amendments —I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, does not feel that responsible for this Bill, having taken it over from somebody else. What happens if the EU does not move from the two dates that it has already agreed, therefore still leaving us in the position where the Prime Minister will come back on Thursday and say, “I can get no agreement from the EU to change the dates it has already given us”? How in those circumstances will we not come out with no deal on Friday?
Baroness Deech
My Lords, as I mentioned before, there is nothing in this Bill specifically to stop no deal. It requires the Prime Minister to seek and seek again. The root of the trouble is that for more than a hundred years we have observed the separation of powers in our constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is one of the greatest experts on this—I think he is not in his place, but if he were he would probably say that that separation is sometimes not exact. However, this Bill is a very good illustration of why it is not a good idea to mix up the powers of the Executive and the legislature. I would like to hear from whoever is the surrogate parent of this odd little embryo quite how it will prevent no deal. An abortion?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will the noble Baroness send a copy of her excellent contribution just now to the Minister for Children, who appeared on Radio 4 on Saturday morning and told an astonished nation that it was now illegal for us to leave without a deal?
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in the hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, will respond to it. I entirely understand that in negotiations—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described the situation in which the Prime Minister and the EU are negotiating—there has to be give and take. What disturbs me is this: the Prime Minister might decide in advance to move outside the dates previously agreed by Parliament and go with an entirely fresh date into a negotiation. That is different in kind from negotiating when they sat down to discussion. It would be a deliberate attempt to go outside what Parliament has previously agreed to. It seems to me that Amendment 7 would enable her to do that, and I am profoundly uneasy about that prospect.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I will respond on my Amendment 5, which is the one that has been moved. A couple of points need to be emphasised.
As has been discussed already, we are in unusual circumstances, and they demand some unusual responses. This Bill does not take away or give back the entirety of the royal prerogative. It says—this is why I made an intervention earlier—that it is for the other place, on a Motion put forward by the Prime Minister, to say what date she should seek. It may be that the European Council will accept that date, in which case it is done so far as the negotiations are concerned. It may come back with a different date, and the questions we have been considering are for those circumstances. Does she have to seek approval during the next two to three days before she can respond to it, or is she able to respond by agreeing to it or by putting forward a slightly different proposal?
There are two different amendments—my amendment would remove the fetters requiring her to come back, and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would enable her to reach an agreement without having had that prior approval. It seems to me that a balance is being struck between royal prerogative and necessary control by Parliament. It is absolutely the case—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said—that of course the royal prerogative can be adjusted and amended by what Parliament says. On this occasion, the other place has said: “We believe that we should tell the Prime Minister what date she should seek. What happens after that will depend upon the circumstances but, whatever it is, it has to be done in this time”.
I invite the House to agree Amendment 5 and then we can move on to the other amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was kind enough to point out, I have not benefited from the disadvantages of a legal education, but I think I know flawed and badly drafted legislation when I see it. Nevertheless, it remains the reality that this has been approved by the House of Commons, and that is a principle that I believe should be respected. Noble Lords opposite can be assured that I will remind them of their newfound enthusiasm to respect the will of the House of Commons when we come to future legislation.
I will comment first on the amendments. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, the Government support Amendment 5, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. This seeks to remove Clause 1(6) and (7) from the Bill. As currently drafted, should the European Council propose a different date to extend Article 50 from that agreed in Parliament by virtue of approval of the Motion as set out in the Bill, the Bill would require the Prime Minister to return to the House of Commons on 11 April and put the EU’s counterproposal to that House for approval through a further Motion. As the Government set out last week, we have very real concerns about how that would work in practice.
The Government hope that Amendment 7 will also be successful, which would allow us to reach agreement with the EU on Wednesday, so long as that extension ends no later than 22 May. The Government have been clear, as I said earlier, that we are seeking an extension to 30 June.
In response to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, scheduling of any further debates after the European Council on 10 April is a matter for the other place. I am sure it is paying close attention to our debates.
Lord Goldsmith
I think the Minister said, in relation to the date, “not later than 22 May”. It should be “not earlier than 22 May”. Perhaps he can confirm that. It is obviously a very important difference.
Lord Callanan
Yes, I take the noble and learned Lord’s point. He is right on that.
