European Union (Future Relationship) Bill
Wednesday 30th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 December 2020 - (30 Dec 2020)
14:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 521 / Noes: 73 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
Given the length of the Second Reading call list, Members will understand that there will be no time left before 2.30 pm to debate the Bill in Committee. Nevertheless, I should inform Members that under the order of the House of today, notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted until 10.30 am. To maintain social distancing, Members are asked not to bring amendments to the Table in the Chamber but to send them by email to the Public Bill Office. The Public Bill Office will aim to circulate early this afternoon a notice paper of the amendments received by 10.30 am.
I inform the House that I have not selected any of the reasoned amendments.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
May I begin by thanking you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities and all your staff for their hard work in allowing us to meet today? I also welcome the outstanding news that AstraZeneca is now rolling out a new UK-made vaccine, approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, that offers hope to millions in this country and around the world.
Having taken back control of our money, our borders, our laws and our waters by leaving the European Union on 31 January, we now seize this moment to forge a fantastic new relationship with our European neighbours based on free trade and friendly co-operation.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister
In a minute. At the heart of this Bill is one of the biggest free trade agreements in the world: a comprehensive—
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification. I am just wondering how on earth the Prime Minister can talk about taking back control of waters when Scottish fishermen are going to have less access and less fish to catch as a consequence of his con deal.
Mr Speaker
May I just say, first of all, that that is not a point of order? We are very limited on time. Can we please try to keep to a tight agenda to allow everybody the time to contribute?
The Prime Minister
Although that was not a valid point of order, I must none the less correct the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, under this deal we have taken back control of our borders. Indeed, Scottish fishermen from the get-go will have access to bigger quotas of all the relevant stocks. From the end of the transition period, as he knows full well—
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that this is an important day and it is important that we all get on the record. It is also important that I get to the leader of the SNP. What I would not like to do is run out of time because of the number of times he stands for interventions. If the Prime Minister gives way, he will give way straight away, but please let us try to get the debate under way. At least give yourself time to hear what the Prime Minister has to say before you disagree.
The Prime Minister
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I feel I must correct him. Not only will we take back control of our waters, we will increase Scottish fishermen’s share of all the relevant stocks: cod, for instance, going up by 47% to 57%; North sea haddock going up by 70% to 84%. That is just next year, Mr Speaker. In five and a half years’ time, we take control of the entire spectacular marine wealth of Scotland. It is only the Scottish nationalist party that would, with spectacular hypocrisy, hand back control of the waters of this country to the UK.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you point out to the Prime Minister that the name of my party is the Scottish National party?
Mr Speaker
In fairness, I have pointed that out in the past. It is the Scottish National party.
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I wish the right hon. Gentleman to know that I am using the word “nationalist” with a small “n”. I do not think he would disagree with that, which is semantically justifiable under the circumstances. Yet in spite of that nomenclature, they would hand back control of Scotland’s waters and go back into the common fisheries policy. What the Bill does is take back control—
The Prime Minister
Absolutely not.
What the Bill does is take back control of the spectacular marine wealth of Scotland and the rest of the UK.
The Prime Minister
In a moment.
At the heart of the Bill is, as we have discussed in this Chamber many times, Mr Speaker, one of the biggest free trade agreements in the world: a comprehensive Canada-style deal worth over £660 billion, which, if anything, should allow companies to do even more business with our European friends, safeguarding millions of jobs and livelihoods in our UK and across the continent. In less than 48 hours we will leave the EU single market and the customs union as we promised. British exporters will not face a sudden thicket of trade barriers, but rather, for the first time in the history of EU agreements, zero tariffs and zero quotas. Just as we have avoided trade barriers—
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I think that plenty of Members want to speak. I have already taken plenty of interventions and points of order. I am going to make some progress.
Just as we have avoided trade barriers, so we have also ensured the UK’s full control of our laws and our regulations. There is a vital symmetry between those two achievements. The central purpose of the Bill is to accomplish something that the British people always knew in their hearts could be done, yet which we were continually told was impossible. We were told that we could not have our cake and eat it—do you remember how often we were told that, Mr Speaker?—namely, that we could trade and co-operate as we will with our European neighbours on the closest terms of friendship and good will, while retaining sovereign control of our laws and our national destiny. That unifying thread runs through every clause of the Bill, which embodies our vision, shared with our European neighbours, of a new relationship between Britain and the EU as sovereign equals, joined by friendship, commerce, history, interests and values, while respecting one another’s freedom of action and recognising that we have nothing to fear if we sometimes choose to do things differently.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The devil is in the detail in anything that is before us today. Can the Prime Minister confirm—I hope that this is the case—that we see the end of discrimination and that the Hague preference is away, in the bin? The Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation is expressing dismay from the Republic of Ireland. Will UK quotas be shared with Northern Ireland? Will there be tariffs for our ports of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel landing the fish that they catch in Northern Ireland, and will the £100 million for fishing organisations be shared equally across the whole United Kingdom? Those are real, practical issues for us in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the entire UK will share in the programme of investment in our fishing industry. To get ourselves ready across the whole UK for the colossal uplift in fish that we will obtain, and even before the end of the transition period, the hon. Gentleman should know that we will fish about 130,000 tonnes more fish in the UK a year than we do at present. Currently, that is an opportunity that we must work to seize. [Interruption.] No.
We have much to gain from the healthy stimulus of competition, and the Bill therefore demonstrates how Britain can be at once European and sovereign. You will agree, Mr Speaker, that our negotiators published their feat at astonishing speed. It took nearly eight years for the Uruguay round of world trade talks to produce a deal; five years for the EU to reach a trade agreement with Canada; and six for Japan. We have done this in less than a year, in the teeth of a pandemic, and we have pressed ahead with this task, resisting all the calls for delay, precisely because creating certainty about our future provides the best chance of beating covid and bouncing back even more strongly next year. That was our objective.
I hope that the House joins me in commending my noble Friend Lord Frost and every member of his team for their skill, mastery and perseverance in translating our vision into a practical agreement. Let me also pay tribute to President Ursula von der Leyen, Michel Barnier and all our European friends for their pragmatism and foresight, and their understanding that it is profoundly in the interests of the EU to live alongside a prosperous, contented and sovereign United Kingdom. The House understands the significance of the fact that this agreement is not EU law, but international law, so there is no direct effect—EU law will no longer have any special status in the UK.
The Prime Minister
I have already given way quite a few times to the right hon. Gentleman.
There is no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I feel that I have to point out to the House the historic principle in Scotland, as established by law, is that it is the people of Scotland who are sovereign, and it is the people of Scotland who will determine to take them back into the European Union with independence.
Mr Speaker
As the leader of the SNP knows, that is not a point of order. I am desperate to hear what he has to say in his contribution. Rather than use it up now, why does he not save it so that others can get in? Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Of course, it was the people of Scotland who took the sovereign decision, quite rightly, to remain in the UK—a once-in-a-generation decision. I think it highly unlikely that the people of Scotland will take a decision to cast away their new-found freedoms and new-found opportunities, not least over the marine wealth of Scotland.
We will be able to design our own standards and regulations, and the laws that the House of Commons passes will be interpreted—I know that this is a keen interest of hon. and right hon. Members—solely by British judges sitting in British courts. We will have the opportunity to devise new ways to spur and encourage flourishing sectors in which this country leads the world, from green energy and life sciences to synthetic biology.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Some of us had different views on Brexit, but those debates are now for the history books. Everyone in the House and the country should recognise the benefits of an agreement that goes beyond free trade, from science to energy to security. However, will the Prime Minister capitalise on the excellent news that we have had today on the vaccine by pursuing an industrial strategy that puts science and technology at its heart, so that we can grasp the opportunities that come as the world bounces back from covid during the year ahead?
Mr Speaker
Can I just help people and say that those who are high up on the speaking list will understandably get put down if they make continuous interventions? I want to get as many people in as possible, so please—
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Including the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I remember well working with him on his industrial strategy and his ideas for championing green technology and biosciences, and I can tell him that those ideas remain at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We will certainly be using our new-found legislative freedom to drive progress in those sciences and those investments across the whole UK. We will be free of EU state aid rules; we will be able to decide where and how we level up across our country, with new jobs and new hope, including free ports and new green industrial zones of a kind I am sure my right hon. Friend would approve of.
I must make an important point. If, in using our new freedoms, either Britain or the EU believes it is somehow being unfairly undercut, then, subject to independent third-party arbitration, and provided the measures are proportionate, either of us can decide, as sovereign equals, to protect our consumers, but this treaty explicitly envisages that any such action should be infrequent.
The Prime Minister
However, the treaty banishes the old concepts of uniformity and harmonisation, in favour of the right to make our own regulatory choices and deal with the consequences. Every modern free trade agreement includes reciprocal commitments designed to prevent distortions of trade. The true significance of the agreement embodied in the Bill is that there is no role for the European Court of Justice, no ratchet clause on labour or environmental standards, and no dynamic alignment with the EU state aid regime or, indeed, any other aspect of EU law. In every respect, we have recovered our freedom of action.
The Prime Minister
I give way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman, who has been up and down many times.
Mr Dhesi
Many hon. Members will face a dire dilemma because they will feel that our country has been sold short. On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister’s thin, terrible, burnt oven-ready deal. On the other hand, we face the prospect of an even more damaging and destructive no-deal Brexit. Can the Prime Minister advise us why, given that services account for almost 80% of our economy, there is so little for that sector in this deal? In particular, why could he not negotiate equivalence and passporting rights for the all-important financial services sector?
The Prime Minister
It was not quite clear from that intervention which way the Labour party is going to go on this—whether the hon. Gentleman is going to go with the leader of the Labour party and vote for the deal, or whether he is going to join other members of the Labour party and continue to dither and delay. We on the Government Benches are going to get on; we will be free of the strictures of the common agricultural policy, and we will be able to conserve our landscapes and support our farmers exactly as we choose.
On Friday—I am coming to a point that has been raised several times, but I will repeat it because it is a wonderful point—for the first time in 50 years, the UK will once again be recognised as an independent coastal state, regaining control of our waters and righting the wrong that was done by the common fisheries policy throughout our EU membership. Of course I have always recognised—
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I have answered the point from Opposition Members quite a lot. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall).
Anthony Mangnall
The Prime Minister will know that Brixham, the most valuable fishing port in England, wants to see our waters regained, with access and control, and a rebuilding of the fishing industry in the UK. This deal delivers that. Can he assure my fishermen and fishermen around the country that that is what this Government are delivering on?
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely right, and the voice of Brixham should be heard up and down the country because that point is entirely correct and might be registered with advantage by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).
I have always recognised that this was going to be a difficult period for our European friends and partners, because they have been fishing in these waters for decades, if not centuries. At first, as the House will know, they sought an adjustment period of 14 years, but our negotiators whittled that down to five and a half years, during which the UK’s share—[Interruption.] In that five and a half years, the UK’s share of our fish in our waters will rise from over half today, to around two-thirds. Of course we would like to have done that more quickly, but it is also true that once the adjustment period comes to an end there will be no limit, other than limits that are placed by the needs of science and conservation, on our ability to make use of our marine wealth.
Fifteen per cent. of the EU’s historic catch from our waters will be returned to this country next year alone. To prepare our fishing communities for that moment, we will invest £100 million in a programme to modernise their fleets and the fish processing industry—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) should listen to this, because we will be restoring a great British industry to the eminence that it deserves, levelling up communities across the UK, particularly and including Scotland where, in my view, those interests have been neglected for too long.
I find it extraordinary that on the eve of this great opportunity, the declared position of the Scottish National national/nationalist party—with a small “n”—is to hand control of the very waters we have just reclaimed straight back to the EU. That is its policy. It plans to ensnare Scotland’s fishing fleet in the dragnets of the common fisheries policy all over again. In the meantime, guess what SNP Members will do today, Mr Speaker. They are going to vote today for a no-deal Brexit! [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow East will tell me that he is going to vote for the deal.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am immensely grateful to the Prime Minister for briefly pausing that monologue that was designed for the European Research Group. On fish, he is waxing lyrical about how amazing this deal is, but I would like to read him a quote from Andrew Locker, chair of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, who says:
“I am angry, disappointed and betrayed. Boris Johnson promised us the rights to all the fish that swim in our exclusive economic zone and we have got a fraction of that.”
Is he wrong?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that yes, he is. We will take back control not only by becoming an independent coastal state from 1 January, but in five and a half years’ time, we will be able to fish every single fish in our waters, if we so choose. That is the reality. In the meantime, as I say, and the hon. Gentleman did not deny it—I don’t think I heard him deny it—the Scottish National party is going to vote against the deal. It is effectively going to vote for no deal, which it campaigned against and denounced, proving once and for all, that the interests of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are best served by a one-nation party serving one United Kingdom.
This deal was negotiated—the hon. Gentleman should know this—by a big team from every part of our United Kingdom, and it serves the whole of the UK, not least by protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom single internal market, and Northern Ireland’s place within it. Our points-based immigration system will end free movement and give us full control over who enters the country. By the way, on that point I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for all he did to protect the interests of Northern Ireland.
At the same time, the deal provides certainty for airlines and hauliers who have suffered grievously during this pandemic. It guarantees the freedom of British citizens to travel to and from the EU and retain access to healthcare. It provides certainty for our police, our border forces, and our security agencies to work alongside our European friends to keep our people safe, and the SNP are going to vote against that, Mr Speaker. The deal provides certainty for our partnerships on scientific research, because we want our country to be a science superpower, but also a collaborative science superpower. It provides certainty for business, from financial services to our world-leading manufacturers, including our car industry, safeguarding highly skilled jobs and investment across our country. As for the Leader of the Opposition, I am delighted that he has found yet another position on Brexit, and, having plunged down every blind alley and exhausted every possible alternative, he has come to the right conclusion—namely, to vote for this agreement, which this Government have secured.
The Prime Minister
I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that he, too, is going to join his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and vote for this agreement. Is that the case?
Peter Kyle
I am very happy to confirm for the Prime Minister that I will be voting for this agreement. He mentioned several times his levelling-up agenda, but financial services and those working in the sector have been left entirely out of it, so does he not agree that every city and every town that is dependent on financial services, from Leeds to Manchester to Edinburgh, and many in between, have been levelled down and left out of this deal?
The Prime Minister
It is great to hear a member of the Labour party not only backing the bankers and backing financial services—a fantastic development—but also backing this deal. The hon. Gentleman is quite right because, actually, this deal does a great deal for services, for financial services, for the legal profession and many other professions. But, alas, the good news about the Labour party stops there, because I am told that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to ask the British people for a mandate to rewrite the deal in 2024—that is what he wants to do. I think, frankly, we got Brexit done; let’s keep Brexit done. And let’s press ahead with this Government’s mission to unite and level up across our whole country and grasp the opportunities before us, because I have always said—
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I am going to make some progress because many Members want to speak. I have always said that Brexit is not an end but a beginning, and the responsibility now rests with all of us to make the best use of the powers that we have regained and the tools that we have taken back into our hands. We are going to begin by fulfilling our manifesto promise to maintain the highest standards of labour and environmental regulation, because no caricature can be more inaccurate than the idea of some bargain-basement Dickensian Britain, as if enlightened EU regulation has been our only salvation from Dickensian squalor. Our national standards have always been among the very best in the world, and this House can be trusted to use its new freedom to keep them that way without any outside invigilation.
We are going to open a new chapter in our national story, striking free trade deals around the world, adding to the agreements with 63 countries we have already achieved and reasserting global Britain as a liberal, outward-looking force for good. Detaching ourselves from the EU is only a prelude to the greater task of establishing our new role, and this country is contributing more than any other to vaccinate people across the world against covid, leading the way in preventing future pandemics. We will continue to campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for what he is doing on that. We will continue to lead the drive towards global net zero as we host COP26 in Glasgow next year.
I hope and believe—and I think, actually, the tone this morning has given me encouragement in this belief; the mood in the House this morning seems on the whole to be positive—[Interruption.] In spite of the as-usual synthetic and confected indignation that we hear from some on the Benches opposite, I hope and believe that this agreement will also serve to end some of the rancour and recrimination that we have had in recent years and allow us to come together as a country to leave old arguments—old, desiccated, tired, super-masticated arguments—behind, move on and build a new and great future for our country, because those of us who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU never sought a rupture with our closest neighbours. We never wanted to sever ourselves from our fellow democracies, beneath whose soil lie British war graves in tranquil cemeteries, often tended by local schoolchildren, testament to our shared struggle for freedom and everything we cherish in common. What we wanted was not a rupture but a resolution—a resolution of the old, tired, vexed question of Britain’s political relations with Europe, which has bedevilled our post-war history. First we stood aloof, then we became a half-hearted, sometimes obstructive member of the EU. Now, with this Bill, we are going to become a friendly neighbour—the best friend and ally the EU could have, working hand in glove whenever our values and interests coincide, while fulfilling the sovereign wish of the British people to live under their own laws, made by their own elected Parliament. That is the historic resolution delivered by this Bill. I commend it to the House.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, the House will want to be aware that I have accepted a request from the Government for an additional statement from the Secretary of State for Education on education return in January. This will be the second statement after the covid-19 update and before the business statement. The ballot is already open in Members’ Hub.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
It is often said that there is nothing simple about Brexit, but the choice before the House today is perfectly simple: do we implement the treaty that has been agreed with the EU or do we not? That is the choice. If we choose not to, the outcome is clear: we leave the transition period without a deal—without a deal on security, trade or fisheries, without protection for our manufacturing sector, farming or countless British businesses, and without a foothold to build a future relationship with the EU. Anyone choosing that option today knows there is no time to renegotiate, no better deal coming in the next 24 hours, no extensions, no Humble Addresses and no SO 24s—Standing Order No. 24 debates—so choosing that option leads to one place: no deal.
Or we can take the only other option that is available and implement the treaty that has been negotiated. This is a thin deal. It has many flaws—I will come to that in a moment.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will in just a minute.
But a thin deal is better than no deal, and not implementing this deal would mean immediate tariffs and quotas with the EU, which will push up prices and drive businesses to the wall. It will mean huge gaps in security, a free-for-all on workers’ rights and environmental protections, and less stability for the Northern Ireland protocol. Leaving without a deal would also show that the UK is not capable of agreeing the legal basis for our future relationship with our EU friends and partners. That matters, because I want Britain to be an outward-looking, optimistic and rules-based country—one that does deals, signs treaties and abides by them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will in just one moment.
It matters that Britain has negotiated a treaty with the EU Commission and the 27 member states; and it matters, ultimately, that the UK has not gone down the blind alley of no deal. It means that our future relationship starts on the basis of agreement, not acrimony.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for setting out the position of the Labour party, but he used to have six tests for any Brexit deal that he would be willing to support. How many of those tests does he believe the agreement actually meets?
Keir Starmer
There is only one choice today, which is to vote for implementing this deal or to vote for no deal, and those who vote no are voting for no deal. I will give way again to the hon. Gentleman. If he is voting no, does he want no to succeed at 2.30 this afternoon when the House divides?
Jonathan Edwards
I am afraid the leader of the Labour party has accepted the spin of the Government that this is a binary choice between deal and no deal. It says a lot about the way his position has changed over recent weeks.
Keir Starmer
This is the nub of it. Those voting no today want yes. They want others to save them from their own vote. Voting no, wanting yes. That is the truth of the situation, and that is why my party has taken a different path.
Sir Edward Leigh
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on doing the patriotic and right thing today, but there is quite a lot of interest in the country in what deal he would have negotiated if he had been responsible for the negotiations.
Keir Starmer
A better one than this, for the reasons that I am about to lay out. [Interruption.] I will go into some of the detail—not too much—but if anyone believes what the Prime Minister has just said about financial services, they have not read the deal. With no further time for negotiation, when the default is no deal, it is not a mark of how pro-European you are to reject implementing this treaty. It is not in the national interest to duck a question or to hide in the knowledge that others will save you from the consequences of your own vote. This is a simple vote, with a simple choice—do we leave the transition period with a treaty that has been negotiated with the EU, or do we leave with no deal? So Labour will vote to implement this treaty today to avoid no deal and to put in place a floor from which we can build a strong future relationship with the EU.
David Linden
I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for outlining how clear this is for him. His party has two parliamentarians in Edinburgh South—one in the Scottish Parliament and one in Westminster. At 4 o’clock this afternoon, the Member of the Scottish Parliament will vote against the deal and the Member of the Westminster Parliament here will vote for the deal. How does he square that circle?
Keir Starmer
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is a different vote. [Interruption.] It is a completely different vote, on a different issue.
Keir Starmer
I give way to the hon. Gentleman with my question. When he votes no, against this treaty, this afternoon, does he want the Bill to fail and thus we leave tomorrow night without a deal? Is that the intention? Does he want the result to go the way he is voting?
David Linden
I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there will be members of his own party in the Lobby with me this afternoon. If he can point out to me in the Order Paper where I am voting for no deal, I will be very happy. Will he tell me what page that is on?
Keir Starmer
That absolutely identifies the point. He is going to vote in the hope that others will vote the other way and save him from the consequences of his own vote. That is the truth of the situation of the SNP. He is hoping that others will do the right thing and vote in favour of implementing the treaty. We fought against no deal together for months and years, and now those voting no are going to vote for no deal. Nothing is going to happen in the next 24 hours to save this country from no deal. So he wants to vote for something, but he does not want that vote to succeed; he wants others to have the burden of voting for it to save us from no deal.
Keir Starmer
I will give way in a minute. I am going to make some progress.
It is, of course, completely unacceptable that this debate is happening now—one day before the end of the transition period. The Prime Minister said he had a deal that was oven-ready.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
That was about a year ago. Then it was supposed to be ready in July, then September, then November and finally it arrived on Christmas eve. That matters, because businesses have had no chance to prepare for the new regulations. Talk to businesses about their concerns. They have real difficulties now. Many of them have already taken decisions about jobs and investment because of the uncertainty, and of course that is made worse by the pandemic.
Let me now go to the deal itself and analyse some of the flaws in it. Let us start with the Prime Minister and what he said on Christmas eve in his press conference. He said:
“there will be no non-tariff barriers to trade.”
His words. He was not being straight with the British public. That is plain wrong. It is worse than that. It was not an aside, or an interview or an off-the-record remark. It was a scripted speech. He said that there would be no non-tariff barriers to trade. The Prime Minister knows that it is not true. Every Member of this House knows it is not true. I will give way to the Prime Minister to correct the record. Either stand up and say that what he said was true, or take this opportunity to correct the record. I give way.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a zero tariff, zero quota deal. He says that he would have negotiated a different and better deal. Perhaps he can tell us whether he would have remained within the customs union and within the single market. Perhaps he will also say a little bit about how he proposes to renegotiate the deal, build on it and take the UK back into the EU, because that remains his agenda.
Keir Starmer
Typical deflection. The Prime Minister, at a press conference, told the British public that there will be
“no non-tariff barriers to trade”.
The answer he gave just now is not an answer to that point. It is not true, and the Prime Minister knows what he said was not true. He simply will not stand up and acknowledge it today. That speaks volumes about the sort of Prime Minister we have.
Keir Starmer
I will in just a minute. The truth is this: there will be an avalanche of checks, bureaucracy and red tape for British businesses. Every business I have spoken to knows this; every business any Member has spoken to knows this. That is what they are talking about. It is there in black and white in the treaty.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Will the Leader of the Opposition give way?
Keir Starmer
I will in one minute. There will be checks for farmers, for our manufacturers, for customs, on rules of origin, VAT, safety and security, plant and animal health, and much more. Many British exporters will have to go through two regulatory processes to sell to existing clients in the EU. To keep tariff-free trade, businesses will have to prove that enough of their parts come from the EU or the UK. So there will be significant and permanent burdens on British businesses. It is somewhat ironic that for years the Conservative party has railed against EU bureaucracy, but this treaty imposes far more red tape on British businesses than there is at the moment.
Mr Dhesi
The lead-up to this Brexit deal has seen a litany of broken promises. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that there was
“no threat to the Erasmus scheme”.—[Official Report, 15 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 1021.]
Among other things, he made grand statements about taking back full control of our fishing waters. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, despite all the promises, it is not only British fishermen who are accusing the Prime Minister of betrayal and of having caved in to arrive at this insufficient deal?
Keir Starmer
These are examples of the Prime Minister making promises that he does not keep. That is the hallmark of this Prime Minister.
Adam Holloway
Can the Leader of the Opposition not in some way join the millions of people in this country, including many millions of patriotic Labour voters, on the remarkable achievement of the Prime Minister?
Keir Starmer
I am glad that there is a deal and I will vote for the Bill to implement it, because a deal is far better than no deal. That is the right thing to do. But to pretend that the deal is not what it is is not being honest, and nor is it a base from which we can go forward. To pretend that there are no non-tariff barriers when there are is just not true. The Prime Minister will not just get up and say, “I got it wrong. I didn’t tell the truth when I was addressing the public.” [Interruption.] The Prime Minister says I do not know what I am talking about. His words were that there will be no non-tariff barriers to trade. Will there be no non-tariff barriers to trade, Prime Minister? Yes or no? The ox is now on his tongue, I see.
Whatever the Prime Minister says, there is very little protection for our services. That is a gaping hole in this deal. Ours is primarily a services economy. Services account for 80% of our economic output, and we have a trade surplus with the EU in services, but what we have in this text does not go beyond what was agreed with Canada or Japan. The lack of ambition is striking, and the result is no mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Talk to doctors, nurses, dentists, accountants, pharmacists, vets, engineers and architects about how they will practise now in other EU states, where they will have to have their qualifications agreed with each state separately with different terms and conditions. Anybody who thinks that that is an improvement really does need to look again at the deal.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Keir Starmer
In just one minute.
The deal will make it harder to sell services into the EU and will create a huge disincentive for businesses to invest.
The very thin agreement on short business travel will make things much harder for artists and musicians, for example. Prime Minister, they want to hear what the answers to these questions are, not just comments from the Front Bench.
On financial services, even the Prime Minister himself has accepted—I do not know whether he will stick to this, or if it is one that he will not own now—that the deal does not go as far as we would have liked, so pretending that it is a brilliant deal just is not on. We have to rely on the bare bones of equivalence arrangements, many of which are not even in place, that could be unilaterally withdrawn at short notice. That is the reality of the situation. We are left to wonder: either the Prime Minister did not try to get a strong deal to protect our service economy, or he tried and failed. Which is it?
Let me turn to security. The treaty offers important protections when compared with the utter chaos of no deal, such as on DNA and fingerprints. There are third-party arrangements to continue working with Europol and Eurojust. I worked with Europol and Eurojust, so I know how important that is, but the treaty does not provide what was promised: a security partnership of unprecedented breadth and depth. It does not, and anybody today who thinks that it does has not read the deal. We will no longer have access to EU databases that allow for the sharing of real-time data, such as the Schengen information system for missing persons and objects. Anybody who thinks that that is not important needs to bear in mind that it is used on a daily basis. In 2019, it was accessed and consulted 600 million times by the UK police—600 million times. That is how vital it is to them. That is a massive gap in the deal, and the Prime Minister needs to explain how it will be plugged.
Let me turn to tariffs and quotas. The Prime Minister has made much of the deal delivering zero tariffs and zero quotas. It does—
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Prime Minister. It does, or rather it does for as long as British businesses meet the rules of origin requirements. It does as long as the UK does not step away from a level playing field on workers’ rights and environment—
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says rubbish—[Interruption.] I have read it. I have studied it. I have been looking at nothing else than this for four years. The Prime Minister pretends that he has got sovereignty, and zero tariffs and zero quotas. He has not: the moment he exercises the sovereignty to depart from the level playing field, the tariffs kick in. This is not a negotiating triumph. It sets out the fundamental dilemma that has always been at the heart—
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says vote against it—vote for no deal. As my wife says to our children, “If you haven’t got anything sensible to say, it’s probably better to say nothing.”
The situation sets out the fundamental dilemma that has always been at the heart of the negotiations. If we stick to the level playing field, there are no tariffs and quotas, but if we do not, British businesses, British workers and British consumers will bear the cost. The Prime Minister has not escaped that dilemma; he has negotiated a treaty that bakes it in. This poses the central question for future Governments and Parliaments: do we build up from this agreement to ensure that the UK has high standards and that our businesses are able to trade as freely as possible in the EU market with minimal disruption; or do we choose to lower standards and slash protections, and in that way put up more barriers for our businesses to trade with our nearest and most important partners?
For Labour, this is clear: we believe in high standards. We see this treaty as a basis to build from, and we want to retain a close economic relationship with the EU that protects jobs and rights, because that is where our national interest lies today and tomorrow. However, I fear that the Prime Minister will take the other route, because he has used up so much time and negotiating capital in doing so. He has put the right to step away from common standards at the heart of the negotiation, so I assume that he wants to make use of that right as soon as possible. If he does, he has to be honest with the British people about the costs and consequences of that choice for businesses, jobs and our economy. If he does not want to exercise that right, he has to explain why he wasted so much time and sacrificed so many priorities for a right that he is not going to exercise.
After four and a half years of debate and division, we finally have a trade deal with the EU. It is imperfect, it is thin and it is the consequence of the Prime Minister’s political choices, but we have only one day before the end of the transition period, and it is the only deal that we have. It is a basis to build on in the years to come. Ultimately, voting to implement the treaty is the only way to ensure that we avoid no deal, so we will vote for the Bill today.
But I do hope that this will be a moment when our country can come together and look to a better future. The UK has left the EU. The leave/remain argument is over—whichever side we were on, the divisions are over. We now have an opportunity to forge a new future: one outside the EU, but working closely with our great partners, friends and allies. We will always be European. We will always have shared values, experiences and history, and we can now also have a shared future. Today’s vote provides the basis for that.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I welcome the deal and I will be supporting it today. I welcome the fact that the official Opposition will be supporting this deal, but I did listen with some incredulity to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said he wanted a better deal. In early 2019, there was the opportunity of a better deal on the table, and he voted against it, so I will take no lectures from the Leader of the Opposition on this deal.
The Prime Minister has said that central to this deal are the tariff-free and quota-free trade arrangements, subject to rules of origin requirements. It would have been unforgivable for the European Union not to have allowed tariff-free and quota-free access, given that it signed up to that in the political declaration signed with my Government in November 2018.
One of the reasons for supporting this deal is the security arrangements that have been put in place, which are very important. Access to passenger name records and Prüm are important, but there is an issue of timeliness of access to those and other databases such as the European criminal records information system. I hope, in operational terms and in practice, we will see little change to the ability to investigate as a result of the good relationships that have been built up.
I think that the EU has made a mistake in not allowing us access to SIS II. I understand that it set as a principle that we could not have that access, but we should aim to try to find some resolution to that in the future, because it is an important database. It helps us in our fight against modern slavery and child abduction, and in identifying criminals across our borders.
One area in which I am disappointed by the deal is services. It is no longer the case that UK service providers will have an automatic right of access to provide services across the EU; they will have to abide by the individual rules of a state. I understand that a lawyer advising on UK law in the Czech Republic will have to be resident, but in Austria will have not to be resident. That is just an example of the difference in the rules.
The key area is financial services. In 2018, at Mansion House, I said that we wanted to work to get a financial services deal in the future treaty arrangement, and that that would be truly groundbreaking. It would have been but, sadly, it has not been achieved. We have a deal in trade that benefits the EU, but not a deal in services that would have benefited the UK. The treaty is clear that future negotiation on these points is possible, and I hope that the Government will go to that negotiation with alacrity and vigour, particularly on financial services.
Of course, a whole structure is set up under the treaty. One thing it does not do is to excise the EU from our lives, because a whole structure of committees is set up, some of which, like the partnership council, will be able to amend the arrangement and make determinations on its operation and interpretation without, as far as I can see, any formal reference to this Parliament. Sovereignty has underpinned the negotiations since article 50 was triggered. Sovereignty does not mean isolationism; it does not mean that we never accept somebody else’s rules; it does not mean exceptionalism. It is important as we go forward that we recognise that we live in an interconnected world and that if the United Kingdom is going to play the role that I believe it should play in not just upholding but encouraging and promoting the rules-based international order, and in ensuring that we promote these interests and values and strengthen multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organisation, we must never allow ourselves to think, as I fear that some in this House do, that sovereignty means isolationism.
I say to all Members across the House that today is the time, as I have said before, to put aside personal and party political interests, which sadly too many have followed in the past, to vote in the interests of the whole UK and to support this Bill.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) wants to remain up there in the Gallery, I am certainly not going to take interventions from there. I think it is better if he remains quiet.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I wish you, Mr Speaker, all staff and Members a good new year when it comes tomorrow evening. May I quickly reflect on the sadness of the events that took place on 2 January 1971 in Glasgow, when 66 predominantly young people lost their lives in the Ibrox disaster, including five from one village in Fife, Markinch? I am sure that the whole House will want to remember those who sadly lost their lives at that moment.
When this bad Brexit deal was published, one of the very first public images that was released showed the Prime Minister raising his arms aloft in celebration. When I saw that image, my thoughts immediately turned to the European nationals who have made their home here. They are certainly not celebrating. During the four years and more of this Brexit mess, the main emotion they have felt is worry: worry about staying here, about their jobs and for their families. In Scotland, these citizens are our friends. They are our family. They are our neighbours. Before this Tory Government force through a deal that rips us out of the European Union, the single market and the customs union, let us get this message out to Scotland’s 234,000 EU citizens: Scotland is your home, you are welcome.
The value we place on European citizenship—that real sense of belonging to the European Union—cuts to the very core of this debate. Scotland is at heart a European nation. It always has been. Forcing our nation out of the EU means losing a precious part of who we are. Scotland did not become European when the United Kingdom joined the EEC 40 years ago. Our relationship with Europe predates the United Kingdom by some way. An independent Scotland has enjoyed centuries of engagement with European nations. Scottish merchants travelled, traded and settled on the continent. We shared citizenship with France and we appealed our nationhood to Rome. Scotland was European before it was British. That European history and heritage goes back to our nation’s place in the Hanseatic League in the 15th century. Scotland was central to a trading alliance that forged connections and commerce with the north Atlantic, the Netherlands, Germany Scandinavia and the Baltic. We were a European trading nation right up until many of our privileges were ended by the Treaty of Union. It was three centuries ago, and here we go again: with Westminster seeking to end our access to those European relationships by removing us from today’s union of nations across our continent; Westminster ending free movement of people and the access to labour that is so crucial to our economic success; and Westminster seeking to end our automatic right to live, work and get an education in 27 member states of the EU—rights that our generation had, which will be taken away from our children and grandchildren. And for what?
It was way back on 11 July 2016 that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, first spoke the infamous words, “Brexit means Brexit.” We all know what followed the use of that foolish phrase: nearly four years of constant chaos and confusion. Today, at least we have some clarity. We now finally know what Brexit means. We have it in black and white. It means the disaster of a deal. It means broken promises. It means economic vandalism. It means an isolated United Kingdom in the middle of a global pandemic. It means the worst of all worlds for Scotland.
This morning’s proceedings are so critical precisely because of that clarity, because with that clarity comes a choice, and it is a fundamental choice for Scotland. It is a choice between a future defined by this disaster of a deal or the future that the SNP is offering to the Scottish people: an independent nation at the heart of the European Union. Today, the contrast between the two futures is clearer than ever, and that choice will not go away.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I wonder if I could put to the right hon. Gentleman the same question that was put to a colleague of his by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Prime Minister. Today, when the Scottish National party votes against this deal, it is therefore voting for no deal. Is it his determination that, the day after tomorrow, the UK would have no deal and would be in a worse situation? Is that his position now? Could he answer yes or no?
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the question, because it is very simple. This is a piece of legislation that has been put forward today. No deal is not on the Order Paper. The deal that we currently have—the deal that exists today—where we are in the single market and customs union is the best deal for us. We have argued many times in this House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that we should have extended the transition, and that offer to extend the transition was there from the European Union. It is not our choice to accept a shoddy deal. What we should be doing—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sir Iain, you are very early on the call list, and I am sure that you do not want to go down the list.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We will accept your guidance on these things, although I was looking forward to the debate that we were having.
Now that we see the scale of the bad Brexit deal, the question before the Scottish people is clear: which Union does Scotland wish to be part of? Which future will we choose: this broken Brexit Britain or the European Union? If this whole Brexit saga was truly about sovereignty, the Scottish people cannot and will not be denied our sovereign right to that self-determination. No democrat and nobody in this House should stand in the way of that—even boris with a small b. The Tory denial of democracy is a position that cannot and will not hold. Scotland will have the right to choose its own future.
Now that the detail of this deal is finally in front of us, people hope that Brexit fictions are swiftly replaced with Brexit facts. Judging by the Prime Minister’s performance today, his Government are still drowning in delusion or simply just putting on an act, but for those of us who have lived in the real world these past four years, it is long past time that reality finally bursts the Brexit bubble. In recent days we have heard wild celebrations and claims from leading Brexit cheerleaders that this is the largest free trade deal in history. I am sorry to inform them that it is not. The biggest and best free trading bloc in the world is the one that this Tory Government are dragging Scotland out of. It is made up of 27 nations and 500 million citizens. It is called the European Union.
In the middle of a pandemic and economic recession, Scotland has been removed from a market worth £16 billion in exports to Scottish companies and a market which, by population, is seven times the size of the United Kingdom. Leaving the European single market and customs union would be damaging at any time, but in the middle of the current crisis, Prime Minister, it is unforgivable. It is an act of economic vandalism, pure and simple.
As usual with the Tories, it is people who will pay the price. Initial Scottish Government modelling estimates that the deal could cut Scotland’s GDP by around 6.1%—that is £9 billion in 2016 cash terms by 2030. That will leave people in Scotland—the same people who have always opposed Brexit—£1,600 poorer. That is the cost of the Prime Minister’s Brexit.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he could tell us what estimate he has made of the cost to the Scottish economy of losing access to the UK single market through independence.
Ian Blackford
Really? I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, who of course comes from Scotland, seems to be threatening the people of Scotland with lack of access. Is that really the message the Conservatives want to deliver to the people of Scotland? Shame on him, shame on him, shame on him.
For all the Tory talk of levelling up, the deal is blatantly preparing the ground to level down on standards. Only in the last few days, the Institute for Public Policy Research has warned of what many of us have suspected all along: that the deal leaves workers’ rights and environmental protections at
“serious risk of being eroded.”
Another Brexit bubble that badly needs bursting is the myth that leaving the EU will somehow make it easier for businesses to trade. This is literally the first trade deal in history that puts up barriers to business instead of removing them. In 2016, the leave campaign’s assortment of lies included the claim that Brexit would remove red tape for business. Huh—since then, plenty of Brexit red lines have disappeared, but none of the red tape. This bad Brexit deal means that businesses will be burdened with mountains more bureaucracy and more costs. If the Prime Minister wants to disagree with that, I will certainly give way to him.
Presumably the Brexiteers think that that is okay, because the tape will now be coloured red, white and blue. [Interruption.] I hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say, “It’s how they tell them.” He should tell that to the fishing businesses that all of a sudden will have to fill in customs declarations. He should tell them why, at his behest and based on his narrow ideology, that is the answer. The deal means more delay, paperwork and checks—[Interruption.] If he wants to deny that, he should rise to his feet. He knows that fishing businesses will face additional costs as a consequence of what his Government have done.
The deal means more delay, paperwork and checks, all of which will burden business, slow trade and cost jobs. This deal not only inflicts economic self-harm; it ignores economic reality. There is barely a reference in the deal to the service sector, which is 80% of the entire UK economy. Services have been left in complete limbo. Where there is any mention, it is not good news. The deal confirms an end to the financial passporting rights that have been relied upon by financial services firms across the United Kingdom.
Let me turn to the biggest betrayal of all: the broken promises to Scotland’s fishing communities. There are no Scottish Tory MPs in the Chamber. If there were, they would now be squirming. We know that the Brexit deal means a drop in key fishing stocks. For cod, haddock, whiting and saithe, the deal means less access to fish than under the existing arrangements. Let me say that again: less access to those fish than under the common fisheries policy.
One thing that is missing from the deal—I would have thought better of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—is the special privileges, the so-called Hague arrangements, that gave additional fishing rights to Scotland. They were not even negotiated as part of this deal. We have lost them, one can only assume, through the incompetence of the UK negotiators.
The Scottish Tories said that
“tying fishing to a trade deal”
was a red line that must not be crossed, yet here we are: it is exactly what has been done. Every single Tory promise—every red line—has been blown out of the water. Countless broken promises, but not even one resignation—yet. Not even one apology; not a hint of humility, or of regret.
I take no comfort in saying that this was predicted because this deal represents a history of bitter betrayal. Our fishing industry—our Scottish fishing industry—was sold out by the Conservatives on the way into Europe in 1973, and as the United Kingdom leaves, it has been sold out all over again. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation knows that it has been conned, stating that the deal
“does not restore sovereign UK control over fisheries, and does not permit us to determine who can catch what, where and when in our own waters.”
[Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister muttering, “Rubbish.” This is fishing organisation after fishing organisation in Scotland, Prime Minister, that knows exactly what you have done to them. For Scotland’s fishing communities, lightning might not strike twice, but the Tories definitely do.
The latest Scottish Tory leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), gave one of the more graphic promises: he said that he would drink a pint of cold sick rather than vote for a deal that gave EU vessels access for two years. Well, this deal gives them five years’ access, and potentially much more. Let us just say that there will be plenty of Scottish voters in the north-east who will be very interested in what he is drinking after he and his colleagues break every single promise and walk through the Lobby with the Prime Minister.
In later speeches, my colleagues will attempt to cover and scrutinise as much as we possibly can, in the limited time, of the effect of this Bill in Scotland. It has to be said, though, that this lack of scrutiny is not helped by the stance taken by the Labour party. I am sad to say that the official Opposition have been missing in action. There was a time when Labour had six tests that it said needed to be passed in order for it to support any deal. Labour’s Brexit tests have disappeared as quickly as Tory promises. I can understand that this might be politically pragmatic for Labour, but it definitely is not politically principled. But I suppose political principle is hard to manage when you cannot even get a coherent position between Scottish Labour and its UK bosses. Unfortunately, when it comes to a position on this Brexit deal, Labour is literally all over the place. Today in the Scottish Parliament, Labour will join with the Scottish National party in refusing to grant a consent motion to this Bill. I am grateful for that. Labour will not only join us but the Greens and the Liberal Democrats standing with us: our Scottish Parliament united against the Tories, united against this Bill.
It is ultimately for others to explain their own actions and the litany of broken promises that will stay with them at the next election, because, in the end, this is not so much about the Brexit promises of political parties as about its impact on people. It is about respecting the democratic decisions that voters make. Both England and Wales voted to leave the European Union. They have decided that their future lies elsewhere. Let me make this clear: I may not agree with that decision, but I, and my party, respect it. This legislation respects it, and it forms a pathway to the future. The people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. Due to the efforts of both Michel Barnier and the Irish Government, the protocol protects the peace process. It means that Northern Ireland avoids a hard border and stays in the European single market. I support that protocol and its protection of a hard-won peace. This deal respects that. That being said, the Scottish Tories, including Baroness Davidson and the former Scottish Secretary, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), threatened to resign if Scotland was not offered the same deal as Northern Ireland. I say to both of them now that there is still time—we are still waiting.
The only democratic decision that has been ignored is the voice and vote of the Scottish people. None of this deal respects the choice that we made. I genuinely ask Members to reflect on that reality. Imposing this Brexit, imposing this deal means imposing a future that Scotland’s people did not vote for and do not want. Let us not forget that one of the central claims of the Better Together campaign in 2014 was that if we stayed in the UK, we would stay in the European Union. That is the promise that was made.
We were also told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom, we were to lead the United Kingdom. On the day after the referendum, that all changed: Scotland was told to get back in its box. Right through the Brexit process, Scotland’s voice has been ignored by Westminster, our attempts at finding compromise rebuffed at every opportunity, tossed aside on the premise that Westminster is supreme, locking Scotland out of the key decisions affecting our future and ignoring our desire to retain our European citizenship.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s gloom, he knows that I adore and love his country. Does he not believe that Scotland has the character to succeed? Despite his misgivings, Scotland is a great country. Why is his speech so full of gloom and misery when Scotland has the character to prosper and succeed now?
Ian Blackford
I thank the hon. Gentleman. May I reciprocate and say that I love England and its people? I want us to maximise our opportunity, but this deal limits our opportunity. I want to unleash Scotland’s potential. That potential will be unleashed with an independent Scotland at the heart of Europe.