As I said, I am sure that the other place is paying close attention to our debates and will address this when the Bill returns to the House of Commons for further debate this evening.
Lord Pannick
“(8) Nothing in this section prevents a Minister of the Crown from seeking, or agreeing to, an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union otherwise than in accordance with this section provided that the extension cannot end earlier than 22 May 2019.(9) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (8) whether an extension cannot end earlier than 22 May 2019, the earlier ending of the extension as a result of the entry into force of the withdrawal agreement (as provided for in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union) is to be ignored.”
Lord Wigley (PC)
I will say a brief word in line with the comments I made on a matter that I flagged up at Second Reading. The main issue overshadowing today’s debate is the danger of us reaching midnight this Friday with no agreement and of the UK leaving the EU on a no-deal basis, despite the House of Commons having voted overwhelmingly against such an eventuality.
I tried to table an amendment to address this along the lines of that tabled by Joanna Cherry MP in the other place—proposed new Clause 20—which was successfully tabled and appeared on the Commons Order Paper for 3 April. My new clause was ruled out by the clerks as being outside the scope of the Bill. If Joanna Cherry’s amendment was in order, I fail to understand how mine could be out of order—a view shared by Jo Maugham QC, who helped me draft it.
The amendment sought to ensure that, if the UK Government failed to pass their meaningful vote or to secure an extension, and we therefore faced a no-deal scenario, the Government would be required to table a Motion indicating that the House of Commons agreed to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement—that is, on a no-deal basis—and if that Motion failed to pass, as might be expected, the Government would be compelled to revoke Article 50 in line with the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Wightman case. The Labour Party at Westminster has failed to indicate that it would support an amendment to revoke Article 50 at this time; Sir Keir Starmer MP said on the Floor of the House that Labour would cross that bridge when it came to it. However, the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, has indicated that he would support the revocation of Article 50 in the event of no deal.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is unable to be here today because he is absent on parliamentary business. No doubt noble Lords have a copy of the 51st report of the Delegated Powers Committee. The argument set out by the committee is brief, concise and telling. I will not attempt to summarise it or indeed to read out the report, because paragraph 5 could hardly be summarised more briefly than it has been set out by the committee.
The committee acknowledges in paragraph 4:
“The principal justification for clause 2 of this Bill is that it might be necessary to legislate at speed next week”—
in other words, this week—
“to change exit day. The affirmative procedure might cause delays, with the risk that exit day in domestic law might not be aligned with exit day agreed under EU law”.
The committee goes on to say that on the other hand, there are powerful and telling arguments in favour of the affirmative procedure. It notes that were Clause 2 to be removed from the Bill, we would simply return to, as it were, the default setting.
Because this will be a matter of business management, the most helpful thing for your Lordships might be to have some indication from the Minister as to whether there is a balance of advantage of using the negative or the affirmative procedure. On that basis, it may be for your Lordships to decide whether Clause 2 remains in the Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, again, I am disadvantaged as being neither a member of the committee or a lawyer. I am surprised that the noble Lord has not drawn the attention of the House to the fact that, as I understand it, the committee report makes it clear that this House would no longer be able to be consulted on those matters. Is that not correct?
Lord Lisvane
It is indeed; the noble Lord is correctly quoting from the final bullet point of paragraph 5. I did not want to delay your Lordships further, but that is a helpful, additional piece of information set out in the report.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Perhaps the noble Lord would also say a word about the effect of a petition against. The fact that the instrument is passed is not the end of the day, or at least not necessarily so. Could he elaborate a bit on the consequences if someone objects after the event?
Lord Lisvane
I should be happy to do so. The Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has helpfully drawn attention to the possible uncertainty that might arise were the negative procedure to be kept in place and were there to be a successful Motion for annulment of the instrument that was made under that provision. I suggest that that is an additional argument for returning to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, this has been a difficult matter to determine, but the priority as I see it remains ensuring that this can be done in time. That is the concern. I do not want to be disagreeable at this point in the debate, but we all know that the Prime Minister knew last December that the deal that she had done would not pass, but we find ourselves at the very last stages having to deal with the possibilities of what happens if she cannot reach an agreement.