The Prime Minister’s broken promise on Erasmus has been such a totemic issue in the last few days. He will remember standing in this House and promising us that we will stay in the Erasmus programme. That betrayal denies our young people the opportunities that European citizenship has given us. It denies them the European freedoms that we cherish—living, working and studying abroad. Around 200,000 people have taken part in Erasmus, including around 15,000 UK university students each year. It is also important to say that Erasmus is not solely about university students but about supporting youth workers, adult education, sport, culture and vocational training. That is why the Scottish Government are so committed to exploring every opportunity to keep Erasmus in place for our people.
Even the very name Erasmus signals our long-established European links. That long tradition of connection comes right into the modern day with our own Winnie Ewing, Madame Écosse herself. Winnie, a former mother of the European Parliament, was Chair of the EU Education Committee that brought in the Erasmus scheme. [Interruption.] People at home will be watching this, and we have the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laughing about the success of the Erasmus scheme. Utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic—utterly pathetic.
All that history between Europe and Scotland, all those links and all these opportunities are now at stake. Scotland’s story is European, and that story does not end today. Our past is European, and our future must be European. As a nation, that is a choice that we made in 2016, and I am confident that it is a choice we make now. We cannot support this legislation because it does not respect that choice and it does not provide for our future. Scotland’s course is now set, and it is a very different course from the decisions being taken in the Westminster Parliament. We know that the only way to regain the huge benefits of EU membership is to become an independent state at the heart of Europe once more. That is the decision that the Scottish people will make. We begin that journey today. There is now an empty seat at the top table in Europe. It will not be empty for long.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will know that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is a more cheerful person than his speech suggested. He gave us a 25-minute lesson in humility, for which we are grateful, and talked about ignoring popular votes. In the 2019 election, the SNP received 1,200,000 votes, and in 2014 the vote against independence was 2 million. That is a gap of 800,000—two thirds of the vote that the right hon. Gentleman leads in this House. He should be cautious both in predicting the future and in interpreting the past.
As Father of the House, I ought to recognise that the only significant speech ever made by a Father of the House was in the Narvik-Norway debate in May 1940, when in about his 11th year as Father of the House, David Lloyd George probably gave people the confidence to withhold their votes from the Government. I do not argue that today. We need to say, as many have said—except for the leader of the SNP—that this debate and vote is about whether we go for this deal or for no deal. In that, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I give my vote, although in the referendum I argued that, on balance, it was better to stay in. We lost and, unlike the SNP, one has to accept the result of a referendum.
Sir Peter Bottomley
No, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
When my father, who survived serious personal injury during the war, was involved in the first negotiations about joining the European Union, I asked him for his views on the economic impact. He said that, on balance, it did not make much difference. We joined in 1973— two years before I was elected to the House of Commons—but it did not make a big difference to our economy until after 1979, when the change in Britain resulted in us going from being the sick man of Europe to being people who were looked on with respect, with many asking, “How did you do it?” The answer was in part by chance and in part by freedom and a cautious approach to a free market economy, led by Margaret Thatcher, who also led the significant debates to stay in the European Union in 1975. That was one of the best speeches she ever made and it can be read via the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.
I was nominated, or vouched for, as a candidate by Sir Robin Turton, a leading anti-marketeer. Margaret Thatcher and I—and, I argue, the country—won the June 1975 by-election after Neil Martin, a leading campaigner against staying in the European Common Market, asked Conservatives to vote for me, even though he and I disagreed, in the same way that Sir Robin Turton and I disagreed when he supported me.
We are often taken down paths we do not expect—the Prime Minister can probably vouch for that himself. I believe that we have to make a success of our present situation, and we have to make sure, as one of my friends kindly said, that we open a new chapter in a vibrant relationship with our continental cousins. We can, some of us, look with affection on the past, with admiration at what has been achieved in this past year, and with confidence to the future.
We ought to stop using this as an argument for Scottish independence. We ought to accept that the Labour party has, in many of its proud traditions, put the national interest before party interest. I say to the Prime Minister, as I said to him in reasonable privacy one day, that we want a leader we can trust and a cause that is just, so will he please lead us in the right direction in future?
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) [V]
Today is the day on which the Prime Minister promised us that he would get Brexit done, in one of the many sermons and catchphrases that have not illuminated but rather obscured this debate. At the weekend we had a good example of that obscurity—the Prime Minister mentioned it today—with the £660 billion deal that enables us to trade with the European Union with zero tariffs and zero quotas. I am sure that many fairly casual observers get the impression that this is some kind of negotiating triumph that we have wrung from the European Union. The fact is, however, that these are privileges and rights that we already had. The £660 billion is what we have salvaged—it is what we have left from what was a much greater package of rights and freedoms. I am not knocking it—it is a good thing—but it is important to recognise that it is not a net gain.
That is not all that is obscure and misleading. The Prime Minister spoke today about fishing rights—I think his phrase was that we would be able to catch whatever we like. If we look at this agreement, we see that that is not the case. He said that there were no non-tariff barriers, as well as the tariff agreements on trade, but that is not true either. The agreement makes it clear that there is much more bureaucracy and many more rules and regulations—the very things that the Prime Minister claimed we would be escaping. Littered throughout the agreement are working parties, specialist committees and the partnership council, to negotiate when there are differences.
Even for the stuff that has been agreed, a great deal of bureaucracy and negotiation surrounds it, and there is much that is left out, including the protection of designated products such as Stilton so that quality can be maintained and we can be assured that our producers have their rights in the market—that is all put on one side. It has already been mentioned in the debate that the huge issue of financial services has been left on one side and will have to be addressed in the future. This weekend, a blogger described the provisions in the treaty as “negotiations without end”.
Today, we have a Hobson’s choice: we are for or we accept this deal, or we have no deal. That is why my vote will be cast to accept the passage of this legislation to the statute book. I do not accept that that means we cannot criticise it in future; I certainly intend to do so.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In these historic days, as we regain our freedom and independence, I pay a profound tribute to our democracy and to the sovereignty of the mother of Parliaments, but above all to the voters in the referendum and the general election last December and, of course, to our Prime Minister, who, against all the odds, led us out of parliamentary paralysis last year to victory, delivering us from 48 years of subjugation to EU laws and European Court jurisdiction and regaining our sovereignty. Our Prime Minister—a great classicist—is, like his hero Pericles, the first citizen of his country and, like him, has saved our democracy. Like Alexander the Great, Boris has cut the Gordian knot. Churchill and Margaret Thatcher would have been deeply proud of his achievements, and so are we.
This Bill on our future relationship with the EU provides for a new exciting era for our trade with Europe and the rest of the world on sovereign terms—not on those of the EU, as with the Chequers deal. We must pay tribute to David Frost, Oliver Lewis and the Attorney General and her advisers for the successful outcome of the negotiations. There remain challenges on fishing and in relation to Northern Ireland; we must use our new and renewed sovereignty to exercise the political muscle that it gives us to resolve those challenges. We can, and I believe we will.
Regaining our right to govern ourselves is a true turning point in our great history. In peacetime, it compares only with the restoration by Monck in 1660, on the absolute condition of parliamentary consent, then followed by the Hanoverian succession after 1689 and the evolution of our modern parliamentary democracy, which has been the bedrock of our freedom and which enabled us, with the leadership of Churchill, to repel the danger of conquest in May 1940.
In April 1990, I was asked by Margaret Thatcher to lunch at No. 10 with members of the Cabinet. Margaret Thatcher asked me what I felt about Europe. I replied, “Prime Minister, your task is more difficult than Churchill’s. He was faced with bombs and aircraft. You are faced with pieces of paper.” Our Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has achieved what all those years ago I was told was impossible. I refused to believe that. So did the Maastricht rebels and, last year, the 28 Tory Spartans. That opened the way to where we are today. We have now won back our sovereignty, despite those European pieces of paper, and we in this country owe our Prime Minister our deepest congratulations on his achievement.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am glad that in two days’ time we will be finally leaving the EU. That is something that my party and I personally campaigned for, and it is something that would probably not have happened had it not been for the votes and crucial debates in this House when remainers tried to undermine the result of the referendum.
I have to say that today that euphoria is tinged with sadness, because the deal that the Prime Minister has struck will not apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland will not enjoy all the benefits of this deal. Indeed, we will still find ourselves tied to some of the restrictions of EU membership that the rest of the United Kingdom has been freed from. We welcome the limitations that have been placed on the withdrawal agreement and the mitigations that have been made to it, but unfortunately the withdrawal agreement is still an integral part of the Government’s policy and an integral part of this deal. This deal commits the Government to implementing not only this agreement but supplementary agreements, and they have to do it in good faith.
We therefore find that the detrimental impacts of the withdrawal agreement—that Northern Ireland will still be subject to some EU laws made in Brussels; that those laws will be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice; and that there will be barriers to internal trade within the United Kingdom between Northern Ireland and GB, and GB and Northern Ireland—are already being manifested. GB companies are indicating that they will no longer supply to Northern Ireland. VAT on cars will increase in Northern Ireland. From 1 January 2021, second-hand cars in Northern Ireland will be 20% dearer as a result of VAT rules applying, and a whole range of other things.
Jim Shannon
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be no protection for the single market regulations, in particular for banking and investment firms? There is not even the option for firms in Northern Ireland to apply for authorisation to the equivalent of the Financial Conduct Authority. Does he feel that that is an anomaly that needs to be addressed?
Sammy Wilson
Of course, it is not only in those areas. The Prime Minister talked about the way in which, because there was no longer any need for regulatory conformity, the UK could free itself to develop FinTech, biosciences and agricultural practices. Because Northern Ireland will still remain under some of the EU regulations, we will, in many ways, not be able to benefit from those new and exciting opportunities.
Having said that, Northern Ireland will still be part of the United Kingdom. I know that people have said that this deal will drive a wedge into the Union. A wedge can only be driven into the Union when the people of Northern Ireland decide that they no longer wish to remain part of the UK. When it comes to a choice between joining the Irish Republic—a small nation which will bob about in the future storms of economic chaos—and being anchored to the fifth-largest economy in the world, which will prosper under Brexit, I believe that that choice will be an easy one for the people of Northern Ireland.
What I would say to the Prime Minister, though, is that there will be economic damage as a result of our exclusion from this agreement, but there are opportunities. There is a joint committee, there is a review of the agreement, there is the fact that we now have parliamentary sovereignty, and there is the fact that the Government can act unilaterally to undo economic damage. We will continue to press you and your Government, Prime Minster, to live up to your promises that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged as a result of the deals you have done.
Let me finally say that we will not be voting for this deal today, and I think the reasons are obvious. We are excluded from many of its benefits. That does not mean we have any common cause with the petulant remainers in this Parliament who want to undo the referendum; it is because we are disappointed Brexiteers. It is because we are people who believed that the United Kingdom should leave and should leave as a whole, and that is not happening, and for that reason we will not be voting for this deal today.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a privilege to be able to speak in this debate and to follow the right hon. Gentleman, whom I consider a friend. I was going to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but perhaps I should call him my right hon. Friend the Member for Athens, as our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) described him as a modern Pericles.
The Prime Minister deserves the full plaudits for the delivery of this trade deal. He is entitled, I think, to a moment of satisfaction. Despite what all those doomsayers have said—perpetually during his process through this, they have said there was no chance he would achieve a deal, and therefore we would have to leave with no deal—he has defied that and he has shown us that consistency, determination and optimism are key drivers in any negotiation, and I thank him for that. I also thank the negotiators, Lord Frost and others of his team, who have delivered this in the face of quite a lot of difficulty.
For me, it brings to an end a 29-year period. Back at the time of the Maastricht treaty, I had just entered Parliament, and I was faced with the choice of whether to vote for what I saw as a huge extension of powers from what became the European Union. I made the mistake of entering the Smoking Room, where my hon. Friend the Member for Stone laid his arm upon my shoulder, and my career was ruined thereafter. I chose directly as a result of those blandishments to vote against Maastricht. I do not regret it, but I do say that from that moment onwards I was certain that the United Kingdom would leave the European Union, because it was getting more and more centralised, and it was not what we had joined. I voted to join. I am pleased that we have delivered on this deal, and it is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who has done that.
I say to those who are going to vote against the deal today that they cannot escape reality. To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he made it very clear that those who vote against the deal today are voting for no deal. We do not have to have that written on a piece of paper, because that would defy any of the logic that this place is about.
Jonathan Edwards
I do not believe that what the right hon. Gentleman says is the case. We are voting on the merit of the agreement, and the reality is that the agreement introduces a whole layer of extra bureaucracy for citizens and businesses in the UK. It is a charter for red tape.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I always love colleagues in this place trying to explain their actions, but it comes down to one simple point: we all know in this House that if we defeat an objective, we are left with what was there before. What is there before in this case is no deal, and I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman if he believes he is just voting against something that he thinks is wrong, because he is voting at the same time therefore for the status quo. The status quo is we leave the day after tomorrow with no deal, and there is no escaping that I am afraid, no matter what some wish for.
I welcome this deal. It is not perfect, and nobody here is going to say we can get a perfect deal, because there are two sides in this discussion, but it is a huge advance on where we might have been. We take back control of our sovereignty. We are a sovereign nation again, and with that power we can set our own direction in international as well as domestic relations. I simply say to those who do not see this: being able to regain that control is a huge step forward. Bringing back the power to this House and this Parliament is what the Prime Minister has achieved. Yes, there are things in this that will need to time to develop—I accept that fishing is one; we have a better deal now, but five years from now we will have the key opportunity to decide how those waters will be run, to our benefit, and I congratulate the Prime Minister on that. Importantly, we also have the power to reset the environmental running of those waters. For far too long, too many large trawlers have literally destroyed many of our fishing areas, and I urge my Government to start the process, literally tomorrow, of making sure we bring environmentalism and control of this back to our area.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
No, I cannot give way—I beg the right hon. Gentleman’s pardon.
I wish to conclude by simply saying that Brexit was never about being anti-European. Brexit is about restoring power to the UK. I love Europe—half my family have worked in Europe all their working lives, and I studied out there and love its idiosyncrasies, language differences, arts, culture and people—but I am British and I am a member of the United Kingdom. I want to respect them and be their friend, but for too long we moved into the same house with them and we did not get on. We are now just going to move next door and be good neighbours, friends and allies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on bringing this to a conclusion—he deserves the plaudits he is going to get.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to assist Members further down the list in preparing their speeches, I ought to give notice that after the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is No. 19 on the list, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes—I see the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) already tearing up part of his speech. I call Hilary Benn.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
May I draw attention to the fourth report of the Brexit Select Committee, on the agreement, which was published this morning? The Committee’s wonderful staff worked really hard over Christmas, but we have not had the opportunity, in three days, to produce a fuller report, and I did write to the Leader of the House about giving the Committee a bit more time to complete the task that was given to us just under a year ago.
I will be voting for this Bill to implement the agreement today, because, quite simply, the alternative is no deal. I recognise that others in the House will abstain or vote against, but if we were in the position where every one of their votes were required in order to get this Bill, and therefore this agreement, through, I cannot believe that any of those colleagues would actually choose no deal, with all the damaging economic consequences it would bring, over a deal. That is why, in the end, the Prime Minister realised that he had no alternative but to get an agreement. This is not a vote about whether we support Brexit—I do not, but it has happened. This is a vote about making a bit better of a bad job.
There are aspects of the agreement that will be welcomed: the absence of tariffs, which has been referred to; the agreement on healthcare; the level playing provisions, which seem pretty reasonable to me; and our having access to some of the information that we require for our security. But we must also be honest about what is missing from this agreement and what that will mean. It does not deliver frictionless trade. It will impose checks, costs and red tape on British businesses that export to Europe. Frankly, I was astonished to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the radio the other morning apparently praising red tape as a benefit because it will make British businesses get “match fit” to trade. That is certainly a novel economic theory and it does not reflect the Conservative party as we previously understood it. The agreement offers no certainty yet on data transfer or financial services, which are so important to our economy. We did not get what was sought on conformity assessments, rules of origin, mutual recognition of qualifications, or reduced sanitary and phytosanitary checks. There is, as of this moment, no agreement yet on Gibraltar.
Why has this happened? It has happened because from the start the Government were faced with having to choose between sovereignty, on the one hand, and the economic interests of the country, on the other, and however hard they tried to pretend that they could have the best of both, that was never possible—a trade-off would always have to be made. We see that in the agreement before us, which is long and complex, rather like Brexit itself, and the full implications of both have yet to be revealed.
Today this Bill will pass, and tomorrow the process of leaving the EU will be complete, but the day after we will need to look forward, because a new question will confront us as a nation: what kind of relationship do we now wish to have with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners and friends? The other reason why I will be voting for this Bill today is that, for all it has failed to secure, it at least provides a foundation on which, in the years ahead, we can build what I hope will be a strong economic and political relationship with our European friends. I hope, as we move beyond leave and remain, we will now be able, as a country, to come together to do exactly that.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I do not always agree with him, but I recognise the detailed and sterling work he has done on the Brexit Select Committee and am glad that he is voting for the Bill today.
I also welcome the fantastic news on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which along with the Bill gives us a double reason for celebration. I add my congratulations and plaudits to the Prime Minister and all our negotiators on their steadfastness in bringing home this deal.
Make no mistake, it took guts and determination both to leave the EU and, finally, to deliver this result. It may not be perfect. I, too, for example, share the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about the position of our services industry, which needs urgent resolution on, for example, what the equivalence rules will look like.
The deal has been hard won and delivers zero tariffs and zero quotas, which brings a huge sigh of relief to many businesses and industries across the country. At the same time, it allows the UK once again to control its destiny through its own elected representatives and its own courts—the independence and control over our affairs that I and many others voted for in the referendum.
This is not a precipitative end to our relationship, but the controlled departure that we were all hoping for. Our participation in programmes such as Horizon Europe and EU Space Surveillance and Tracking indicates our recognition that there are things we can do better together across Europe, but now without having to be subject to a regime that we could not change or, at the very least, even influence.
There will be many other things that we can do better, such as the Turing scheme, which is going to offer 35,000 UK students worldwide opportunities and will replace Erasmus. When we pass this legislation today, we will be in a golden position to create a great future for the United Kingdom—a future that the people of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England will grasp with both hands. The trade deals and continuity agreements that we have already signed with 62 countries are testament to that, and we must make a great deal of fuss about the work that has gone into those signings, which will mean so much for our country in the future.
To those who continue to wage a war of attrition against this reborn independence and look backwards towards membership of the EU, I hope they, too, will now move on and develop the guts and determination of our Prime Minister to back our own Union and contribute positively to its future success. I believe that the UK’s future is bright, working alongside Europe, but finally, after today, not subjugated by it.
It is with great pleasure that I support this Bill.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
I understand completely the exasperation of people that, four and a half years after the Brexit referendum, we are still debating this subject, and I understand the desire to move on. I also accept the proposition that a thin deal is better than no deal, but this is not only a thin deal; it is a bad deal. A far better deal could and should have been negotiated by the Government and still could be.
In the nearly 20 years that I have spent in this House—15 of them on the Front Bench—there have been many occasions when I have voted for a proposition with reservations; that is the nature of parliamentary and party politics. But there are occasions when that proposition is too damaging to support. I accept that there is a valid argument at this stage, as laid out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to move on and for the Opposition to build on this bad deal. I also accept that in politics, many decisions—perhaps most—are not between what is right and what is clearly identifiable as wrong but are on a continuum between what is unpalatable and what is unacceptable. Clearly, no deal is unacceptable. This bad deal is certainly unpalatable and, in places, unacceptable because of the ideological approach taken to negotiations by this awful right-wing shambles of a Tory Government who are determined to set Britain on a path that will damage it culturally and economically.
While I understand the desire to move on, I simply do not understand why it is necessary for those who believe that this is a bad deal to vote for it and dip their fingertips in the indelible ink of this abject failure of national ambition. The deadline we are up against today is an entirely artificial one, sustained only so that the Prime Minister can say that he has met his own political timetable. The truth is that the transition period could have been extended or the deal could have been introduced on a provisional basis to allow the House to thoroughly scrutinise it line by line, rather than follow the “take it or leave it by lunchtime” timetable that the Government have artificially manufactured today.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was right to talk about the red tape for manufacturing in this deal, checks for farmers, burdensome regulation on businesses and the fact that the consequences of the deal will be economically damaging. In addition, the Government have chosen to end the Erasmus educational programme for young people, there is no proper recognition of professional qualifications and they will remove work permit-free access across the EU for touring musicians, who have already been unable to work for the last year due to covid. In the last few days, that issue alone has triggered a petition to Parliament of more than 200,000 signatures. Less than a year ago, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who was at the time the Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries, said in Westminster Hall:
“It is essential that free movement is protected for artists post 2020.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 56WH.]
That is just one example of the failure of the Government to deliver even on their own woefully inadequate promises in relation to this deal. This is a thin deal. It is a failure, even on the Government’s own terms. In short, it is a bad deal, and I will not be voting for it.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Those of us who voted and campaigned to leave the European Union did so for a number of reasons. I was always a constitutional leaver. For me, the test of this Bill is: does it return the sovereignty that we sought? The answer is yes. Why? Because there is no subjugation to EU law or EU jurisprudence, no direct effect and no direct application. Retention of any of those would have been incompatible with a sovereign state. In fact, from our accession to the European Community through various EU treaties, all those elements were incompatible with the concept that those who live under the law should be able to determine those who make the law. That is what we have regained in this process.
The second test for me is: does this allow us to have a genuinely independent trade policy? Let us remember that we were told that it would take more than 10 years to reach a free trade agreement with the European Union and that it would be impossible to roll over all the EU agreements that we had. I stood at the Dispatch Box and listened to the Opposition incessantly telling us that. I congratulate Ministers and officials under Crawford Falconer at the Department for International Trade for all they have achieved, and I especially congratulate David Frost on landing one of the world’s biggest, if not the biggest, trade agreements in 11 months—a world record—which, again, we were told was not possible.
When we voted to leave the European Union, we also voted to leave the single market, although for some of us the single market is also the single anti-market, with many of the restrictions and protectionisms that it encompasses. If we want to access the single market, there has to be a price to be paid. If we want to diverge from the rules of the single market, there has to be a price to be paid. Does this agreement provide effective mechanisms for us to do those things? My answer, again, is yes.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mechanisms that this treaty has found are every bit as good as the mechanisms in the Canada treaty, for example, and all other treaties that reflect these tensions in free trade agreements?
Dr Fox
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and not only are they effective mechanisms, but they keep us in line with the best international practice that exists, which of course enables us to move forward with greater predictability. On that point, there are a number of specific elements to welcome. The first is the acceptance of the concept—
Dr Fox
I will not, I am afraid.
The first element is the concept of non-regression as a means of ensuring minimum standards. We accept that the maintenance of those high standards has fixed costs in international commerce, which is why we will always need to compete at the high end of the quality market globally in goods and services. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, we cannot ever become a bargain basement economy because the fixed costs we have are simply too high and, quite rightly, the British people would not allow us to abandon the standards we have. It means that we will have to move forward with the natural innovation and creativity of the British people expanding our export culture, because the bottom line is that without more exports and without more actual trade, any trade agreement is simply a piece of paper. It is upon the natural innovation of the British people that our prosperity will be built in the future.
The second element, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) alluded, is the fact that the concept in dispute resolution of international arbitration is done without the European Court of Justice, which brings us in line with international trends and practices. That takes us to the third element: the mechanism of determining divergence. If there is no ability to determine to diverge, we are not sovereign. If there were not a price to be paid for divergence, the EU would never have reached the agreement with us. What would have been unacceptable is the concept of dynamic alignment—automatically taking EU rules over which we had no control into our law—but what is acceptable is penalties for divergence, which are clearly set out. They are proportionate, and there is a requirement to show harm, rather than their simply being put into law. The most important element of all in this is that it is we who will weigh up the costs and benefits of any potential disalignment. It is our choice—that is one of the key elements that we have in the future.
Today opens up a new chapter in our politics. It is the choice of maintaining and strengthening an independent United Kingdom; or of the new ranks of the rejoiners, who would have us thrust back into European accession politics all over again, consuming all our political time and energy, which is a future that I believe the British public will reject. There are things that we still have to sort out—the future of Gibraltar is one of the important ones, as is seeing further details on services, including financial services—but this is a historic day in our democracy. We have delivered on the referendum and our election promises. If, for the Opposition, those are not reasons to be cheerful, they are at least reasons of which we should all be proud.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Our country is gripped by two crises: Britain’s hospitals are overwhelmed and Britain’s economy is in the worst recession for 300 years. A responsible Government, faced with those crises for people’s health and jobs, would not pass this bad deal, for it will make British people poorer and British people less safe.
This is not really a trade deal at all; it is a loss of trade deal. It is the first trade deal in history to put up barriers to trade. Is that really the Government’s answer to British businesses fearing for their futures and British workers fearing for their jobs? We were told that leaving the EU would cut red tape, but the deal represents the biggest increase in red tape in British history, with 23 new committees to oversee this new trade bureaucracy, 50,000 new customs officials and 400 million new forms. Some analysts estimate the cost of this new red-tape burden for British business at over £20 billion every year. This is not the frictionless trade that the Prime Minister promised.
Jonathan Edwards
I fully agree with the points that the right hon. Member is making. Is he concerned at reports that the lack of equivalence for sanitary and phytosanitary measures means that Welsh farmers will face more red tape exporting to the EU than New Zealand farmers?
Ed Davey
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. The more businesses see this, the more they will be very disappointed. These reels of red tape will put more jobs at risk at a time when so many are already being lost to covid, and all these new trade barriers will raise prices in the shops at a time when so many families are already struggling to make ends meet. From the failure to agree a good deal for Britain’s services sector—80% of our economy—to the failure to agree a stable deal that investors will trust, this is a lousy deal for Britain’s economic future.
The Conservatives can no longer claim to be the party of business, and with this deal they can no longer claim to be the party of law and order, for our police will no longer have real-time, immediate access to critical European crime-fighting databases such as Schengen II. Such sources of key information about criminals and crimes are used every single day by our police; in one year alone, they are used over 600 million times, often in the heat of an investigation. Thanks to the Prime Minister’s deal, British police will lose that privileged access and criminals will escape.
There are so many things wrong with this deal, from its failings on the environment to the broken promises for our young people on Erasmus, yet the irony is that, for a deal that is supposed to restore parliamentary sovereignty, our Parliament has been given only hours to scrutinise it while the European Parliament has days. And business has just days to adjust to this deal. The Liberal Democrats called on the Prime Minister to negotiate a grace period to help businesses adjust, forgetting, of course, that this Government no longer care about business.
The Government leave us no choice but to vote against this deal today. Perhaps that will not surprise too many people—the Liberal Democrats are, after all, a proud pro-European party who fought hard against Brexit—but we have genuinely looked at this post-Brexit trade deal to assess whether it is a good basis for the future relationship between the UK and the EU, and it is not. To those who argue that a vote against this deal is a vote for no deal, I say this: the Liberal Democrats led the charge against no deal when this Prime Minister was selling the virtues of no deal.
Today, the question is simple: is this a good deal for the British people? It is a deal that costs jobs, increases red tape, hits our service-based economy, undermines our police and damages our young people’s future. It is a bad deal, and the Liberal Democrats will vote against it.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]
I start by congratulating the Prime Minister and his negotiating team on getting a deal that preserves tariff-free and quota-free trade with the EU worth over £660 billion. I also welcome the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, which will help to deliver our health in the future, and all the great work that all our health workers are doing in our communities across the country to fight covid.
I hope that all Opposition Members will join us in voting for the Bill today to support our farmers, our fishermen and our car industry, and to finally deliver on the referendum result. The public have consistently voted to leave the EU over the last four and a half years, including in Tiverton and Honiton, but farmers in my constituency and across the whole United Kingdom will be pleased that we are leaving with a deal. Sheep farmers across the whole United Kingdom who were facing tariffs of almost 50% will breathe a huge sigh of relief this Christmas. Our fishing industry can also be assured that the agreement recognises UK sovereignty over our waters, putting us in a position to rebuild our fishing fleet and coastal communities, and to process more of our fish in future. We are gaining 25% more fish, worth £146 million for our fleet, over the next five years. And we can go further, with the right to exclude EU boats should we want to. However, the Prime Minister and the Government were right to be reasonable on this issue, because we export about 80% of the fish we catch to the EU, and we need a market for that fish.
We need to co-operate on the agreement so that we are not constantly fighting with the EU and ending up in arbitration. There are incentives on both sides in the deal to keep promises and to be proportionate. Clearly there will be some practical challenges for our businesses over the next few weeks and months. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has heard evidence on technical barriers to trade and on the additional paper and non-tariff barriers that exporters and importers will have to deal with. I want to take this opportunity to urge the Government to be on standby to assist businesses as they adjust to the new processes, whether that is through the Marine Management Organisation, the Food Standards Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Department for Transport. We have seen over the past few weeks the importance of the Dover-Calais crossing for trade, including for getting fresh food on our shelves at this time of year. We need to ensure that our businesses and hauliers are prepared for new rules of origin requirements, as well as for plant and animal health regulations at the border.
Leaving the EU’s customs union and single market will be a big change. We now need to work hard as a country to overcome any challenges and seize the opportunities that being an independent sovereign state can bring. Let us raise our standards on animal welfare. Let us challenge public procurement and eat more food that we produce in this country. Let us lead the world on clean environmental cars and environmental protection. Let us catch more fish and regenerate our coastal communities. Let us roll up our sleeves, export more and attract more investment from all corners of the globe.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Negotiations over Brexit and a deal with the EU have gone on for nearly four years in a process that was initially described as the “easiest in human history”. The decision to leave has led to a significant devaluation of the pound, along with reduced business certainty and investment in the UK. Now that a deal has finally been reached, it is time to move on with our new relationship with the EU. However, this thin final-hour deal was not the deal that I wanted. It was not the deal that we were promised. It was not the deal that my constituents, the vast majority of whom voted to remain, had hoped for. I do not believe that this is a good deal. Indeed, it will never compare to the deal we had before, which allowed for free movement, studying abroad, access to healthcare, and access to the single market and the customs union.
In the previous Parliament, I consistently called for a second referendum and voted to remain in both the single market and customs union. However, the debate has moved on. Things that seemed possible in 2018 and 2019 were no longer a reality after the general election. Today, the choice is stark: this deal—a bad deal and a bad outcome—or no deal, which would be disastrous for the country and my constituents. Given the choice that this country faces, I cannot in good conscience sit on my hands and abstain on the biggest vote I have faced since my election in 2017—in effect, saying that I do not mind either way if we leave with a deal or not. I also do not think it would be credible for the Opposition to sit on the sidelines on an issue of such fundamental importance. Nor can I vote against the deal when the alternative of no deal is a complete disaster.
The responsibility for this bad deal lies squarely with the Conservatives, but it is the deal that Labour will inherit if elected in 2024. It will be our responsibility to build on it and to make it succeed in the future. As a starting point, I call on the Government today to restore the UK’s participation in Erasmus. Opting out will deprive thousands of young people of opportunities, and sever countless potential links between UK nationals and our European neighbours. I lived and worked in Italy under an EU scheme as a teenager, and it fills me with sadness that the same opportunities will no longer be afforded to my children and my constituents. As an MP proud to have a large number of constituents who work in the creative industries, I urge the Government to do everything possible to secure a cultural work permit that provides visa-free travel throughout the 27 EU states so that creative professionals can perform shows and events, along with customs exemptions for their touring equipment.
Finally, the level playing-field commitments on labour and environmental standards are limited. They are not dynamic, and do not require the UK to uphold current levels of protection in all instances. In 2017, I tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill that sought to ensure that sex discrimination protections and maternity rights, along with rights for workers with caring responsibilities would be no worse after Brexit than had Britain remained a member of the EU. This deal is nowhere close to achieving that.
It is clear that this is a bad deal, but it is better than the disaster of no deal. That is why, with great sorrow that we left the European Union last January, I will vote for the Government’s deal.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Following the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), I feel that we are having a debate about the glass being half full or half empty. It is worth reminding ourselves that we will be able to do things such as abolishing the tampon tax, which many hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches railed against, because we are leaving the EU and getting out of its jurisdiction.
This extraordinary recall of Parliament, the day before new year’s eve, in the midst of a raging pandemic, is a pivotal moment in our history. Since 31 January, we have been in limbo, outside the EU, but subject to its laws and institutions. Tomorrow marks the real departure, when we take back control of our destiny. Denial by some of the importance of sovereignty is based on confusion. Sovereignty is not the same as power. Sovereignty is the ultimate source of authority to exercise power. EU member states have given that ultimate authority to the EU. Demanding its return was a revolutionary act by the majority who voted leave in the referendum, which they then confirmed in the 2019 general election.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Briefly, is my hon. Friend aware that in a national opinion poll that was undertaken yesterday, 55% of the British public wanted MPs to vote for the deal, whereas only 15% did not?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That revolution continues. It recalls our Glorious Revolution of 1688, when the nation broke with an attempt to align the then three kingdoms of the British Isles under James II with an existing European hegemon to create a new arrangement with the modern, free-trading Dutch, when Parliament reasserted the right of the people through the Bill of Rights to consent to its system of government. It is that right that was increasingly compromised in the EU, which attaches more importance to integration and central control than to democratic choice.
Some said that the EU would never allow the UK to leave EU control and to prosper. What the EU negotiators called “governance” became the fundamental difference of principle in the EU negotiations. The agreement may be less than many would have liked in many respects—let us remind ourselves that many of those extra barriers and checks have been imposed by the EU through its choice, not because we chose to accept them—but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who held absolutely firm on governance, insisting that the EU could only have free trade with the UK if it gave up its control over the UK. As the ERG legal advisory committee has confirmed, the agreement treats the EU and the UK as sovereign equals. I have no doubt that the EU will continue to do everything it can to assert what it intends the provisions of the agreement should mean. This is the new challenge. For two generations, our system became institutionalised by the EU, but we now have the reciprocal right to insist on our view of fair interpretation with equal vigour. We must do that, because only then can we seize the great opportunities that exist for our reborn nation.
I have a final word about Scotland. It is striking that although the Government have agreed an institutional framework for relations between Whitehall and Brussels, and even between this Parliament and the European Parliament, no such formal frameworks exist in our own country between the four Parliaments and the four Governments. Those who want to strengthen the Union, and to strengthen trust within our own Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, must address that issue with urgency. I hope, as Chair of the Liaison Committee, to help the Government do precisely that.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. This deal is a bad deal for Wales. The Government dragged out negotiations until Christmas, and it is now being rammed through Parliament just to avoid proper scrutiny. Who would have thought that “taking back control” would prove so false, so soon? With the Tories and Labour now committed to working hand in hand to enable the deal, it is a done deal, a stitch up—it will pass. The dominant Westminster parties have worked together to make all other options impossible. Our vote today is therefore reduced to a symbolic rubber-stamping exercise that makes a mockery of sovereignty.
Let us get one thing on record: we are brought here to implement this legislation, not to ratify it, and to rubber-stamp a virtually unseen document that is the Government’s creation. In law, the Tory Executive hold the power to wave this through, but they need the cover and the pretence of democracy. Let us be clear-eyed. The Tories have choreographed this delusion by dither and delay at every stage of negotiation, and they own every spin and twist of this danse macabre. Labour is their willing partner.
There is no question but that this is a bad deal for Wales. In fewer than 48 hours, people and businesses will face significant new barriers to trade, when our economy is already in crisis due to covid-19. Welsh farmers who sell their lamb to the EU will now face complex paperwork and new produce checks. One hundred and forty thousand jobs in Wales’s manufacturing sectors, including automotive and aviation, will be hampered by disruption to complex cross-border just-in-time supply chains.
This deal will also lock out our young people from opportunities granted as a right to other parts of the UK. The Erasmus programme opened doors to education, training and work for many young people in Wales, but those doors are now shut in their faces. Although many people in Wales did indeed vote for Brexit, nobody voted for the immense damage that this Tory deal will cause, or for Wales to lose its voice in shaping our future. As has been the case throughout the negotiations, Wales will likely be excluded from the mechanisms included in this deal that will govern our future relationship with the EU.
This is a Government who scorn checks and balances, disrespect devolution, and centralise power where their political interests lie. This is a betrayal of working people, who were promised greater prosperity and control over their own lives by this Government. What Wales now needs is a new deal—a relationship with Westminster that would enable us to be a good neighbour, rather than a tenant tied into a bad contract. That means control over our economy, our justice system, our welfare arrangements and our natural resources, and a political system where decisions are made with true and direct accountability in the best interests of everyone who lives here—a truly independent Wales. Plaid Cymru will stand up for the interests of the people in Wales, and vote against this bad deal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I remind hon. Members that after the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes. With four minutes, I call Sir Robert Neill.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
At the last two elections, I promised my constituents that I would do all I could to ensure that we left the European Union with a deal, rather than without one, and I shall therefore vote for the Bill today. Even though it does not go as far as I would have liked in some areas, it is none the less a basis on which we can build a constructive relationship for the future. That is in our interests as a nation, and in the interests of our friends and neighbours in the European Union.
There has understandably been much talk of sovereignty and control. I recognise the force of that, but we also have to be frank and honest, and say that sovereignty itself never put any food upon any family’s table nor paid any family’s wages, or mortgage or rent. It is how we use that sovereignty and control that matters, and sometimes that is best done with restraint, and often in collaboration with others. I hope in that spirit that we will build on the arrangements in the Bill, particularly in key areas of our economy such as financial services. I welcome the fact that there is some reference to financial services in the Bill, but there is much more to do there. I hope that as a matter of urgency the Government will do more work on data adequacy arrangements, ensuring that we swiftly obtain equivalence arrangements for that sector and also deal with the growing financial technology sector, in which we are world leaders. There is work to do, but this is something on which we can build, and I know that for that reason the City corporation and the financial services sector welcome the Bill.
I also welcome the legal services chapter, but again there is more that we can do to extend the definition of mutual recognition of professional qualifications beyond lawyers, as it currently stands, as very often accountants and others work in multidisciplinary teams now.
I am pleased with the work done on justice and security co-operation, although I hope that we will be able to find a better means to deal with access to SIS II, because we have had compelling evidence on the Justice Committee of the importance of that. Again, that is something that we can build upon. I hope also that there will be a spirit of co-operation in which we can deal with other matters of critical importance that are not directly covered by the Bill, such as agreeing early accession to the Lugano convention on civil justice co-operation and enforcement of judgments. There is no reason now why that should not be pursued with the utmost speed, so that we can ratify as soon as possible.
Finally, there is the matter of an obligation that we have to the people of Gibraltar. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. We gave a clear undertaking to the people of Gibraltar—who, although they voted overwhelmingly to remain in Europe, are equally determined to remain part of the British family—that we would not leave them behind and would not leave the European Union without securing a deal for them, too. I hope that when he responds to the debate, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will confirm our Government and our nation’s continuing commitment to use every endeavour in the coming days to get a deal for the people of Gibraltar that protects their interests and respects their British sovereignty. We gave our word. Our future reputation in a global world will depend on our ability to keep our word; here is a swift and immediate instance where we can be seen to do so. That is a matter of political and moral obligation.
Against that basis, there are constructive things that we can do—set aside, perhaps, divisions of the past and work together collaboratively as a nation with our friends and neighbours, and those who we have given our word to support and assist. I will support the Bill today.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Despite the Government doing their best to limit parliamentary scrutiny, we now see how the promises of the 2016 leave campaign, led by the Prime Minister, compare with reality.
Despite all the promises to the fishing industry, the vast increase in quota has not been delivered. Even after six years, half of the 87 fish stocks listed in the deal produce no gain or less than a 1% shift of allowable catch from EU to UK fishermen. Only 13 stocks will produce more than a 5% shift. Indeed, the removal of the ability of EU and UK fishermen to swap quota means that landings of many species, such as cod and haddock, will actually be less than now. The Prime Minister’s claim of no non-tariff barriers is patently laughable. The costs of customs bureaucracy and seafood devaluing in lorry queues means that many fishermen will be worse off after Brexit. In exchange for this poor deal, we will pay a high price as individuals: the loss of EU citizenship; the loss of the right to study, work, love and live anywhere in 31 other countries—a right that we have all enjoyed but that we are taking away from the next generation; the loss of recognition for professional qualifications; and over 4 million EU and UK citizens, such as my husband, having to apply for the right to remain in their homes.
In this year of all years, we have cause to be grateful to those immigrants who have been working in our health and care services or as key workers, keeping us safe, maintaining food and energy supplies, and keeping our public services working. We value those who choose to make Scotland their home, whether they come from Europe or further afield, and who contribute their knowledge, skills and energy to our public services, our communities and, in my case, our families. The people of Scotland are outward looking and reject the isolationism and small-minded pettiness that have led the Government even to remove the opportunities of Erasmus+ for young people. So much for the 2014 promises of “Vote no to stay in the EU” and “Scotland is an equal partner in a family of nations”.
Scots have the democratic right to choose their own path and to take their future into their own hands. I believe they will choose for Scotland to become a modern, independent European country in its own right.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
After sharing many conversations with friends around the House and on various Benches, I am sorry to say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and many on the Opposition Benches. I am going to vote, alongside Members of the Dáil and Parliaments around Europe, to back this treaty. I am going to recognise that the European Union has made an offer and we have accepted it, and that we have made one and they have accepted it, and I am going to respect that. That is why I am going to vote with the Government today.
After the last four years, nobody can claim that breaking up is easy, so I am delighted that I was here to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) speak, because what he said, he said with his usual candour. He respects our interdependence, and he respects that that interdependence comes at a cost when we assert independence from it. I respect that; he is right. He also made it clear that sovereignty is deeper than deals: it is in the Government’s robustness and preparedness and in their willingness to defend our interests with vigour. Great Britain, as he rightly said, has guarded its sovereignty in this agreement.
After years of acrimony and anger, it is time to end the constitutional Kama Sutra that has left us all bruised, exhausted and distracted from our families, our friends and our communities. It is time to move on.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
In constituencies such as mine there was great division around Brexit and the referendum. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Division bell rings today and the deal goes through, it is time to heal those divisions and to move forward together as one Union?
Tom Tugendhat
I absolutely agree. We have been in the EU for only 47 years—that is the lifespan of a Hohenzollern empire. We are leaving the EU, just as Germany left that empire, and we will find a new way of working together. This deal is but the first step on that journey; it is just the concordat that bridges the channel and looks to future co-operation.
Many areas are overlooked; many people have mentioned them, and I know will build into them. Building on the rule of law, our close partnership with like-minded democracies, our new alliances with European countries and other countries around the world, and our global ambition—in many ways that was the building block for the Union of our four nations, which still lives in the hearts of our people today—we can see our people prosper in security and peace for years to come. Indeed, we have achieved that as an island nation for longer than almost any other nation.
The history of that stability is one reason why the Foreign Affairs Committee has heard from people such as the King of Jordan and the former President of Liberia, Nobel peace prize winners, former Foreign Ministers, business leaders and diplomats that British leadership has been missed for too long. They recognise that what we offer is worth having. We need now to invest in our foreign services and co-ordinate our Departments to deliver abroad, and we need to do more than roll over trade deals.
Wars are not won by defence but, as NATO doctrine puts it, by offensive action. We need to be bold if we are to chart a different future and we need to build on the Prime Minister’s coming visit to India and the wider alliance that is coming together in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. We would be welcomed hugely, and I have been told clearly by many, particularly by the Pacific democracies. We have a chance to renew international co-operation and commit ourselves to the environmental revolution that is so essential as we chair the G7 and COP26. This Government have the chance to set the agenda that the world needs to protect democracy at a time of autocracy and to defend the rule of law. We can make Glasgow the next milestone after Paris in the path to a greener world. Britain will succeed if we remember our friends in Europe, the Commonwealth and the world, if we renew our alliances and build new partnerships, and if we develop new, greener markets and industries, innovate and invest in ourselves. This is a new beginning and we alone are responsible for seizing it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a gentle reminder that, if there are interventions, it does take time away from others who have been put on the list and drawn.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Today, we are faced with a choice between this flawed deal or no deal. I do not welcome this deal, and there is plenty in it that I do not like, but I accept it. I accept that it is better than no deal. It is the least worst option on offer today. It is the least worst option for business. It is the least worst option for supply chains, for the economy and for jobs. Speaking to local businesses in Lancaster and Fleetwood, they tell me that they are relieved that this deal will provide some certainty, finally, after four-and-a-half years of uncertainty. Although everything in it might not be what they want, at least they have something to work with other than those Government adverts that say, “Get ready for Brexit.”