The affirmative procedure gives rise to the concern that the matter will have to return, perhaps on Friday: it depends what time the European Council meeting finishes. We have already destroyed the recess for many people, and that would destroy the weekend as well. Although we on these Benches are normally strongly in favour of affirmative resolutions, on this occasion we see the force of what is in the Bill.
Lord Robathan
What confuses me is that the noble and learned Lord appears to be answering on the Bill, which is a Private Member’s Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. He appears to be answering for the Opposition, so is this an opposition Bill or a Private Member’s Bill?
Lord Goldsmith
The noble Lord should know that on any amendment or Bill in this House, the Government and the official Opposition will have a view, and we seek to help noble Lords by providing that view. That is exactly what is happening here.
Lord Pannick
I am not responsible for the Bill, but I offer a further argument in favour of retaining Clause 2. The practical reality is that, on Wednesday night, the Prime Minister will be offered a deal by the European Council. She will either accept it or not. The overwhelming probability is that she will come to some agreement with the European Council.
If the matter comes back on an affirmative resolution before the House of Commons and this House on Thursday or Friday, there will be only two choices: either we accept the date that has been agreed or we leave on Friday at 11 pm. The House of Commons has overwhelmingly voted that it does not wish to leave with no deal, and the view of this House is perfectly clear that it does not want to leave with no deal. Therefore, it seems to me that, in the extraordinary circumstances in which we now find ourselves, Clause 2 is entirely acceptable.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, uncharacteristically, I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a slight slip when he said that the Prime Minister would come back with a deal. She will not be coming back with a deal; she will be coming back with a date. The committee report states:
“The date of the UK’s exit from the EU remains a matter of the greatest political and legal significance. It is right that the matter be debated in Parliament before the current date of 12 April is changed in our domestic law”.
When the Government changed the date from 29 March to 12 April, they did so by statutory instrument placed before both Houses, and we were able to discuss and debate that matter. What is proposed, as the 51st report of the committee makes clear, is to remove that right from both Houses to approve a change.
I must say that in introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, was very brief in his description. The outside world may not realise what is proposed here, which is entirely to cut the House of Lords out of approving the date, which the report rightly says is of the greatest political significance. Judging from the amount of grief I had at the weekend from people who are very disillusioned by the performance of Parliament on this matter, it is something that concerns many millions of our fellow citizens. I am therefore very surprised that this should be treated as just a matter of convenience.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is held in the highest regard and afforded the highest respect, made clear recommendations. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is important: if this is to be done through a negative resolution, we will be invited after the event to consider whether we agreed with it, thus creating uncertainty. Again, we had the same discussion on Thursday. This is not about what the House thinks on whether we should leave the European Union; it is about whether our procedures and processes should be respected. The idea that it might be inconvenient or difficult to meet the timetable, and that we should therefore ignore our processes, is not good.
Viscount Hailsham
Normally, my noble friend and I disagree on these matters but I am rather inclined to agree with him on this one.
Viscount Hailsham
In the penultimate bullet point, it is clear that if the negative procedure is adopted and a Motion against the date is successful, the exit date will be invalidated and we will have to start again.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention. I am most obliged to him as a lawyer for backing up my case—and doing so for free. We should treat the amendment very seriously. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. We have not heard a squeak from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who is apparently the midwife responsible for the Bill.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, our position is similar to that of the Opposition, as outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We on these Benches would of course normally want to uphold the affirmative procedure; after all, we fought hard for it in the EU withdrawal Act. However, we are in exceptional times and it would be absurd for us to get to the end of the week with procedure having got in the way of good legal order.
Lord Faulks
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness was inclined to agree with the removal of Clause 2. Indeed, she said so on the basis that the process could be done “expeditiously”, as was done when the date was changed from 29 March to 12 April. Has she changed her mind?
Baroness Ludford
I was reflecting the position and view of my colleagues in the other place. As I said, in principle, we prefer the affirmative procedure. However, I would also prefer to avoid the catastrophe of no deal. Therefore, it would be ridiculous for us to get to the end of week and be prevented from amending exit day by the inhibitions of procedure. I take the point that negative procedure can be prayed against but that risk is relatively minimal.
It is true that Clause 2 is headed, “Procedure for ensuring domestic legislation matches Article 50 extension”. If the Article 50 extension has been agreed to, it is in EU law. I remember the Government being slightly coy two weeks ago in acknowledging that EU law trumps domestic law. Our amending exit day to accord with the date of an extension is an essential tidying-up exercise in domestic law; otherwise, discordance between the two dates leads to uncertainty. It is essential that exit day accords with the Article 50 extension.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Baroness was rather dismissive a moment ago about the inhibitions of procedure. Is this whole Bill not designed to put such inhibitions in place? That is what we are discussing. That is what it is all about.
Baroness Ludford
I have talked about the specific context. If we get to the end of this week, it would be absurd for us to be prevented from preventing no deal because of the need for an affirmative resolution. That is a very specific scenario which justifies the negative procedure in this case.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, a few days ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, while hurrying us along, said that she was prepared to sit right through the night and that breakfast would be provided. Our Easter Recess has been removed for the time being. I and, I am sure, all noble Lords are quite prepared to sit on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or whatever it takes.
Baroness Deech
It does not matter if some of us are not prepared to do so; some of us are.
Although I am not good at procedure, I hesitate to reject the report of the committee which contains Members who are luminaries in procedure and law. I cite my noble friend Lord Lisvane, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others. They must have met over the weekend and they have turned out this report. We cannot just dismiss it. What is our discomfort or the lack of a day or two’s break compared with the terrific constitutional and future issues at stake?
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I should like to add one point to what the noble Baroness has just said. Clause 2 is not concerned with the end of this week. The way it is worded, it will apply whenever the issue arises, and that is a matter of considerable concern. We might be moving forward to May. There will be ample time with ample warning, and yet the thing goes through under the negative procedure and is subject to the risk to which our attention has been drawn—of someone objecting—and in due course the date that was in the negative instrument would be declared invalid. That is a big risk to take and we should not be distracted from the fact that the end of this week has certain tensions about it because we are changing the law for all time. That is a very serious step to take.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I hope that this is an unnecessary fear, but it ought to be clarified. My worry, which I am sorry to say has been intensified by what happened on Thursday, is that if an affirmative resolution is needed on Friday or Saturday, is there a risk that it could be filibustered and therefore not passed? We would then crash out because of that obstruction to the business of the House. As I say, that worries me very much, so for that reason I support the inclusion of Clause 2.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I know nothing of these matters but perhaps the noble Lord could explain how you can filibuster a statutory instrument?
Lord Butler of Brockwell
I imagine that you can filibuster it by continuously talking and thus prolonging the debate until past midnight on 12 April. That is what I fear.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
As the noble Lord will have discovered, we have a procedure which last Thursday was used on five occasions in order to bring the matter to a close.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, it is worth reminding the Committee that the first steps to dictatorship have, through the centuries, consistently been related to abandoning procedures and precedents which are put in place in order to ensure that legislation is properly considered. I am not saying that we are going as far as the Enabling Act, but this is a very dangerous path.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, this discussion has unearthed some serious issues. I hope therefore that there will be an opportunity to vote on this matter so that people’s votes can be recorded.
Lord Callanan
Let me reassure my noble friend Lord Forsyth that I am not responsible for this Bill either, although I have to say that I am quite enjoying watching the Opposition perform procedural somersaults and disavow everything that has been said previously on matters such as respecting the House of Commons, affirmative resolutions and everything else. Nevertheless, we return to the subject.
It is the position of the Government that Clause 2 should remain part of the Bill. I appreciate the concerns expressed on this issue and the sentiments behind them, and of course I recall vividly the lengthy debate we had on parliamentary scrutiny of the use of delegated powers more generally during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill. I seem to recall the Liberals arguing for precisely the opposite position at that stage, but consistency has never been their strong point. As noble Lords are aware, the Government do not support the Bill or the conditions it is attempting to impose on government. However, as I said earlier, given the support commanded in the other place, the Government have decided that they must intervene to improve and limit its most damaging effects.
The Bill creates a new parliamentary process that the Government must adhere to in order to agree an extension of Article 50 with the European Union, if the European Council proposes an end date to the extension different to that proposed by the House of Commons. Given that the European Council is on Wednesday 10 April and exit day is just two days later, there is a real risk that we will be timed out of agreeing an extension and therefore accidentally leave the EU without a deal. It would be extremely ironic, and it is clear the supporters of this Bill are opposed to that outcome.