Let us face it: this deal falls far short of what the Government promised. I want to reserve most of my remarks today to fishing. Vote leave, led by the Prime Minister, promised to secure “an even better deal” than the one that was tariff-free for fishers and that offered full control over access and quota as well as frictionless trade of course. That is important because we export 80% of what we catch, mostly into the EU, and import 70% of what we eat. The industry has called for free unimpeded trade on fish and fisheries products to ensure that supply chain continuity. As we leave the common fisheries policy, it is clear that the Government’s demands in negotiations have been severely watered down in the final agreement that we see today. When it comes to over-promising and under-delivering, this Prime Minister certainly has form. The reality is that the communities, such as my own in Fleetwood, who voted to leave the EU on bold promises about the regeneration of fishing will be left very disappointed.
I want to make a few remarks about the £100 million promise that has come from the Government in recent days and I say this: it had better be more real than the promise of £350 million a week for the NHS that was plastered on the side of a bus. That £100 million will not be enough to truly transform coastal communities up and down these islands who desperately need that investment, and that is the reason why many of them chose to vote to leave the European Union.
I will vote for this Bill today, because the old divisions between leave and remain are over and the two options before us today are leaving with a flawed deal or leaving with no deal tomorrow. I shall cast my vote in the national interest. I do so not because I think that this is a good deal—and I reserve the right to criticise it, which I certainly will be doing in this House—but because I want to put the national interest first, unlike those who play politics by voting down this Bill today.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this historic debate today. Thanks to this agreement, we will finally be leaving the European Union forever on new year’s eve, so perhaps Big Ben will bong for Brexit after all. Nigel Farage memorably said last week that “the war is over”. Well, sometimes, as you will well remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, it has felt like a war in this place. Perhaps we should now take on board the advice of the Prophet Isaiah who said:
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
In that case, I and my spartan friends should now lower our spears too, but perhaps keep them to hand just in case one day, someone—perhaps the Leader of the Opposition—should try and take us back in.
My colleagues in the European Research Group have fought long and hard for this day and we have sometimes been lampooned or even vilified by the remain-dominated electronic media for our trouble, when all we have ever wanted is one thing: to live in a free country that elects its own Government and makes its own laws here in Parliament, and then lives under them in peace. Now, thanks to the Prime Minister, who kept his word to the country and got Brexit done, who did exactly what it said on the tin, as our star chamber has verified, we can do that. What I call the battle for Brexit is now over. We won, but I suspect the battle for the Union is now about to begin.
We are about to write a new chapter in what Sir Winston Churchill called our “island story”, but now, after a truly epic struggle, we will do it as a free people. Despite all the brickbats we have endured for years—I think particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—it was always worth the fight. Mel Gibson once made a very entertaining film but this is cry freedom for real, and now, finally, it is true.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) [V]
At the outset, I thank the Irish Government and Michel Barnier for standing up for the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland when others refused to do it. The majority of people in Northern Ireland, of course, voted to reject leaving the European Union and they still reject it today. This Boris Johnson deal does not address the core problem with Brexit for us. We have chosen a different path from the one driven by English nationalism. While we welcome the fact that a no-deal outcome has been avoided, we have absolutely no intention of giving our consent or endorsement to an outcome that will make people poorer. This is the first example of a trade deal in modern history that actually puts up barriers to trade. The protocol protects us from a hard border in Ireland—yes it does—but this deal still will damage our economy, our society and our public services in a range of areas. Whether it is on services, roaming or policing and justice, this deal puts us in a far worse place than we are in right now, and I, for one, refuse to apologise for voting against it. Our position has remained consistent throughout.
My firm view now is that the United Kingdom is coming to an end. I say this in the full understanding that many in my community will see the break-up of the Union as a tragedy, and I fully respect that position. Just because I believe that the Union is ending does not mean I say it in a tone of thoughtless triumphalism. It instead places a solemn responsibility on us to manage the relationships across these islands. Our scarred history places a moral duty upon us. We need to conduct the coming conversation with patience, care and compassion. The prize is to build a shared homeplace for all our people, but a new Ireland will not be built upon the rubble of our past, and I want to appeal to some of my fellow nationalists: there is no future in glorifying the ugliness of our past. Stop pretending that murdering unarmed farmers up country lanes was somehow heroic. There is no future worth having to be built upon that narrative.
To my Unionist neighbours, I want to say this: look at where the DUP has led you and look at where London has left you. It is my firm conviction that we can build a new society together—one built on mutual respect, which recognises and celebrates all our rich traditions. We in the SDLP will remain true to that proud heritage. We will be patient and generous, but we will also be honest about our view of the unfolding constitutional realities. Young people everywhere rejected Brexit. Thankfully, in Northern Ireland, young people will have a choice again. They will be able to choose a European future again. They will be able to choose an open, liberal and modern future, which is a prize worth fighting for. As John Hume said—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has well overrun his time, so I thank him for his speech, but we now move on to David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In normal times, this House would have been packed to the rafters with people listening to the Prime Minister’s speech, because this is a new beginning for our country. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt that, in two days, our freedom and our sovereignty will be much greater than they were as a result of the treaty.
In terms, the treaty is better—much better—than would have been achieved under the previous strategy. The Prime Minister and Lord David Frost have done a fantastic job on delivering it. They delivered it by standing up to the European Union and calling its bluff successfully, time and time again. They have delivered an outcome that we can make the most of.
Peter Kyle
I was in this place when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Dispatch Box and he promised the House that we would have the “exact same benefits” from Brexit. When he was challenged to put that in law, he said that we did not need to put it in law, because he had given his word. How does he reflect on that period and the failure to deliver the exact same benefits he promised?
Mr Davis
That is the point. First, it was a negotiating aim, as the hon. Gentleman’s leader said at the time, but secondly, that is why I resigned. The strategy that we were pursuing then did not, and would not, deliver that. The only honourable thing I could do was to stand down.
This treaty is a new beginning, which is not to say that it is perfect—I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. On Northern Ireland, we have issues to deal with. On fishing, we have issues to deal with, which I will come back to. On Gibraltar, we have issues to deal with. It is not over. All will lead to uncomfortable decisions in the near future.
Freedom is only as good as what we do with it; it is only as good as how we exploit it. One day, frankly, is not enough for us to deal with a 1,200 page treaty in that respect. Some may say, “Well, surely it’s a day to celebrate—to vote yes and move on,” but not at all, because the European Union will, of course, use the treaty to its own advantage. We can look at the past and see how it has done that.
For example, Switzerland struck a whole load of trade treaties, primarily in the ’90s, but subsequently as well, with the European Union. About four or five years ago, the Swiss people voted to restrict their migration and cut back on the free movement of people. The European Union bullied the Swiss Government into giving in by saying, “We will withdraw all the free trade arrangements we currently have.” That is important, because we have not been through the whole 1,200 pages here to make sure that we do not have any such issues in there. We do have one in the fishing arrangements. In five years’ time, the EU can trigger an end to the trade and transport elements. That is not impossible—we can deal with it—but we will have to devise a strategy for that.
My point to the House is that we have to come back to this treaty and look at it in detail—all 1,200 pages—to devise a strategy, so we do not get into conflicts with the European Union, fall into traps or get into acrimonious disputes with the member states. They are our neighbours and friends, and we have to devise a strategy that will keep them as neighbours and friends and maximise our joint benefits. If the House does that, we will have a bright future. To come back to the point of the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), we will have better than the exact same benefits, because we will have bigger opportunities in the rest of the world, as the Department for International Trade has already demonstrated, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. On that basis, I will vote for this treaty.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I very much hope that if hon. Members who are down to speak intervene on others, they will shorten their own speeches accordingly. If people want to take interventions, it is probably a good idea to run a little short, as the right hon. Gentleman just did.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In my brief contribution, I wish to say that I feel very strongly about Europe. We are leaving the European Union; we are not leaving Europe.
I am a war baby. I was born in London on the worst day of the blitz for London. After the war—that terrible period in European history—the move to start a Europe with the watchword to “make war unthinkable” was inspirational. It was to be a Europe that was wealthy, powerful and a great influence on the democracies of the world. We still need that spirit.
I sit on the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, so I have been privileged to hear a great deal of evidence. Although I am sure this is not the best deal we could possibly have had, it is a much better deal than I expected, so I will support it in the Division Lobbies tonight. This is the time for the renewal of the European spirit. We are still in Europe. This agreement is a building block. We can build on it, and we must build on it if we are to make this world a safer and more secure place, if we are to stand up to the global threats from China and Russia, and if we are to stand up to the threats of covid, global warming and climate change. Europe must work together.
Given all the evidence, we ought to thank Michel Barnier, who has been tough but is a true European, and Ursula von der Leyen, who is an inspired leader. We should also recognise the support behind them from Angela Merkel and President Macron. It was, in part, inspired leadership across Europe that gave us this deal; it was not just the true Brits fighting for a good deal. It was a good piece of statesmanship and I applaud it.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
I was really pleased that the Prime Minister secured this deal. It will mean so much to so many, and I support it.
I was, however, disappointed that the deal was linked to our fishing waters. To say that fishermen are disappointed is an understatement, and I share their disappointment. I do understand that the EU originally demanded access to our six to 12-mile limit for 40 years and that the negotiators managed to reduce it to five and a half years. In order to give the industry certainty, I hope that we will see July 2026 as an end date enshrined in legislation and that the Government will compensate for this to happen.
I ask that we take advantage of our new-found freedom from the European Court of Justice to restore the principles enshrined in Margaret Thatcher’s Merchant Shipping Act 1988. We must make sure that all UK quota is available for UK-owned boats. The disastrous Factortame ruling must be reversed.
I ask that licences issued to foreign-owned vessels fishing in our six to 12-mile limit are stringently enforced. The right of arrest given to the Royal Navy police must be extended beyond the six-month period, with any breach of our rules resulting in the impounding of the vessel and gear. Canada showed the way with the arrests on the Estai in 1995.
Minimum landing requirements in UK ports should be introduced, with the limits set after consultation with industry representatives, in order to ensure no obstruction for UK vessels that land in ports in other countries.
We must take advantage of the five and a half year window to rebuild our fishing infrastructure, including new vessels, using the generous £100 million from the Treasury. I hope that the Chancellor will look to provide a little more, but I do understand the economic times we are in. Any grant aid must be distributed throughout the whole United Kingdom and benefit fishing vessel owners, as well as port infrastructure and processes.
We must prepare ourselves for 2026. With the UK an independent coastal state, the Minister can take decisions to free us from a fisheries management regime that has been hampered by the constraints of the CFP. We can honour our obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but be flexible to ensure all UK fishermen can benefit from this partial freedom and take the necessary steps to ready ourselves when we—as we must—really take back complete control of our waters in 2026. I will support this deal this evening.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
In over 30 years in this House, this is the most important and consequential piece of legislation on British-EU relations that I have taken part in. Let me say at the beginning that I will not be voting for this Tory Brexit deal today, but that is not because I do not respect the result of the 2016 referendum.
I think I have rather good Eurosceptic credentials. I voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992, and I have voted against most other pieces of further EU unification that have come in front of this House. However, I voted against the Maastricht treaty not because I was opposed to freedom of movement or because I had fears and concerns about EU migrants or because I had the notion that migrants drove down wages; I voted against the Maastricht treaty and other aspects of EU integration because of a concern about fundamental issues of democracy and accountability. By driving this historic deal through Parliament in one day, with no time for proper scrutiny, this Government are trashing democracy.
This deal falls short in many policy areas, but I want to talk about security. The Government claimed that they were going to get
“a security partnership of unprecedented breadth and depth”.
On the contrary, our access to Europol and to Eurojust has been compromised, and we will no longer have access to the European arrest warrant and to EU databases that allow for realtime data sharing, such as the Schengen Information System, and are valuable to our police and the National Crime Agency. The database was consulted over 600 million times by UK police forces in 2019.
In closing, I have the greatest respect for the result of the 2016 referendum, but this shoddy deal falls shorts. It fails the British people and fails my constituents, and I have to meet my responsibilities as a Member of the British Parliament and vote against it today.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) [V]
There are huge complexities in this deal, but there is a simple choice before us today: this deal or no deal. As someone who campaigned hard for remain in 2016, I have held two views very strongly since then: not only would it be wrong to try to overturn the result, as many of my hon. Friends believed, but leaving with no deal would be a terrible option for this country. Today, therefore, I will vote enthusiastically for this deal.
I congratulate the negotiating teams on both sides for showing, at the final stretch, the kind of practical pragmatism which, ironically, has always been held up as a positive British contribution to EU proceedings. I am also very grateful that the British negotiators went to the trouble of making some time to share and discuss matters with the One Nation Conservatives caucus in recent weeks.
There is no time today to go into the details. Although today is a triumph for the Government and for the Prime Minister, it is not a triumph for Parliament because this degree of scrutiny is clearly pretty laughable. However, it is worth registering two specific points, both of which are things that need to be built on. The first are the security arrangements. It is hugely regrettable that the UK has had to leave the SIS II regime for exchanging information about criminals. I hope that we can negotiate some equivalent in the future. The second is obviously the need to improve matters for the financial services industry. The arguments have been well rehearsed already. I hope that the necessary rules can be agreed in the coming months to allow the industry to flourish, not just in the City of London but around the UK. That strong likelihood of further talks in the committee structure that the deal sets up is one of the reasons why the deal is worth supporting enthusiastically. With no deal, there would have been no chance of such sectoral deals. There would have been bad blood instead of what I hope will become the habit of close co-operation. I hope that fervently because in recent days my constituents have seen the effects of blockages and delays at the ports, and if this goes on too long they and I will be very unhappy.
What is needed now is a spirit of generosity both in our internal debates—too much of the Brexit debate has been full of bile, hatred and personal attacks—and, even more important, in our attitude to countries that are our neighbours, our allies in democracy and our friends. We can make today the start of a new relationship of good neighbours rather than surly housemates, so let us take the opportunity, support the deal and move on.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
I am glad that the Government and the EU have agreed a deal. As the transition ends tomorrow night, our country should start the process of building new relationships and a future outside the EU, based on an agreement and a plan, not on the acrimony or chaos that no deal would have heralded. This is not the deal that the Prime Minister promised everyone—on services, which are left out; on red tape, which will increase; and on security co-operation, which will go down. He should level with people about those problems, not make impossible promises.
There are further urgent things we need the Government to do now to support jobs and security, but we need an agreement as a starting point. We left the EU in January; the transition ends tomorrow. Everyone needs to get on with things and no one deserves the chaos of no deal. Britain’s counter-terror chief told us that that would make us less safe, and employers in my constituency such as Tereos, Burberry, Haribo and Teva would be badly hit under no deal by tariffs and delays.
So it is in the national interest and in our local interest for this Brexit agreement to pass through Parliament now, and I shall vote for it today, but we need urgent action to improve the deal for this country. I am glad that it includes continued security co-operation on criminal records—DNA, Europol and extradition—although arrangements will be more bureaucratic, but there is a huge gap for us. Tomorrow night the police and Border Force will have to remove access to the details of 38,000 wanted suspects and criminals from the EU on the SIS II criminal database, which they check hundreds of millions of times a year. The replacement Interpol information system database is much slower and weaker. That makes our security response weaker too. There is not a proper trade deal on services, and there will be a massive increase in red tape for businesses—11 million customs forms that have to be filled in. Those costs will hit jobs and investment.
So we need to look forward to the things that the Government need to do now, once the Brexit agreement is in place, to support security and jobs—resources for the police to operate the new arrangements; look again at SIS II and work to improve Interpol; a new trade plan for services to reduce customs red tape; a proper industrial policy to support communities; and higher, not lower, environmental and labour standards.
We also need urgent action to heal the divides. The ultimate test of the Prime Minister’s deal and future plan is what he uses it for—whether to strengthen the United Kingdom or to divide and destroy it; whether he pushes Scotland away and deepens the divide between north and south. So far in the north this year we have not seen any of the levelling up that the Government promised. We have seen power and control centralised. Our communities still want a fair deal. That is what we should unite around now.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is a matter of public record that I have had my points of difference with this Government and this Prime Minister since the Brexit referendum, but unlike many, I never questioned that we had a clear result from a free and fair referendum and I always hated the rather unkind view that people who voted leave were somehow hoodwinked or too daft to know what they were doing.
There were just two red lines on which I and my constituents insisted. One was the transition period—a key ask of business, if we remember—and the other was that we leave with a deal in place between the UK and its closest neighbours, our largest trading partner, which does not seem like a radical thought to me. As I said to the Prime Minister on Christmas Eve, I pay huge tribute to him for his statecraft and for sticking to the word that he gave me both publicly and privately that he wanted a deal with the EU and would do everything in his power to secure one.
I will support the deal today, and not just because it avoids the no deal many feared and that so many of our opponents spent an election campaign just 12 months ago warning would herald some form of national apocalypse. How ironic that they will vote today for the hardest Brexit of all—I listened with interest to the Leader of the Liberal Democrats confirming that. I will support the deal because it is a good deal for Britain. It does what we promised at the election last year. The Prime Minister said that he would get Brexit done, and last year’s European Union withdrawal agreement was passed within days of his securing a majority in this place to allow that. That was the oven-ready deal, and we should not allow others to rewrite history.
The future relationship in the Bill before us today did not go anywhere near the oven until the eleventh hour, but it has come out very nicely and I welcome it. Ultimately, however, it is just the framework—wide enough to do all the things the Prime Minister set out this morning, giving businesses, citizens and law enforcement what they need, notwithstanding the SIS II concerns, which I share, but nimble enough to let this country forge its own way in the world. For me, the success or otherwise of this new chapter, as many have said, is not in the 1,200 pages and various appendices before us today. That is all still to be written.
Given the time, let me touch on just one area, that of services—financial services in particular. I understand that there is a lot of noise about what is not included, but that rather misses the point. To summarise, the title, under services and investment, seems to have extracted an agreement not to put unreasonable or unnecessary impediments in the way of UK financial service businesses seeking to operate in the EU. That is welcome. May I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, through the Ministers who are now on the Front Bench, what this means in practice given that the agreement does not protect UK passporting rights, as many have said today? What work needs to take place now so that financial service firms can be clear?
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
On passporting, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the ball is in the EU’s court to get this done, not least because if the deals we are working on with our friends in the US, Australia and New Zealand work out as we intend them to, we will be in a much stronger position than we are now.
Steve Brine
I agree with my hon. Friend, who has experience of working in the sector. The deal is in many ways a basis on which we can build. There is always a way to structure services, as he well knows, and of course many businesses put measures in place long ago, through EU brokers, for instance. I want those on the Front Bench to answer that point when they respond to the debate today.
Although we have left the political structures of the EU, this country will remain culturally, emotionally, historically and strategically attached to Europe, not least through the 4 million EU nationals who are our friends and neighbours and who include many of my constituents. We have a new future to look forward to. It will not be the same, and we should not pretend that it will—we should never have pretended that it would—and that is okay. It is time to come together and to move on.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I was walking down New Church Road in my constituency yesterday when I was stopped by a man who was out for walk with his young daughter. He explained to me that he was a real remainer. He had voted and campaigned for remain, and supported remain all the way through, and he had supported the idea that I co-championed with Phil Wilson for a confirmatory referendum. He had really felt in his heart that he wanted our country to remain, yet he told me that when the Prime Minister came back with a deal on Christmas eve, he rushed to the fridge with his wife and opened a bottle of champagne that he was saving for the next day. He did so because he knew the impact no deal would have on his business. It was hard to hear somebody say that they were celebrating this deal, but I understand why and it really impacts on the way that I am voting today.
The man I met is lucky because his business, which exports products into EU countries and other European countries, is in the 20% of the economy covered by this deal. He is now preparing himself for the additional paperwork and bureaucracy, and having to take on extra staff to do it, but he is covered by some of the deal. But 80% of the economy is not. A person in the financial services sector working in Chester, Manchester or Edinburgh is left behind. Someone with a professional qualification who seeks to use it in another country is left behind. People in the creative or performing arts sector are left behind. A young person in education who is looking to explore their full potential across Europe and beyond is left behind.
None the less, I am in no doubt that supporting any deal is better than the chaos of no deal. Nor am I in any doubt that if we inflicted defeat on the Government today, they would not extend or renegotiate. This is a Government who would drive us out with no deal tomorrow. That is a price that we cannot afford. I did not go into politics and become a member of Parliament to be a politician who votes one way and secretly hopes for another outcome. I am not a member of a party that wants to let other parties do the heavy lifting. That is why I will step up and take responsibility for what is in the best interests of our country, support the deal and fight for it to be a starting point, not the end.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
This is a deal that many felt could not be done, but it is a deal that the Prime Minister and the negotiators on both sides have secured that ensures that there are zero tariffs and zero quotas. It is a deal that has been welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Salmon Producers Association, the CBI and many, many more. But while some thought it could not be done, it now seems clear that some hoped it could not be done, because despite spending months suggesting the dire consequences of a no-deal Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will vote for precisely that today.
That same politician, Nicola Sturgeon, said just a couple weeks ago:
“A deal, any deal, is better than a No Deal.”
The SNP’s Westminster leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), said in the House of Commons:
“No deal will result in unprecedented harm”.—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 337.]
He even tabled an amendment last year pledging
“not to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and future framework under any circumstances”.
Yet by their votes tonight, SNP Members are voting for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union in just over 24 hours’ time with no deal at all. That is dangerous and reckless, and clear for everyone to see.
On fishing, I agree with the Prime Minister. I would have preferred by far a shorter adaptation period, but over the next five and a half years, we will see a 25% transfer of quota from the European Union to UK fishermen—15% in the first year. We will see £100 million invested in the sector by the UK Government, and great opportunities for fishermen and communities up and down the country in the years ahead.
Earlier, a remark was made about something I may be drinking, as a result of comments I made previously. What I was speaking about then was staying in the common fisheries policy—the policy the United Kingdom will be coming out of from 1 January. So the only thing I will be drinking on Hogmanay this year is a glass of fine Scotch whisky from one of my many Moray distilleries that has its geographical indicator secured by this deal and recognised by the European Union in the future, toasting the fact that we are coming out of the CFP. The only betrayal of our fishermen that we can see in the future is by the Scottish National party, which would take us straight back into the CFP.
As we leave 2020 behind, with a deal and renewed hope in our fight against covid-19 as a result of this morning’s great news about the second vaccine being made available for use in the United Kingdom, here in Scotland we have to get the focus back on supporting jobs, individuals, families and communities, which for the past 13 years have been so badly let down by the SNP Scottish Government. That is where our focus has to be in the days, weeks and months ahead.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Members of this House have been recalled to vote on legislation of which we were given no sight until yesterday, to implement a trade deal that we have barely seen and had no input into whatsoever. Let us be clear about what is being asked of the House today: to issue a blank cheque to the Government to implement a deal that is devoid of democratic oversight.
Let us also put to bed the idea that today’s vote is about deal versus no deal—that false framing is used to hold the House to ransom. Members are today tasked with the democratic oversight of how a done deal, which we cannot amend, will be implemented. Does the restoration of sovereignty not extend to democratic oversight by elected Members of this House, or is sovereignty to be restored only to the Executive? It is a great irony that Members are allowed less democratic oversight of the deal’s implementation than our friends in the European Parliament, who have until the end of February to scrutinise and ratify the deal.
Change was what the public were promised: more control over lawmaking, more power for people in this country, and less done by bureaucrats behind closed doors. How are those promises fulfilled through less scrutiny, less accountability and less democracy? Where in the Bill is a clause restoring sovereignty to where it should rightfully be—with the people of this country? Change was demanded and more control was promised, yet what we are presented with today is, ironically, more of the same: unaccountability; power concentrated in the hands of a few; and an over-centralised Government evading scrutiny to act in favour of vested interests and to impose decisions from the top down.
With mere hours to debate the Bill, Members are being asked to act as a rubber stamp, and to forgo our obligation and responsibility for democratic oversight. For example, many of the regulatory bodies and mechanisms used to settle disputes between the EU and the UK will be set up without any further scrutiny or oversight by Parliament. Brexit has shone a light on the deep democratic deficits in our arcane political system. Making good on this change demanded a new and codified constitution to give over sovereignty from this place to where it should rightfully lie—with the people of this country. We now urgently need to forge a modern democratic settlement to protect the hard-won rights and freedoms that are at risk of being run over roughshod by this Executive, who we know are champing at the bit to capitulate to the deregulatory demands of turbo-charged capitalism.
I cannot in good conscience support a process that runs roughshod over checks and balances. I will not vote for more centralisation of power or comply with the erosion of an already weak democracy. I will play no part in giving this Government a blank cheque to bulldoze through democratic oversight. I will not be voting in support of this legislation.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
This is a day that has been so long in the coming: from the inspiration of Margaret Thatcher’s speech at Bruges; from when I was elected national chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students, but vetoed by the current Lord Speaker, who was the then chair of the Conservative party, because I was leading the student opposition to the Maastricht treaty; and from being a young research assistant, when an undergraduate at Southampton University, crafting amendments to the Maastricht treaty for my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Why were we doing that—why were we opposing that treaty? It was because we could see the destination: a flag, an anthem, a currency, a Parliament and citizenship. We passionately believed that we did not need to be citizens of a trading organisation. That is why leave won the referendum: because the European Union, given the journey it is now on, is not right for the character of Britain.
We would not have won that referendum were it not for the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and, by the way, the intellectual heft of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. When the Prime Minister resigned as Foreign Secretary—he spoke from somewhere around here on these Benches in his resignation statement—he said:
“It is not too late to save Brexit…We need to take one decision now before all others, and that is to believe in this country and in what it can do”.—[Official Report, 18 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 450.]
I remember those words being met with deep scepticism—and that was from the generous ones—as well as outright hostility. Some of us believed then that we needed to make my right hon. Friend Prime Minister. The chances at that time seemed vanishingly small. He himself said that he had about as much chance of becoming Prime Minister as being “reincarnated as an olive”, “decapitated by a frisbee” or “blinded by a champagne cork”. There were moments when we thought the hat-trick of all three was more likely than him becoming Prime Minister, and he believed that himself. Today is, above all, a personal triumph for the Prime Minister.
Jonathan Gullis
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke absolutely believe in this Prime Minister, hence why I am fortunate to be in my place on these Conservative Benches. Does my hon. Friend agree that this deal delivers on not only Vote Leave’s pledges, but the pledges made in 2019 Conservative manifesto?
Conor Burns
I absolutely agree. Knowing the Prime Minister as I do, I can say that he will not let down my hon. Friend’s constituents. My hon. Friend will be rightly rewarded at the next general election for how the Prime Minister will deliver for him and his constituents.
Conor Burns
I think that doing so would test the patience of the Chair, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) would welcome an intervention when she speaks.
We are now talking about the future relationship, and today marks the day when the British dog finally leaves the federalist manger. Our European friends can now pursue their ambitions unencumbered by reluctant Brits. We are no longer a reluctant and truculent member, but a sovereign equal and close friend.
We would be deluding ourselves if we believed that leaving the European Union was, in and of itself, a panacea or solution to the challenges that the United Kingdom faces. The new freedom that we take up as an independent sovereign country will be daunting. It will test our institutions, which are not used to having to make decisions for themselves. It will take time to adjust. As a Trade Minister, when I was looking at international trade agreements, I sensed a profound interest around the world in doing business with the United Kingdom. Our businesses will have to step up and seize the opportunities that the new free trade agreements will create. We could be at the dawn of a new golden era for this country. I relish the reality that, today, we are at last again the masters of our own destiny.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I emphasise again that I do not want to stop people taking interventions. However, if they do so, it would be helpful to colleagues if they shorten their speeches accordingly, because it is stopping others coming in—that is the point.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
When legislation has been rammed through Parliament inside a day, it has usually been to address some type of emergency, such as for the prevention of terrorism, but this is different. The Government did not have to run down the clock in negotiations, placing Parliament in this difficult position. We must not fall into the trap of an artificial choice between this bad deal and a no-deal situation.
The agreement was negotiated by this Conservative Government. No other party was asked for its input. The Conservative Government have a majority of 80. They own this deal, this outcome and all the consequences that flow from it. No one needs to run to the rescue of the Government. I am not prepared to be a rubber stamp. I am not prepared to legitimise or even acquiesce to this monumental act of self-harm. We must have the ability to stand up for and represent our constituents, and to make it clear that this is not good enough.
The Government seem obsessed with some abstract and antiquated concept of sovereignty. However, we live in an interdependent world. We cannot maximise prosperity, achieve social inclusion, protect the environment, address climate change, defeat pandemics, fight terrorism and organised crime, and project influence around the world if we are in splendid isolation and without pooling sovereignty. The notion of a global Britain is a contradiction in terms. The UK is retreating from the international stage and erecting more, not fewer, barriers to trade.
The opportunities and benefits that our citizens have taken for granted for generations are being stripped away. For Northern Ireland, Brexit itself poses significant challenges to a society and economy that only works based on sharing and interdependence. Brexit means new borders and new friction, which creates needless tension. I welcome the fact that the EU recognised this dilemma right from the outset. We are not fans of the protocol, but it is the product of the UK’s decisions around Brexit and the consequent need to protect the Good Friday agreement. It gives us a degree of protection and at least preserves some access to the European Union, but it still brings us challenges.
I am grateful for the work on the flexibilities and mitigations that were agreed in recent weeks, yet how effective the protocol will be in managing the situation remains unclear. While Northern Ireland may have free access to both Great Britain and the EU, that applies only to goods, not to services or free movement. Brexit and the approach taken by this Government have recklessly shaken the foundations of the Good Friday agreement. We do not know whether or how things will settle in the future.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
We stand on the verge of once more becoming an independent country with control over our laws, money, trade and borders. There have been some difficult compromises, especially with the delay in securing a much greater share of our rich marine resources, and there is more to be done on services, but the deal stands up to scrutiny. It does not bind us into the EU’s laws or its Court. It is a trade agreement between sovereign equals. It gets Brexit done.
The Prime Minister has delivered what many Members said would be impossible in just 11 months, and despite the covid emergency. The regaining of our freedom at 11 pm tomorrow will mark a historic turning point. Some disruption is inevitable when there is change on this scale, but we can get through that and seize the opportunities provided by our new-found independence. This should be a moment of national renewal in which we choose better, more adaptable, modern regulation to compete more effectively around the world, create jobs and raise living standards for everyone.
We must ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol does not divide our precious Union. The FTA helps us to do that, because it requires the EU to act proportionately on formalities for goods entering its single market, but we must also develop alternative arrangements to replace the protocol altogether.
The UK’s relationship with the European Union has divided our politics since the 1950s. I was one of the 28 Eurosceptic Conservatives to vote three times against the former Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement—every time it came before the House. We were under immense pressure to accept that deal, but the backstop it contained would have left us as a client state, trapped in the European Union’s regulatory orbit forever. With that hanging over us, there was no way an FTA on equal terms would have been possible.
For this country, belonging to the EU means vesting supreme lawmaking power in people we do not elect and cannot remove. We in this country pioneered the democratic system of government and exported it around the world; now, we are bringing democracy home.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank the House staff who have made today’s proceedings possible. They have come at the 11th hour, as the Prime Minister was desperate for a Christmas miracle, but this deal is better than no deal and gives us something to build on.
The Nissan plant in my constituency is the largest Nissan plant in Europe, proving the north-east’s worth to the world’s automotive industry. It must continue to be so in the post-Brexit world. I welcome the work of both negotiating teams to avoid immediate tariffs on vehicle exports in the new year. However, the deal states that all vehicles exported into the EU must be of at least 55% UK or EU content by 2027. As manufacturers such as Nissan work hard to adapt to those requirements, what support will be offered to the sector to meet that threshold?
To comply with the rules of origin, electric vehicle batteries and their components must be of UK or EU origin by 2024. I welcome Britishvolt’s announcement of a battery gigafactory in Blyth in Northumberland that will be manufacturing by 2024. However, the battery manufacturer Envision AESC in my constituency, which serves Nissan, recently cut 100 new jobs because of coronavirus pressures. What will the Government do to support existing battery manufacturers in the UK and encourage further investment into the UK by battery manufacturers?
Brexit has always been about damage limitation for the automotive industry. However, if the Government act accordingly, the next three years offer an incredible opportunity to level up, especially in the north-east. The Government must commit now to ensuring that areas with large car manufacturing plants, such as the north-east, are the beneficiaries of the development of a domestic supply chain of components such as electrodes, which are at the moment predominantly imported from Asia. By 2024, they must be sourced within the rules of origin.
There is no Christmas eve miracle that can magic up an electrode factory overnight. The localisation of the supply chain is essential to the just-in-time supply model that is so important to Nissan’s success and will minimise any delays. Will the Government commit to developing a localised supply chain in their upcoming refreshed industrial strategy, to ensure that our automotive giants such as Nissan can continue to trade tariff-free? We have got the deal, which I will vote for, but we are not at the end of the road for the UK automotive industry just yet, so I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
It has been quite a journey from the gridlock of the last Parliament to our consideration of this legislation on a new deal with the European Union today. I welcome it, and I join others in congratulating the Prime Minister on quite an extraordinary achievement.
Overall, this deal ticks all the boxes of zero tariffs on goods and zero quotas, and it brings back our sovereignty and control of our money and our borders. But as is always the case, it is in the detail that we will find the imperfections and the questions to be asked, and the Treasury Committee will be very active over the coming weeks and months in carrying out that scrutiny. We will look at questions around the level playing field and the issue of regulatory divergence. It remains to be seen how the mechanisms in this agreement will ultimately set the balance between fair competition and the pursuit of legitimate competitive advantage or allow for appropriate Government support for the sectors that we wish to develop further.
There are questions around the rules of origin. It has been pointed out that zero tariffs only apply provided the rules of origin are met. The fact that we have bilateral cumulation between the EU and the UK is welcome, but are these rules of origin too restrictive, and are the transitions around them—particularly, for example, for electric vehicles—adequate for the adjustments that will be required? There are questions around sanitary and phytosanitary regulations and around our access to services, which, on the face of it, looks pretty good in this agreement, but there are many annexes setting out exceptions.
There is also the critical issue of access for our financial services, which are such an important part of our economy. We await the memorandum of understanding with great interest and expectation. This is about not only the nature of how equivalence is set but whether the European Union has the ability to withdraw those arrangements and that equivalence at short notice, which could be so damaging to the sector. The Governor of the Bank of England will appear before the Treasury Committee before the recess is out to discuss those issues. Finally, there will be issues around trade frictions and how prepared or otherwise we are to deal with those over the coming weeks and months.
Today we move on. If we play it right, this will lead to better, not worse, relationships with our European neighbours. With that in mind, let us not lose hold of at least the vision of the EU’s founding fathers: that a continent that had been the crucible of two world conflagrations should live together in peace, co-operation and friendship. Let us never forget that. It is still a vision for all of us to live by.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Feasgar math agus tapadh leibh, Madam Deputy Speaker. I notice that the Prime Minister had some trouble earlier with “national” and “nationalist”, undoubtedly due to the better performance of the NHS in Scotland, which he probably calls the nationalist health service.
The hard Brexit deal that is about to be foisted on the UK economy will damage it by 4.9%. It is notable that the New York Times said that this trade deal is heavy on goods, where the EU has a surplus, and light on services, where the UK has a surplus—it is, as ever, the big guy winning, and the EU is winning this one.
This, in the UK context, is the Tories’ deal. It is their hard Brexit. They have ended up with a trade bloc that is smaller than the UK. Northern Ireland is out, and Scotland is leaving, too. The fact is that the UK had the Rolls-Royce of deals, but the Brexiteers have bypassed this, gone past the second-hand car shop and do not even want a motorbike; they are now at the back of the bicycle shop telling us that the unicycle is the best possible thing to do. They are extolling the virtues of the unicycle, but the people know better and can see through this Tory deal.
They should be absolutely frank about what they mean by tariff-free access. Under this deal, tariff-free access means lots-more-paper access—the bureaucrat is king. The achievement of Brexiteers is to turn the unelected European Union bureaucrat into a king. UK businesses and exporters must now satisfy the new kings of the UK, EU bureaucrats, and my shellfish producers and many others on the west coast of Scotland are unfortunately ignored.
The trade deal damages the economy by 4.9%. They talk of shiny new trade deals but, if this trade deal is worth £4.90, a USA trade deal is worth only 20p, if it ever happens; an Australia trade deal is worth only 2p, if it ever happens; and a New Zealand trade deal is worth only a penny, if it ever happens. This all costs, and it is the Brexiteers who have foisted it upon the UK economy.
The British Poultry Council tells us that the price of UK-produced chicken in the UK is going to rise by 5% as a result. Gibraltar and the Falklands have been cast aside. The Brexiteers have effectively told the Falklands, “We have a deal, but you don’t. Too bad.” They talk about sovereignty, but France showed them last week that it has full, independent sovereignty. Dear Brexiteers, France is in the EU, as Scotland will be soon.
This takes me to the future. In 2014, 54% of Scotland voted for a UK in the EU, but 62% of Scotland voted for the EU. With 17 or 18 polls showing that Scotland is going for independence, it is pretty clear that Scotland is not a Brexit nation; it is a nation heading for independence. Hopefully, 6 May next year should determine that for us. It is time for Scotland to become a proper nation, and not under the self-centred UK.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
On 23 June 2016, 72% of the electorate in the Cities of London and Westminster voted to remain in the European Union. I was one of them. Like so many, I felt unsure and worried by the referendum result, but the majority of the UK electorate had spoken with a clear message. They felt left behind, ignored and alienated by those in this House, but more so by the unelected EU bureaucrats who had so much influence over their daily lives.
I am a democrat and, although I did not welcome the Brexit referendum result, I accepted it. Last year’s general election was viewed as a second referendum on our EU membership, and voters in places including Ashfield, Sedgefield, Burnley and West Bromwich gave their verdict a second time. They have changed the look and feel of the Conservative party for the better. I am proud to call blue wall Conservatives my colleagues.
I am also proud of what this Government have achieved, securing the largest-ever trade deal with our closest partners within 12 months. To have achieved this while dealing with a global pandemic is frankly incredible. I pay tribute to all those involved on both sides, and I pay personal tribute to the Prime Minister, who never gave up and showed such personal determination to the very end.
Although financial services are not covered in this deal, I am pleased to report that the City of London Corporation welcomes the trade deal and the joint declaration on financial services regulatory co-operation. Let us hope that further progress can be secured between the EU and the UK on equivalence and in other areas, such as data sharing and mutual recognition of qualifications.
With the UK outside the EU, it is perhaps natural to feel a competitor. However, being competitors does not need to mean that we are opponents. Successful UK financial markets will benefit the EU and vice versa. Both the EU and the UK can thrive and continue to work together on areas of mutual concern, including the green agenda, the digitisation of the economy and the response to covid-19.
I appreciate that some of my constituents will never come to terms with the fact that the UK has finally left the EU, but most do wish to unite this country and to live and trade on friendly terms with our partners across Europe. I say to everyone: it is now time to put these last torrid years behind us and work together to rebuild our economy following the pandemic. Today, as we ratify this extraordinary trade deal, we close a painful chapter in our nation’s history. It is an ending, but also a beginning: a new dawn for this great country of ours. We are no longer remainers or Brexiteers; we are one nation. I support this Bill.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
This hardest of Brexit deals, for which there is no mandate, is one that cuts British jobs, sidelines our services sector, undermines hard-won protections for the environment, workers’ rights and consumers, and turns Kent into a diesel-stained monument to hubris and political myopia. It is a deal that condemns us to live in a poorer, more unequal and more isolated Britain, and it leaves us less equipped to rise to the greatest challenge we face—the nature and climate emergencies. This deal does not have the explicit informed consent of the British people, and I shall vote against it later today.
Some will say that those of us who voted down some less-damaging forms of Brexit must take some responsibility. I can see that argument, but given such a narrow referendum result on the back of the most cynical, toxic and mendacious political campaign ever fought in this country and on an issue of such profound national importance, I believe it was right to campaign for a confirmatory referendum on the terms of any departure.
I want to tackle head-on the ludicrous accusation that to vote against this deal is to support no deal. That is clearly not the case. Whatever the Opposition parties do, sadly, the Government have a majority of 80 and this deal will pass. That is why I do regret the official Opposition’s decision to vote for a deal that they themselves admit will make this country poorer and hit the most vulnerable hardest of all. Now more than ever people deserve principled leadership based on conviction, not party political calculation. While I understand why some would prefer to abstain, abstention is still acquiescence. It is standing aside and allowing something to be passed into law that is harmful for this country.
There are some things so serious and so damaging in which we should not acquiesce. I am not prepared to acquiesce in the infliction of even greater economic hardship on my constituents. At this time of climate and nature emergency, I am not prepared to acquiesce in lower environmental standards and less rigorous enforcement of them. I will not be complicit in the creation of a smaller United Kingdom, with diminished global influence.
I will not turn my back on a project that is imperfect—yes, of course it is; what project of such ambition would not be?—but is based on one of history’s greatest and most noble experiments: bringing nations together to build peace out of the ruins of war. Now more than ever, in a world racked by insecurity and division, we should be cementing relationships with countries that share our values, not deliberately and knowingly cutting our ties with them.
I will not abandon what I believe, and I believe that leaving the EU is a profound mistake. Ironically, and too late, a majority of people in this country now agree. Voting against this deal is how we keep alive the belief in something better, and that is what I will do today.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will be delighted to hear that I am going to start with nuclear. I am delighted that part of this deal includes nuclear not only because it is right, but because it is vital for our future. If anybody wants to see a living example of EU co-operation, they should go down the road from where I am at the moment and find Hinkley Point nuclear power station. It is an absolutely burning example of what we have done with the co-operation of the French and others in making this an enormous success.
However, I would say to the Government that we should now upskill. We are going to do Sizewell, and rightly so, and I am hoping that we will get small and medium-sized reactors throughout the United Kingdom, and rightly so, but to do that we need to up our skills. Such skills were transferable around the world, and we now have the freedom to do that. EDF Energy has put an enormous amount of money into training facilities not just down here in Somerset, but across the United Kingdom. That is partly to do with decommissioning, partly to do with new build and partly to do with running the existing fleet of Magnox stations. We must embrace this because it is a future success. It is a success, so let us build on what we have got.
I also want to make a point about upland farming. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been to Exmoor. He knows how tough it can be for any upland farmer up on those hills. We are now free and can do what we want—the Agriculture Act 2020 has gone through—but I urge the Government to build on that. The use of the environmental land management scheme is fine, but I ask the Government to please not use our freedom within this Bill as an excuse to say that we will rewild at the drop of a hat or make farming more difficult across the United Kingdom.
My constituency also covers the lowest part of Somerset, which is the levels. The levels are beautiful and are unbelievably well managed. We went through hell in 2014; we have been through hell time and again. I urge the Government to not throw away what we have. It is a wonderful thing. I would like my right hon. Friend to confirm that the Government will not use this as an excuse to lower anything that gives farming the edge. I have absolute faith in this Government that they will fight for us.
My last point is this. The City of London is hugely important—so many colleagues have already said so—but the devil is in the detail and I think we have to see what the Government are going to do next. When my right hon. Friend winds up the debate, I would like him not only to allow us time to discuss this but to say what we are going to do next to safeguard the City of London.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I will vote for the Bill, as the choice is stark and clear. The important question is: what do we do after Friday? That is when the real work will begin. Gaps have already been identified, including the situation with services, especially legal and financial services; the travel position of our huge cultural and arts sector, particularly our world-leading music industry; and the rules of origin for manufacturing, not least the motor industry, whose revival has driven the midlands engine.
I want to focus not on our relations with our neighbours but on how the British state will actually respond. The EU, imperfect as it is, has had to carry a considerable amount of the weight of our own errors. The fault is not in our stars but in ourselves. This applies both to doctrine, with the stubborn refusal of the civil service and Governments to behave as others do to benefit our industry and our people, and to chronic inefficiency and incompetency in implementation. The Prime Minister talked about free ports. Perhaps he should focus on getting his Transport Secretary to sort out the gridlock at our existing ports.