Noble Lords will be well aware—indeed, I answered questions on this topic earlier today—that agreeing an extension is not a decision the UK can take alone. It must be agreed unanimously with all other 27 EU member states. Following this, we must also amend the date of exit in domestic law to ensure that the statute book accurately reflects what is set out in international law.
Under the draft affirmative procedure, both Houses are required to debate and approve the statutory instrument, which significantly increases the risk of this not being in force in time for 11 pm on 12 April. At that point all other EU exit SIs will come into force, regardless of the agreed extension date, causing considerable uncertainty and confusion for many. It is for that reason that the Government tabled this amendment—now Clause 2 of the Bill—in the other place, changing the procedure applying to the power in the 2018 Act from the draft affirmative to the negative procedure, and it is for this reason that the elected Chamber supported that approach. Nobody wants to take that risk.
Furthermore, not only has Parliament repeatedly argued in favour of an extension to Article 50 and against leaving the EU without a deal, both Houses have already debated and approved one SI to defer exit day. There is clearly widespread approval to use this power in such a way. As I am sure noble Lords are all aware, while the power has a significant effect—ensuring a functioning statute book—its scope is limited to changing exit day to the date already agreed in international law by the Prime Minister, and the SI cannot be made until that point. It is for this reason that the Government tabled the new clause and that the elected Chamber voted with a large majority to support this. I hope this House will support the same sentiment and allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Framlingham
In among what is obviously an increasing shambles, can the Minister confirm that we leave the European Union this Friday by an existing Act of Parliament, and that the Government have conceded that—although this is not their chosen course of action—it could be quite successfully managed?
Lord Callanan
I answered a question from the noble Lord earlier today on that, and I am not sure there is much benefit in going back over those subjects. We are extensively prepared for no deal because that is the legal default, but we are now supporting this legislation—however flawed—that has been sent to us by the House of Commons.
Baroness Noakes
“( ) This Act ceases to have effect on exit day.”
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. My amendment would ensure that this legislation ceases to have effect on exit day. It could be said that the amendment is there just for the avoidance of doubt because, clearly, there is nothing to be done with this Bill after exit day. However, I wanted to table the amendment because this is, by almost common consent, a pretty terrible Bill. One of the best things that has been said about it today is that it is a bit of a mess. During the brief passage through your Lordships’ House, it has been improved, which is what customarily happens when this House considers ill-thought-out Bills from the other place.
As I said at Second Reading, I have accepted that the will of the other place will prevail in the case of this Bill. Therefore, the powers that it creates to restrict the royal prerogative in this important area of international relations will come into force to the extent now drafted. I regret that, but I hope that we will return to the normal practice of leaving the royal prerogative for international relations and negotiations with the Government on an unfettered basis. I have tabled this amendment to make the point more forcefully that this should not be a permanent part of our statute book; we should write it out as soon as the purpose of those who have sought to make it the law of the land for this week comes to an end. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes on this amendment. As she explained so clearly on Thursday and in her speech today, the curtailment of prerogative powers envisaged in this Bill is significant. I agree with her that the powers available to the Government to negotiate international treaties are important and should not be curtailed.
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who is acknowledged across your Lordships’ House as the most knowledgeable constitutional expert, explained that the changes sought by the Bill, and the practices by which it was passed in another place, are not small but highly significant. I consider it unfortunate that your Lordships’ House is likely to pass this Bill, but at least it would be better if its destructive elements could be made temporary. Surely even noble Lords who support the Bill would agree that, against the background of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on the matter, the restrictions on prerogative powers should be temporary. It would be unfortunate for the House to agree to a precedent created by such a rushed and controversial piece of legislation.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this amendment is not needed to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are temporary. They are temporary in any event because the Bill is concerned with only the period for negotiations for withdrawing. Once we withdraw, the Bill has no effect whatever.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, if that is the case, there is no reason at all why we should not accept this amendment. The Prime Minister sent her letter asking for an extension on Friday, so I have spent most of the weekend trying to work out what the point of this Bill was in the first place. Given that we have amended it in respect of the prerogative powers, it is just a very bad piece of legislation. My noble friend Lady Noakes is offering the House the opportunity to get rid of a very embarrassing relative. The Bill and its genesis are not something of which this House or the other place can be particularly proud. It is a very bad Bill, conceived for all the wrong reasons. It has ridden roughshod over our procedures. Having a sunset clause, which is what this amendment offers, would be a very good thing indeed. I very much support my noble friend.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have been thinking hard over the past few weeks about the meaning of parliamentary sovereignty, which was one of the things that the leave campaign strongly campaigned to restore. Last week, I was struck to hear Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg in the other place defend the relationship between the Government and Parliament at the time of Henry VIII as the most appropriate relationship between monarch and Parliament. Oliver Letwin replied that we had fought a civil war a century later to establish a proper relationship between the Executive and the legislature.