There has been a lot of talk today about fish, but as an MP whose constituency is probably as far as you can get from the sea, I want to focus on industry. The Prime Minister talked about state aid, regional policy and our great biomedical industry. It was not the EU but NHS bureaucracy that insisted on buying vaccines from abroad, which is why we have only limited capacity and have to import them. It is only now that we are belatedly recognising that and building a new plant. However, it will be not in the north-east, which was the alternative site for it, but in the overheated Oxfordshire area. Oxford scientists have performed magnificently, but we must break this obsession with the south and back the midlands, the north, the west, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It was not the EU that forced us to produce only 1% of personal protective equipment in the UK before the covid crisis, which led to shortages, eye-watering costs and endless scandals. It was not the EU that forced the Government to build the new Navy ships abroad or to use trains from Germany rather than Derby, buses from China rather than Ballymena or Falkirk, and police cars for the north-west from Korea rather than Ellesmere Port. It was our own misguided authorities.
In conclusion, from Monday, whether it is from ministerial offices, Whitehall, town halls or quangos, from boardroom to shop floor the message must be clear: “Back Britain or back off. Shape up or ship out.” Only that way can we make Britain great again.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
The Government are right to take back control and to recreate our sovereignty in the United Kingdom. We do not just want legal sovereignty; we also want practical sovereignty, so I ask the Government today to spell out how they will be cutting our taxes, changing our laws and using our powers to grant aid and support businesses and individuals, free of the EU controls, to promote the prosperity of the British people. That is what Brexit was all about. We stand on the threshold of independence day, so bring on the measures.
I have a couple of worries about this agreement. The first is fishing. One of the great prizes of Brexit is to recapture control of our fishing stocks and to rebuild our coastal communities and our fishing industry. Will the Government today promise to legislate immediately to prevent pulse fishing and over-large trawlers, which are doing enormous damage to our marine environment and to our fish stocks? We could at least do that as proof that we intend to rebuild our marine environment and our own domestic fishing industry. Will the Government set out the details of plans to train new fishermen and fisherwomen ready for the extra capacity we will need? Will they provide grant in aid schemes, so that those individuals can acquire second-hand trawlers or commission new trawlers from British yards so that we are again expanding the capacity of our industry?
I am also worried about the position in Northern Ireland. To what extent is our sovereignty damaged or impaired by the special relationships and special provisions of the withdrawal Act? I thought they were going to be changed in this latest agreement with the EU. Will the Government spell out more detail on the limitations on our power to be one United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, setting our own tax rates, making our own agreements on trade internationally and setting our own standards for products? We need to know, because we have already heard in this debate from Northern Ireland Members saying that is becoming a matter of division within Northern Ireland communities.
The issue also has read-across to Scotland. We know we have a battle to fight for the Union in Scotland. The SNP will clearly use the different arrangements in Northern Ireland as part of its battering ram against the Union, so I need some reassurance about the impact of the powers under this agreement and how we can start to settle those difficult issues.
The two things I most like about this agreement are the ability to withdraw unilaterally from it, should the EU be too aggressive in its handling of us and in its claims upon us, and the fact that the ECJ has no further power in the United Kingdom. That is absolutely vital, because otherwise it will assert extraterritoriality.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Four and a half years since the referendum, here we are. I accept we have left the European Union, we are in the transition period and at 11 o’clock tomorrow the shutters will finally come down on that chapter of European-British relations, but we have more than a thousand pages in an agreement and a hastily drafted Bill that runs to 80 pages, but that has to be read alongside many other pieces of legislation to be fully understood. We have five hours of debate today and I have three minutes, of which I have already used up half a minute, to talk about how poorly the Government are using this place.
This is not parliamentary scrutiny; in keeping with the festive season, it is much more of a charade. It does not give us the chance to do properly the job that we should be doing. This place does not always make good legislation, and this is clearly rushed legislation.
I have many concerns about this Bill. I have big concerns about Northern Ireland. As someone married to a dual Irish-British citizen, I spend a lot of time on the island of Ireland, and I see the real challenges of what is being put in place, and I saw the lack of thought about that land border right from the get-go in the run-up to the 2016 vote.
The security matters concern me, including SIS II, the European arrest warrant, and Europol. Services are not included in this agreement, despite, as others have said repeatedly, their accounting for a trade surplus with the EU. Professional qualifications and issues affecting musicians and others in the creative industries affect my constituency particularly. As a constituency Member for the City fringe, I am very concerned we still have not bedded in arrangements for financial services.
It is security arrangements that concern me most. They have been massively weakened by this agreement. I spent three years in government negotiating over access to SIS II, Prüm, the European arrest warrant, Europol, Eurojust and mutual legal aid. Those were all things that I dealt with day in, day out with our European neighbours, and we have thrown that away. We have thrown away so much of what we have been fighting, even in the last decade, to get much more closely involved with. We are now attempting to patch together, with more bureaucracy, the same things as we are giving up with this Bill.
The lack of scrutiny and the impossibility of reading the Bill properly make me unable to support it today. I am not voting against it, because I recognise that the votes in 2016 and 2019 give this Government licence to take us out of Europe, but I cannot be complicit in what is a wrecking ball in the name of sovereignty. We now need to drop the “remainer” and “leaver” labels. We need to unite to fill the gaps in the creative and performing arts, in the financial sector, in the recognition of professional qualifications and, above all, in security. It is because of those security measures, in particular, that I cannot be complicit with the Government and will abstain today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We had hoped to go to North Shropshire to listen to Owen Paterson, but the line has gone down. We do hope, Owen, if you are watching and listening, to come to you before the wind-ups a bit later on. We will try our level best.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
I shall be voting in favour of the deal today, but not with any enthusiasm. This is an awful deal—the first trade deal in history to make trade even harder. It removes freedoms and piles red tape and administrative burden on businesses. It is not no deal, however, and my real fear is that the Conservative party has been captured to such an extent by fanatics and maniacs of hard Brexit that no deal remains a possibility. Since the only choice on the table today is between this deal and no deal, I will vote to stop no deal, especially since trade unions and business groups are urging a vote in support to get past this hurdle.
I am clear that this is an extremist Brexit that breaks all the promises about having the exact same benefits of membership of the EU. It must be judged not only in juxtaposition to no deal, but in comparison to what we left as members of the EU. There is £200 billion in lost wealth, for starters, which rather puts the lies about £350 million a week for the NHS into perspective. Of course, the deal says nothing, as other hon. Members have said, about trade in services—a rather huge omission, especially for somewhere such as Chester with a large financial services sector.
I have read that the leaders of the fishing industry are unhappy with the deal. What did they expect? Surely they know that the current Prime Minister will say anything that is necessary to get him out of whatever situation he is in, with no sense of responsibility for promises made and no sense of commitment to anything except himself. It was the same with Gibraltar—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—whose Government were promised that any deal would include that territory, but this deal does not. It was the same with Airbus, which is so important to my constituency. A commitment was given on the US tariff dispute in late November but broken by mid-December. This will not stand us in good stead when we are negotiating future international agreements.
The Government are desperate to agree a deal—any deal—with the USA, however detrimental to long-term UK interests, in order to validate their Brexit policy. They have already alienated the Biden Administration, and that Administration are not even in office yet. Now they are alienating the EU. In global terms, there are only three shows in town: the USA, China and the EU. We have walked away from the EU, and now the Prime Minister announces that we will be in direct competition with it. The road he is leading us down will not end well for the UK, because we are now easy pickings for the much larger blocs, and soundbites such as “Global Britain” will not alter that.
The deal will make us poorer, it will make us weaker and less secure, and it will make us less road relevant globally. It is not no deal, but barely so. I give notice that I consider it to be the barest of foundations on which to build back a better, more progressive relationship with our European neighbours and friends in the long-term interests of the whole United Kingdom and all who live here, and that is what I intend to do.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
This is about sovereignty. Sovereignty is spoken of by some as a near-religious phenomenon, either through veneration or rejection. It is either doctrinal truth or mumbo-jumbo, depending on the bent of the beholder. However, it is far more prosaic than that. It boils down to the question of who governs, and whether that exercise of government carries the broad consent of the people so governed. Admittedly, that is not quite as catchy as “take back control”, but it means the same thing. This agreement achieves that, which is why I shall support it.
Perhaps the greater question that emerges today is not whether the vote shall be won, but what we now do with our regained sovereignty. These brief minutes are insufficient to the task of answering that question, aside from recommending not some 1,200 pages for study, but 11 pages of the late Lord Chief Justice Bingham’s excellent book “The Rule of Law”, namely chapter 12, on the sovereignty of Parliament. I always enjoy re-reading that chapter, particularly its comment on the judiciary, which speaks to a wider point of parliamentary sovereignty. Bingham wrote:
“The British people have not repelled the extraneous power of the papacy in spiritual matters and the pretensions of royal power in temporal in order to subject themselves to the unchallengeable rulings of unelected judges.”
Quite so! Indeed, might I stretch those sentiments to the situation after 11 o’clock on new year’s eve and say that the British people did not vote to take back control in order to be ruled by ministerial diktat, via secondary legislation, using the negative procedure, as we have seen far too often this year? So 2021 will be a year for national renewal, and it will also be for us, as representatives, and for the Government, as the Executive, to live up to the rediscovered responsibilities that come with sovereignty.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the Division is called later, I will be supporting this legislation. With only one day until the end of the transition period, voting to implement this treaty is the only way to avoid no deal. No deal would be nothing short of catastrophic for the producers, manufacturers, exporters and businesses of Batley and Spen, and of the wider West Yorkshire area; the bed makers, biscuit manufacturers and paint companies would all suffer. Keeping no deal on the table for so long has already caused enormous stress, job losses and uncertainty, which has been especially cruel after such a challenging few months due to covid-19.
We have already heard today about how many glaring omissions there are in this deal, but I wish to focus on one that will cause long-lasting devastation to one of our most successful exports, the creative industries. Labour’s amendment on that was not selected. Over the past few months, Home Office officials have made it simple for artists from all the EU to come to the UK in 2021 and beyond; they planned ahead, consulted and developed a single extension of the existing arrangements for artists from non-visa countries, such as the United States and Canada—a temporary worker creative and sporting visa, the T5. Issued by a sponsor, it does not cost a lot and is proven to work, giving musicians from the EU 90 days in which to work in the UK. They also upgraded a scheme called “permitted paid engagement”, which makes it simple for almost anyone—academics and individual artists—to visit for cultural reasons. Sadly, the Government’s brilliant negotiators failed to negotiate reciprocity for our simple and generous measures. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us whether this is part of a cunning plan or just a mistake. We know that members of the Government’s Front-Bench team support a creative passport, so why do we have this glaring omission?
This failure will have an impact on young artists trying to break through in the EU, and on musicians working in EU bands and orchestras, who will be subject to border delays. Then there is the perception of EU festival organisers, which could mean British artists being overlooked. In addition, the cabotage rule means that UK-based trucks can have only three drops at EU venues, which means EU companies becoming more cost-effective. Of course it is easy to focus on stars, but this is about haulage companies, producers, production crew, technicians, artists, professional musicians, dancers and actors, all of whom contribute to this £111 billion industry. It is no wonder that a petition calling for the Government to remedy this situation has been signed more than 195,000 times, and the number is rising. The Bill places bureaucracy, carnets, costs and delays where there once was frictionless trade, and I hope the Minister will lay out his plans to support this vital British sector.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
I commend the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the whole team for achieving this deal, which I will be supporting in the vote later today. Both sides were always going to have to compromise, but the UK has secured its sovereignty and this is a good deal. We have also secured a safeguard: an exit route, if chosen. The deal proves wrong those who thought that there was no alternative to the withdrawal agreement, and that it could not be struck in time. A good deal was always preferred—after all, that is the logic of Brexit—but being prepared to leave on WTO terms, under which we trade profitably with much of the world, was a deciding factor in the EU finally accepting the UK as its sovereign equal.
This indeed is a defining moment in our history. Many have participated and played an important role but, for me, that role began when, with the support of my association, I entered Parliament with the hope of securing a referendum, then campaigning for our exit. Highs and lows followed. Leading the parliamentary campaign in 2012 and 2013 to persuade the party leadership to adopt a referendum in time for the next general election, and voting against the withdrawal agreement, together with all the speeches and amendments that that involved, were certainly my key contributions to the cause.
We always felt that we knew how the country would vote, if given the chance, as Parliament had been out of sync for far too long. The challenge was to get a sceptical leadership to promise a referendum at a time when every parliamentary party was against it, even if that meant nearly losing the Whip over my amendment to the 2013 Queen’s Speech regretting the absence of a referendum Bill. The commitment helped to secure victory in the 2015 election, put the United Kingdom Independence party back its box, and made possible the 2016 referendum.
A bright future now awaits us, as we capitalise on our new-found freedoms. Our history and the ingenuity of our people suggest optimism, but I also look forward to a better relationship with the EU. Our membership was always going to prove difficult, given the difference between us on trade and political integration. We can now focus instead on common agendas. The deal represents a fresh start, and I am hopeful that the opportunity will be grasped.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
For the overwhelming majority of my constituents, this discussion brings no cheer. Confident, outward-looking Europeans, we genuinely struggle to understand why this country should want to turn away from our neighbours, and build barriers where there have been bridges. It is an inescapable fact that in every sphere we will be worse off next week. We ask the obvious questions of the Brexiteers. They promised frictionless trade: failed. They promised the exact same benefits: failed. They promised it would be easy and simple: well, here we are at the very last, having to rush through legislation because it is far from easy, far from simple. Of course, that suits the Prime Minister, who always fears scrutiny. In prioritising notional sovereignty over practical utility, he has made a fundamental error. We have seen in recent weeks in Kent what the failure to achieve frictionless trade can lead to. In future, any disagreement with France can lead to the same chaos. Yes, we are notionally free, but it is a pretty empty freedom that leaves our streets lined with innocent victims, trapped in vehicles without food or sanitation.
We have a poor choice today: nothing, or take the scraps that are on offer. Incredibly, some gullible Government Members who told the country that “we hold all the cards” somehow think that their tests have been met. Let us take data, the lifeblood of modern economies. What is on offer? A reprieve for a few months, while the EU considers a data adequacy application. Does it have to grant it? No, it does not. What is our recourse if, as it is fully entitled to do, it says no? Let us hear from Government Members—I suspect that there will be a deafening silence, because answer is there none. The truth is that we do not hold all the cards. Yes, we hold some, and hopefully sense will prevail and further agreements will be made.
That is my hope for the future. Bit by bit, sector by sector, we will rebuild that relationship that has been so damaged, and this time we will do it by explaining carefully and convincing the British people that sharing and co-operating with our neighbours is not surrendering something, but gaining much more, and that the noble vision of a continent united in peace and prosperity is worth striving for. In no area is that more true than in science, research and innovation. One of the opportunities is a pathway back into the hugely important Horizon Europe programme—important to the country but particularly important to my constituency. Of course, we will cease to have influence over its future direction—we have no seat at the table and no vote, and the payment mechanisms may well lead to perverse outcomes; that is the cost that the Conservatives have inflicted on us—but we can participate, and that is worth having.
It is for that reason that I will unwillingly vote for this thin agreement today—only because it is better than nothing. That is a low bar, but it is a start, and with the prospect of new management for our country—
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) [V]
Thank you very much indeed for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I give my particular thanks to the technical staff who just reconnected me, having lost the connection?
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the first time that I have spoken on any subject in the House since my wife’s suicide at the end of June. I would like to thank you and particularly Mr Speaker, and so many other colleagues who have sent extremely kind messages of support. I would like to assure everybody listening that I will work really hard through the next few years to make sure that I can try to stop just one family going through the anguish that mine is currently suffering.
It is a great honour to be called in this incredibly important debate. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been involved in this debate for a long time. This is a great day. We have established sovereignty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) confirmed. One should pay tribute to him for the extraordinary manner in which he has fought this battle over the years; his indefatigable concentration and legal knowledge has been phenomenal. It is great to have sovereignty and it is great to have zero tariffs and zero quotas, which is very good for my constituency and very good for the economy of GB.
I would like to express a word of caution. I am very pleased with this deal for GB, but I am concerned that we have partnership councils, specialised committees, trade specialised committees, working groups and so on. We are going to need a really determined Government to make sure that we use that sovereignty properly and really exploit it, nowhere more than on the issue of fish. I went around the north Atlantic in 2004-05 and wrote a paper on how we should run a sane fisheries policy. It will take real political determination to get fish back in five and a half years’ time when we think that in the channel, for instance, the EU will be going down on cod only from 91% to 90.75%, when it should be on 25% according to zonal attachment. We will need real determination.
There is another area that concerns me. I am chairman of the think-tank the Centre for Brexit Policy—see the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and we put out a scorecard. According to the legal gurus led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, GB comes out of this well. The worry for me, as someone who was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for three years and the real Secretary of State for two years, is that Northern Ireland fails. We should remember the words of the noble Lord Trimble, whom I spoke to a couple of days ago. He reminds us that article 1(iii) of the Belfast agreement says that
“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
I will fight very hard on that.
I would love to vote for the Bill today, but I really cannot vote for a measure that divides the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland will have a different tax regime and, as part of the customs union, it will be under the ECJ, the single market and so on. I am very torn. I wish this deal well, and I hope that we can go to mutual enforcement, which is Lord Trimble’s recommendation, but I will be abstaining.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Owen. Love to you and your family from all your friends here at Westminster. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) [V]
The Bill that the House is considering this afternoon is crucial to the future of the United Kingdom and its relations with the European Union. It marks the end of a process that commenced just over five years ago when the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed.
Five years ago, this country was firmly embedded in the European Union, and it was there that our future seemed to lie, but now, with the conclusion of the trade and co-operation agreement on Christmas eve, we see a new future for our country as an independent nation in control of our laws, our own borders and our own destiny. This Bill will put that agreement into our domestic law, and it brings to an end one of the most politically turbulent periods in our recent history. The agreement is, by any standards, a remarkable achievement. It is a tribute to the clarity of purpose, political skill and tenacity of the Prime Minister, Lord Frost and the rest of the UK negotiating team. They have secured an expansive zero-tariff, zero-quota deal unprecedented in the history of the European Union—a deal that respects the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, that has no role for the European Court of Justice, and that the United Kingdom can unilaterally terminate should it wish to do so.
The economic benefits of the deal are huge. For example, as a consequence of the agreement, sheep farmers in my north Wales constituency will continue to export their premium product tariff-free to the European markets they have supplied for the past half century, but they can also look to developing new markets around the globe unconstrained by Brussels. Most importantly, they will do so as citizens of a free and independent country.
Across our nation, in these dying days of 2020, millions of our fellow citizens will be looking forward to the new future that begins on the stroke of 11 o’clock tomorrow night: a future in which our democracy reasserts itself through this ancient and honourable Parliament; a future in which our commercial undertakings can explore new global opportunities to increase prosperity for our people; and a future of hope for our young generation, as citizens of a great and outward-looking country that has had the confidence to stand, once again, on its own two feet.
The Bill is the catalyst for that future. It is the final step in that long, tortuous five-year process we have all lived through. It marks the start of the new independence that the people of this country so clearly voted for in 2016. As such, it is a Bill that keeps faith with the people. As such, it is a Bill that does honour to this House.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
This deal is not perfect and I am voting for it out of duty to fulfil the promise made by myself to my constituents in two elections, which is that I would do everything possible to facilitate a Brexit with a deal. This deal is by no means good for Britain’s future. It seems to encompass the worst elements of leaving the EU and the worst elements of membership of the EU. It is, however, better than the alternative on the table in this House today, which is of course to leave without a deal.
Promises were made to various industries and communities across the UK, promises that have not been kept. That is a pattern that this Government follow with persistent familiarity. Brexit means many things to many people, but some clear promises from the leave campaign to its supporters have now been proven to be worthless promises. The Prime Minister’s brinkmanship has now left businesses with less than a week with two bank holidays to prepare for the new relationship with the EU. It is simply not fair to those businesses and simply not an adequate amount of time for many smaller businesses to prepare, on top of covid regulations.
As far as fishing is concerned, the biggest sector sold out by this deal, the Government promised UK fishermen a better deal than the one they got. It is clear that the Government have not delivered on that. As the chair of the all-party group on coastal communities, I have to say and emphasise that coastal communities are the poorest relations in our island nation, whether based on fishing, industrial regions or hospitality and leisure.
Hartlepool is of course part of the Tees Valley and therefore central to the so-called green industrial revolution. On energy, I welcome the commitment to Horizon 2020 and scientific research funding, but the deal adversely affects our important chemicals industry. Barely mentioned in the deal, the industry is set to owe billions of pounds in scientific research if we do not get our connections with the EU correct on the REACH— registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—programme.
There are many more things I would like to say about this deal and the grim prospects it brings for workers in particular, but, as I say, a deal is better than no deal and I will leave it at that.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It was such a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) back contributing in the Chamber.
Given the time available, I want to make just one simple point and reflection on an agreement whose ambition and scope, embracing everything from energy and science to security, is, I think, underappreciated. As it is considered, in time that will come out. During my time as Business Secretary, I came to appreciate and value the important contribution of many businesses based in Britain that relied on just-in-time production to be competitive with the rest of the world. They were very concerned that one of the consequences of Brexit might be to interrupt their ability to trade, including in components, and therefore make them unviable. In particular, trading terms that reflected sensible rules of origin were vital to companies such as Nissan in Sunderland, as we have heard, Toyota in Derbyshire and north Wales, and BMW in Oxford. I was therefore very pleased when I spoke to the chief executive of Toyota in Europe on Christmas eve, who called to say that the terms of the deal, when it came to rules of origin, met the requirements that that company had for its location in the UK. It has a good and prosperous future in Derbyshire and north Wales, and in the entire the supply chain, which employs many thousands of people across this country.
To respond to some comments that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made, it is now important that we seize the opportunity that we have, as this country emerges from covid, having proved ourselves to be a place of agility and ingenuity when it comes to the pace of new discoveries. We must now apply that across all the industries that we have in this country. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster responds, he will recommit to a reinvigorated industrial strategy that will position Britain, with all the strengths that we have in science and technology, and with the advantages that come from putting behind us this Brexit debate that has dominated the last few years—
Greg Clark
I will not give way; I want to conclude.
To capitalise on those strengths, as we come into 2021 with covid behind us and this agreement under our belts, I hope that we can take a position leading the world on some of the technologies that will contribute to growth all around the world.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister. In recent years he has done more for the cause of Scottish independence than any other Unionist politician. Support for independence has been increasing. Seventeen polls in a row have shown majority support for independence.