Much of what we are doing in this Bill is not entirely ideal. We need not have had this Bill if the Government had been more united, if negotiations had been expedited and if Parliament had been more actively engaged at an earlier stage. We are now up against a tight deadline and we have to take some emergency measures. That is where we are and we need to recognise that.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I wonder if the noble Lord might add this to the conditions in which this Bill would have been unnecessary: if Parliament had been prepared to respect the result of the referendum.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I understand the misgivings that many in this House have about this Bill, but I have to say to the noble Baroness that her amendment would not stop the Bill becoming an Act. It is going to become an Act, and that is the mischief, so she cannot stop through her amendment the mischief that she wishes to stop. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the Bill ceases to have an effect, so she need not worry about that either.
There is another reason why we should not pass this amendment: with the amendments we have passed so far, supported by the Government, they will be supported in the House of Commons, and so we will not have ping-pong. If we were to pass the noble Baroness’s amendment and the Government resisted it in the House of Commons, the Bill would have to come back here and there would be further delay. Therefore, I urge her not to press her amendment, because it is unnecessary and it will cause unnecessary prolongation of the procedures.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Before the noble Lord sits down, why does he think the Government would resist this?
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right, though I understand where the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is coming from. The point has been made about the Bill itself, but this does not take the Bill away—it will have served its purpose, or not, and therefore we could not support this amendment. I imagine the Government would not either, but I wait to hear.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Momentarily, of course, because that silence has been purely motivated by my loyalty to the Government Chief Whip and his assurance last Thursday about the speed with which this legislation would be put through. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I am not a lawyer, I am simply—like him—a politician. I heard one of the Bishops this morning on “Thought for the Day” quoting somebody as saying that politics is the art of the possible, and indeed it is. It is the possibility that we leave on Friday of this week—my birthday, as it happens—crashing out without any withdrawal agreement, which should frighten us all. Anybody who is in any doubt about that might read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stern, at Second Reading last week—a chilling and brief speech about the consensus view of economists.
A lot of lawyers have spoken in this debate and, indeed, last week as well. The House has a range of opinions from which it can choose, as is usually the case when you commission lawyers. In my case, I choose the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I simply point to the fact that I have said not a word during these proceedings on the Bill, but people will notice that the size of the majority in the last Division probably achieved record proportions. Maybe some other people should take a lesson from silence.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, it does not surprise me that I have been supported by some of my noble friends and opposed by people on other Benches. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that the Bill does not stop us leaving this Friday. If the EU decides not to agree an extension, we will leave on Friday. I am not frightened about that. I believe that the Government have made many significant preparations towards it, as have many on the continent. A lot of scaremongering has been going on. But that is not the point of my amendment, which was to draw attention to the fact that this unfortunate piece of legislation has been brought before this House and the way in which it has been processed in both Houses. I will not delay the Bill further by seeking to call another Division, much though I am sorely tempted to do so. I beg leave to withdraw.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Monday 8th April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 April 2019 - (8 Apr 2019)
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.37 pm, for Third Reading.
Baroness Goldie
No amendments have been received. Sorry, I should have made that clear.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Monday 8th April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 April 2019 - (8 Apr 2019)
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I believe—because I have no experience—that it is conventional at the end of long legislation to thank all those who were involved in the process. This may be slightly more difficult for me this evening than it would be in normal circumstances but, as many noble Lords have said, this is an historic moment. We are on the verge of some very significant discussions and negotiations that may well determine the future of this country—and, indeed, that of generations to come. Therefore, this piece of legislation, whether perfect or imperfect, will play a part in that history.
Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper were the godparents of the Bill; I came to it late in the day as a sort of adoptive parent. Its progress has been remarkable, from Wednesday last week to this evening, after which it will go to the other place. I thank those involved in the debate, significant as it is. Many people behind the scenes play a part in any legislation, never mind one fast-tracked in this unprecedented way. It is right at this point, having said so little in the debate myself, to pay tribute to those who have contributed constructively —and sometimes less than constructively—along with those who have made sure that the Bill has been carried forward expeditiously.
I hope that I speak for noble Lords across the House when I say that we hope that by the end of this week —especially by 11 pm on my birthday, on Friday—we will be in a much more secure position and the country will be in safer hands than perhaps we think it is tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, this is really all about kicking the can down the road. I would guess that it must be quite a dented can by now. We have to ask where the road is leading: leave or stay, there is no middle way. All the other issues are just distractions. We have seen various complicated deals such as backstops, second referendums, customs unions—and now we have the thoughts of Jeremy Corbyn. They all muddy the water and they all hide the basic issue: are we going to leave to stay? Are we going to honour our promise to the British people or not?
The issue of timing, which is what we have been discussing, has become a farce. We were guaranteed that we would leave on 29 March, which then became 12 April. It may be 22 May, 30 June—or perhaps it will be Flexit. No one has any faith left. Perhaps the sooner we get to the stage where people have to vote for no deal or to revoke Article 50, the better. People have to decide to pin their colours to the mast by voting and taking the consequences.
This Bill is telling our Prime Minister what to do, which is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, and therefore constitutional chaos. The Prime Minister will go to the EU and ask on bended knee for a change of date, or perhaps of terms. The EU members will leave her sitting alone in a separate room while they discuss her fate and our nation’s future. Nothing could better demonstrate how powerful and unyielding the EU has become, how much we are under its thumb, and why we should leave on Friday with a clean break.
Fortunately, change is already happening. On 29 March the passports changed, which is really good news. We need a clean break and a managed departure, not the catastrophic situation that the fearmongering remainers constantly pretend is the way to go. True, there might be some initial difficulties but massive advantages too.
Lord Framlingham
Noble Lords may snigger, as they have done for the past two and a half years, but they have to listen sometimes. It would remove the uncertainty and businesses could get on with their jobs. We can make trade deals with nations like the United States and save £39 billion. It is the constant fruitless, pointless debates and discussions that are so wearying and so debilitating. Once free from our EU entanglement, we will be able to move forward again in our own way. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said that politics is sometimes thought to be the art of the possible. I think that sometimes politics is the art of having the courage to do the obvious.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, may I be the first to wish the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, a very happy birthday on Friday? I think he and I both agree that we do not want to meet here on Friday if we can avoid it.
Notwithstanding the second proponent of this Bill in two sitting days, this remains a terrible Bill. That needs to be put on the record. Will we get Sir Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper perhaps to answer questions on it? I fear not, because they have no responsibility. This Bill was described by my noble friend Lord Lawson as “constitutional vandalism”, and it is something we should all be concerned about. We know that the Government are in complete disarray, we know that Parliament is in chaos, and I have to say that this is an unwise move by this House to support it.
Noble Lords will be happy to know that I do not intend to talk for the next hour and a half.
Lord Robathan
I can if noble Lords would like. I thought the House would probably think that I spoke quite enough on Thursday, so I decided not to speak at Second Reading. I was rather put out, in this House based on courtesy—my noble friend Lord Cormack is always telling us how courteous we should be—to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who I see in his place, saying that I was behaving shamefully by not being in the House to listen to his speech. I have to tell him that they may have been pearls of wisdom, but not everybody wants to listen to his pearls of wisdom, which we have heard before. Anyway, he may consider that, if I were listening to them, they would be pearls cast before swine. I see a former Archbishop, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, sitting there. He will remember that that is from Matthew, chapter 7, verse 6.
It is important that we observe courtesies and conventions. This is not doing so, and it is extremely unwise of this Parliament to pass this Bill.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until Royal Assent can be signified in both Houses. The timing of the Bill in the House of Commons is still to be confirmed, so further timings for this House will be confirmed via the annunciator. However, we expect this to be after 10 pm.
Royal Assent
Monday 8th April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text