Today’s debate and today’s propositions present a stark choice to the people of Scotland. The Prime Minister is offering this treaty and this Brexit. From the UK side, this treaty was negotiated on the basis of priorities decided by the Tories. At the beginning of this debacle, the UK Government had the opportunity to decide what their priorities would be. They chose sovereignty, and they chose to interpret sovereignty as isolation. It suits this elitist Tory Government to cement a future that keeps apart the haves and the have-nots. It suits this xenophobic Tory Government to cement a future that removes freedom of movement. It suits this well-off Tory Government to steal opportunities from young people whose parents are not rich.
Fishing has been done to death in this debate, but the reality is that the Tory Government did as they have ever done. They prioritised the needs and desires of those fishing in the English channel over the needs and desires of those in Scottish waters. They promised a sea of opportunity, yet are delivering a cut in access. They promised a reduction in unelected bureaucrats making decisions, but this deal creates a new joint partnership council, made up of unelected UK and EU officials, formed of over 30 sub-councils, each focusing on one specific area of the agreement. In fact, this Bill will be going across to the House of Lords this afternoon, where 850 unelected peers will have more say than the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Parliaments.
The SNP will always do what we have been elected to do. We will always put the people of Scotland first. The alternative we are offering is an independent Scotland in Europe, access to a market 10 times the size of the UK, and the opportunity for young people to travel, live and work throughout Europe, and for our European friends to come to Scotland. We want to reduce inequality, putting wellbeing at the heart of our decision making, and dignity and respect at the heart of social security.
I refuse to vote for this dreadful deal. It is a bit like we had been drinking a lovely glass of water. The Brexiteers offered the UK a malt whisky, but they are now saying that we will all die of thirst if we do not choose to drink the steaming mug of excrement that the UK Government are offering us. There is no way that I am choosing to drink that excrement, and neither will I be complicit in forcing my constituents to do so. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands, not those of the Prime Minister.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)[V]
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has secured this trade deal with the EU. These negotiations have been followed intently by so many people in South Derbyshire, both individuals and businesses. I understand the strong feelings on both sides of the debate, but all that time ago, South Derbyshire and the country voted in the referendum to leave the EU, and as a democrat, I supported the Government in abiding by that vote, during the negotiations, and in securing a deal.
South Derbyshire is at the heart of our manufacturing midlands. As we have already heard, we have the Toyota factory that exports more than 80% of the cars made to Europe. My constituents also work in other great firms such as Bombardier and Rolls-Royce, and in their supply chains. Making things matters to us; exporting matters to us. A good trade deal was crucial, and that is what our Prime Minister, Lord Frost, and the negotiating team brought home for us.
There has been lots of chatter that the deal needed not only to be about free trade, but to get into the deep detail of trade barriers, equivalence, rules of origin and transition periods, and this deal has done that. I am an optimist. I listen to my constituents and to the needs of local businesses, and I kept a steady stream of information, requests, updates and encouragement flowing to the negotiating team, so that South Derbyshire’s needs were represented at the table and we got what we needed—for the automotive sector, no quotas; for rules of origin, a transition period of five and a half years, and no trade barriers. That is exactly what was needed. It keeps our factories competitive, and the cars flying off the production line. Even more importantly, the deal means that the South Derbyshire Toyota factory will be in the best position ever to bid for the next generation car in a few years’ time, and to secure work for the next 20-plus years.
I am hugely grateful for the phone calls and messages from No. 10 and the negotiating team, and for their assurances on these issues as the process was taking place, and on its conclusion. This is a good deal. It enables manufactured goods from South Derbyshire to be exported tariff-free and trade barrier free. It allows our farmers to export, and managers of businesses to move freely around their European-based companies. It means that we can drive in the EU without needing an additional special driving licence, and for UK passport holders already living in the EU, it allows their residency to continue. It allows visa-free travel for holiday makers, and in the more niche areas of exporting, such as organic farming, it allows for equivalence and continued unfettered exports.
I thank the Prime Minister, my friends at No. 10, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Treasury, who all helped and listened to my views and those of South Derbyshire businesses and residents. Finally, for my constituents who had so many concerns that this deal has put to bed, I say, “Rejoice!”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the wind-up I now call Rachel Reeves, who should finish no later than 2.22 pm.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) [V]
While I am pleased to be able to close this debate, I am sad not to be in the Chamber of the House of Commons. However, like so many, someone in my family has covid, so we are having to self-isolate. Compared with many, I know that I am lucky.
After the year that we have had, a deal of any form provides a degree of stability, which is what businesses crave—it is what our whole country craves—so despite the limitations of this deal, and despite all the things that Labour would have done differently, and will do differently in the future, we will vote to implement this treaty today. The alternative—the chaos of no deal—is not something that any responsible Government could facilitate, and nor could a responsible Government in waiting.
I strongly believe that almost every hon. and right hon. Member wants this treaty to come into international law today. Let me say to all Members, including those of my own party, that we are not indifferent to the outcome of this vote, so we should vote accordingly. Here we are on 30 December; tomorrow, trading relationships that have served us well for decades will expire. This is not about whether we wanted to remain or leave, and it is not about whether we think the deal is good enough—we know that it is not. Voting for this deal now is the only way to avoid no deal.
Let me turn to what this deal does for our economic prosperity, because although we will vote for the Bill, we are fully aware of its limitations and we will hold the Government to account for them. Farmers, carmakers and our chemicals industry all face extra delays, costs and bureaucracy when taking their goods to European markets. Few will thank the Government for the gift handed to them on Christmas eve, wrapped up in £ billion-worth of bureaucracy and tied with the red tape of over 200 million customs declarations.
More than 80% of our economy is made up of services, yet not one of the 1,246 pages of the treaty gives any additional opportunities for those sectors. How has that come to be? The EU has a trade surplus in goods with us, and it fought to keep it. We have a trade surplus on services, and the Government have done nothing to protect it.
The failure of the Conservative Government to stand up for our cultural industries is as unforgivable as it is inexplicable. As Tim Burgess and many others have rightly said, many British performers will now face huge added costs and barriers if they want to tour and showcase their talents all across Europe.
As I have been saying for months, the reality of poor preparations will bite hard. Our ports are underfunded and our hauliers go unheard. The 50,000 customs agents the Government promised they would deliver are not in place. The Tories have had four and a half years to get ready for this moment. Their incompetence must not be allowed to hold our great country back.
In recent days, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has claimed that the end of the transition period will mean that a Tory Government can now tackle inequality and injustices. Let me just say this: it was not the EU that created the bedroom tax or the need for food banks, or that slashed funding for social care. The right hon. Gentleman need not look to Brussels for someone to blame, but to the Tory Governments he has served under for the last 10 and a half years.
In a few moments’ time, the House will divide. Despite all our reservations, there are just two paths ahead for our country. Down one is the Prime Minister’s limited and unimpressive deal with the European Union, but down the other is the chaos of ending the transition period with no deal at all, which would mean substantial tariffs and barriers to trade, and no agreement on security co-operation. There is no other option now, and to abstain is to fail to choose—to suggest somehow that we are indifferent to the two paths before us. I am not, and I do not believe that other Members are either.
This is Johnson’s deal, where neither option is ideal, but a limited deal is better than no deal at all, and it is a foundation on which we can build. So Labour will choose the better of two paths—for businesses, workers, trade unions, jobs and our security. We are not this deal’s cheerleaders—far from it. This is the Prime Minister’s deal; he and his Government will own it, and we will hold them to account for it. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and I have tabled seven amendments today to show how Labour would do things differently and build on the deal. They cover the economic impact of the agreement; our lack of access to the Schengen information system; protecting worker and environmental standards; the Erasmus programme; performers’ and artists’ permits; the duty of the trade and co-operation agreement partnership council to report to Parliament; and, crucially, support and information for businesses.
This is an important day, but Labour is thinking about tomorrow. We are firmly focused on making this the best country for all our citizens. Wherever you live, whatever your parents do, whatever school you went to, and whatever your talents and ambitions, we will back you all the way. This must be a country where people can look forward to starting their career, developing their skills, creating and growing their businesses, locating their jobs in our towns and cities, and trading around the world. That is our ambition for the talent of Britain and we want to share it with the world.
Throughout these negotiations and preparations, the Tories have brought chaos when the country has craved stability. They sought to break the law; Labour will uphold it. They seek to break alliances where we will forge them. That is the way to project our values and stand up for the UK’s national interest. Ursula von der Leyen found solace in the words of T.S. Eliot last week. As we look to bring our country together and write a new chapter in our story, I turn to the words of Franco-Polish scientist, Marie Curie, who said:
“Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”
It is important that the Bill passes today, limited as it is, because no deal is no solution for our country. We vote on the foundations of a deal that Labour will build on. Though we have left the EU, we remain a European nation with a shared geography, history, values and interests. The job of securing our economy, protecting our national health service, tackling climate breakdown and rebuilding our country has only just begun.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). While we disagree on much, she gave a characteristically thoughtful and punchy speech, and she is a great credit to her party. I wish her and her family well as they wrestle with covid.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, the staff of the House of Commons and everyone who has allowed us to come back for this debate today. I also thank the negotiators on both sides who concluded this historic agreement: Lord Frost and his team; and Michel Barnier and his. I thank the thousands of civil servants who have been working for years now to bring us to this moment.
I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate—some 59 Members. In particular, I want to pay tribute to those who have been arguing for our sovereign future outside the European Union for many years, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). Again, our hearts go out to Owen and to his family.
I also want to thank those who argued in the referendum that we should remain in the European Union, but who, in this debate, gave considered and thoughtful speeches expressing their support for the deal in front of us and clear pointers for the way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the right hon. Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) all made impressive speeches, recognising the importance of democracy.
Democracy is why we are here. In the 2016 referendum, more people voted to leave the European Union than have ever voted for any proposition in our history. Now, four and a half years later, we can say that we have kept faith with the people. This deal takes back control of our laws, our borders and our waters, and also guarantees tariff-free and quota-free access to the European market as well as ensuring our security. It is a good deal for aviation, for haulage, for data, and for legal and financial services, and it leaves us as sovereign equals with the EU.
Michael Gove
No.
The deal also builds on the withdrawal agreement concluded by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is important to remember that there are now 4 million EU citizens who have chosen to make their home in this country—a vote of confidence in Britain. It is also the case that we have concluded the Northern Ireland protocol, an imperfect instrument certainly, but one that ensures that we leave as one UK, whole and entire, so that we can begin a new special relationship with our friends in the European Union.
I want to turn now to some of the arguments that were made in the debate, turning first of all to those made by the Leader of the Opposition.
Michael Gove
Not quite yet.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke eloquently, as usual, but not perhaps with 100% conviction this time. That is no surprise: he argued that we should stay in the European Union; he argued for a second referendum; he argued that we should stay in the customs union; and he argues still for a level of ECJ jurisdiction. At every turn, over the course of the last four years, he has tried to find a way of keeping us as closely tied to EU structures as possible.
The Leader of the Opposition now says that he will not put opposition to Brexit on his leaflets at the next general election. Given the result at the last general election, when he did put opposition to Brexit on his leaflets, I can well understand that. His attitude to the European Union is rather like his attitude to his former leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—he spent years trying to keep as close as possible, and now he wants us to forget all about it. His time in the shadow Cabinet, when he was arguing for the right hon. Member for Islington North to be Prime Minister and for the UK to be under EU structures, presumably, in the words of the right hon. Member for Islington North, was a period when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was “present but not involved”. But, as a good former Director of Public Prosecutions, I know that he does not want us to take account of any of his previous convictions. Indeed, I am grateful for his support today.
The Leader of the Opposition was also right in calling out the leader of the Scottish National party, because, of course, what SNP Members are doing today is voting for no deal—he is absolutely right. What have they said in the past? Nicola Sturgeon said that no deal would be a “catastrophic idea”, that the SNP could not “countenance in any way” no deal, and that SNP MPs will do “everything possible” to stop no deal—except, of course, by actually voting against it today.
Indeed, so opposed to no deal was the SNP that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) went to court to ensure that if the Prime Minister took us out of the European Union without a deal, he would go to jail. Now the leader of the SNP is voting to take us out of the EU without a deal—something that his own party said should be an imprisonable offence. So what is he going to do now? Turn himself in? Submit to a citizen’s arrest at the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West? If his party follows through on its previous convictions, I, of course, will campaign for him. The cry will go out from these Benches: “Free the Lochaber one!”
After the 2014 referendum, the SNP became the party that just would not take no for an answer. Now we have the deal that it asked for, it is the party that will not say yes for an answer. Inconsistent, incoherent, and even at risk of self-incarceration, SNP Members are indeed prisoners—prisoners of a separatist ideology that puts their narrow nationalism ahead of our national interest.
The leader of the SNP did, of course, touch on fish, but he did not give us the figures. I have them here. We can look at the increase in stocks: North sea hake up relatively by 198%; west of Scotland saithe up by 188%; west of Scotland cod up by 54%; and North sea sole up by 297%. That is all because we are out of the common fisheries policy, which he would take us back into.
The Bill opens a new chapter. The people of Britain voted for not just a new settlement with the EU, but a new settlement within the UK, with freeports and FinTech, genetic sequencing and investment in General Dynamics, a fair deal for farming and fish stocks for coastal communities. Of course, this deal also allows us to regulate more smartly and more effectively for the future. Whether it is artificial intelligence, quantum computing, or machine learning, our participation in Horizon 2020 and our investment in science will make us a science superpower. Of course, this deal also allows us to regulate more smartly and more effectively for the future. Whether it is artificial intelligence, quantum computing, or machine learning, our participation in Horizon 2020 and our investment in science will make us a science superpower.
It is appropriate that we should think of that today, the day on which the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine—a UK initiative as part of global Britain collaborating with others in the pursuit of knowledge and the relief of pain—is approved by the MHRA. Let us remember the difficulties and the challenges of this year. Let us also remember how important it is that we should all now come together and recognise that there are no such things anymore as remainers or leavers. We are all Britons dedicated to a brighter future—stronger together, sovereign again—and dedicated to ensuring a future of sharing, solidarity and excellence. That is why I commend this Bill to the House.
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill
Wednesday 30th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 December 2020 - (30 Dec 2020)
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill
Wednesday 30th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 December 2020 - (30 Dec 2020)
22:57 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town’s amendment - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 312 - Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town's amendment disagreed.
23:18 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Newby’s amendment - Ayes: 101 / Noes: 466 - Amendment disagreed.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, I want to thank in advance all noble Lords who will speak in today’s debate.
This Bill, which passed its stages in the other place with a substantial majority, will implement the historic trade and co-operation agreement negotiated with the European Union and marks the beginning of a new chapter for our country. This comprehensive Canada-style agreement, worth more than £660 billion, delivers on the commitments made to the British people in the referendum and in last year’s general election. It takes back control of our money, borders, laws and waters, ends any role for the European Court, and protects the Good Friday agreement. It provides certainty for business —from financial services to the life sciences industry, food producers and our world-leading manufacturers, including the car industry—safeguarding highly-skilled jobs and investment across our country.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking our negotiating team, led by my noble friend Lord Frost, for their professionalism, skill and perseverance. Of course, we also pay tribute to President von der Leyen, Michel Barnier and our European friends for the part they have played in ensuring we reached the deal we have today.
This agreement is the beginning of our new relationship with our European neighbours. It is a deal based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals, centred on free trade and inspired by our shared history, interests and values, while respecting one another’s freedom of action. Crucially, it fully upholds our rights as a sovereign country, meaning we will have political and economic independence to assert global Britain as a liberal, outward-looking force for good.
However, this is not just a free trade agreement; it is much more. This broad and unprecedented settlement reflects our historic, close relationship with our European neighbours. It is a relationship and partnership which will continue, albeit in a new form, once the transition period ends tomorrow.
I know the strength of feeling across this House when it comes to this subject. For decades, this House and its work have played a pivotal role in forging our relationship with our European neighbours and allies. While this workload may have increased since 2016, the quality has never been diluted, and your Lordships’ commitment and focus in scrutinising the 17 Brexit Bills we have enacted over the past four and a half years have been unwavering. In particular, I pay tribute to the EU Select Committee and its sub-committees for the work they have carried out on behalf of the whole House since the referendum. The committees have published in excess of 70 reports, thanks to the efforts of their members, staff, clerks and legal advisers. The scrutiny of this House has been better for their work and dedication.
As Leader of this House throughout this often difficult and turbulent time, I want to thank noble Lords from across the House for their commitment and dedication to our important role during this long and, at times, frustrating process. I hope that, with consideration of this Bill, the House can close this particular chapter and look forward to opening a new one which focuses on our new domestic and international agendas as we move on to build a great future for our four nations.
The transition period will end at 11 pm tomorrow. I know that Members across the House will want to ensure that the legislation that gives effect to the treaty is in place so that people and businesses can rely on it. We will provisionally apply the agreement from 1 January, but we still need to have legislation in place for provisional application and implementation to happen, and to ensure that we can ratify the agreements.
I now turn to the contents of the Bill. Part 1 implements the relevant provisions of the agreement that will protect our citizens and continues our long-standing commitment to joint co-operation on security matters. The Government have negotiated a comprehensive package of operational capabilities that ensure that we can work with counterparts across Europe to tackle serious crime and terrorism. Among a series of security measures, the agreement facilitates the continued transfer of passenger name record data from the EU, exchange of data via the Prüm system and streamlined extradition arrangements based on the EU’s surrender agreement with Norway and Iceland. This is the first agreement of its kind that the EU has negotiated with a non-Schengen third country, and it means that our security and border agencies will be able to continue working with our EU neighbours to protect the British public.
Part 2 of the Bill addresses trade and other matters, implementing arrangements to keep goods flowing in and out of our country. This deal maintains zero tariffs and zero quotas on trade in goods between the UK and the EU—the first time the EU has ever agreed to complete tariff-free and quota-free access in an FTA. The Bill provides for streamlined customs arrangements, including recognising our respective trusted trader schemes. The schedule on technical barriers to trade means that our exporters will not face unnecessary obstacles or discriminatory regulatory regimes.
The Bill implements our deal for UK hauliers as well as bus and coach companies that can continue to operate to, through and within the EU, making sure that critical cross-border services can continue to operate on the island of Ireland. These passenger transport provisions give people the freedom to travel to and from the EU easily for work, holidays and to visit loved ones.
We have also agreed a comprehensive protocol on social security co-ordination that is unmatched by any other between the EU and a third country. This agreement will ensure that UK nationals have a range of social security cover when working and living in the EU, including access to an uprated pension and extensive healthcare arrangements. The Bill gives effect to these provisions.
The Bill also gives effect to an unprecedented agreement reached on energy trading and Euratom, and reasserts our shared priority of tackling climate change through sources such as solar and wind. The measures that I have outlined demonstrate that this historic agreement is wide ranging and designed to provide certainty to our citizens, businesses and hauliers through trade, tax and transport measures.
The Bill also makes other arrangements that are related to our agreement with the EU but not directly related to its implementation.
The United Kingdom’s commitment to protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all respects is unwavering. That is why this Bill will enshrine funding to the Peace Plus programme to promote peace, reconciliation and economic development in Northern Ireland and the border region of Ireland.
Part 3 of the Bill ensures that we can meet our legal obligations under the agreements, including those emanating from the governance architecture they contain. The House will understand the significance of the fact that the basis of this agreement is not EU law but international law. EU law will no longer have any special status in the UK, nor is there any direct effect of this agreement in UK domestic law. Crucially, the Court of Justice of the European Union will have no jurisdiction, delivering on one of our core objectives in the negotiations.
In the agreement, we have made reciprocal commitments to high-level principles but not to common laws, and we will retain flexibility to tailor our approach for the United Kingdom. These are fair and balanced measures, which ensure that there is no constraint on either side’s autonomy and sovereignty. Our Parliament will regain its freedom to make or unmake law as it sees fit. We shall begin by fulfilling our manifesto promise to maintain the highest standards of labour and environmental regulation.
A significant agreement has been achieved for our fisheries industry, although this is not included in the Bill. For the first time in nearly 50 years, our country will be free to decide who can access our waters and on what terms. There will be an adjustment period of five and a half years during which the UK’s share of fish in our waters will rise from over half today to around two-thirds. After this adjustment period, any access by non-UK vessels to fish in UK waters will be a matter for annual negotiations, with no automatic access granted to the UK exclusive economic zone.
The Government are committed to upholding the Sewel convention. We have sought legislative consent Motions from each of the devolved legislatures where necessary for the Bill. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has sought consent from each of the Administrations, and we look forward to receiving their responses. My noble friend Lord True will update the House with any developments in his closing speech.
This Bill delivers what the British public voted for in last year’s general election and the referendum, and marks the start of a new chapter—one where we can take advantage of freedoms outside the EU to boost our efforts to level up opportunity; reform our approach to support farmers and improve the environment; encourage new, innovative sectors to develop; strike trade deals; and play a leading role on the world stage.
For these reasons and many more, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
At end insert “and this House welcomes that the agreement with the European Union has avoided the United Kingdom leaving the transition period without a deal, but regrets the many shortcomings including the bureaucratic burdens, regulatory hurdles, relative neglect of the services sector, limited provision for mutual recognition of qualifications, uncertainty on regulation of data flows, and limited concessions on integrated supply chains outside the European Union, included in that agreement; further regrets the failure to secure all the vital shared tools on security and policing required to keep people safe; notes that there are considerable details yet to be negotiated; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to work with Parliament and the devolved authorities (1) to establish robust oversight procedures over the remaining areas to be agreed and the implementation of those aspects already in the agreement, and (2) to move quickly to establish the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly jointly with the European Parliament.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we are sitting at an unusual time, are we not—although not on 25 December, which would have been a first since 1656, nor on Christmas Eve, which would have been a first since 1929 when, as Esther Webber assures me, the discussion included the quality of oysters in the Commons restaurant. Perhaps that was because they were not Morecambe Bay oysters—something about which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, might enlighten us in his valedictory speech. As he leaves, another Member arrives. I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing and working alongside for many a year.
Today, we are asked to put into domestic law the Christmas Eve agreement. I hope that we will also agree the amendment to the Motion standing in my name. I am a child of the British Army on the Rhine, born in a war-ravaged Germany and schooled in a divided Germany. However, I am also a child of democracy, the rebuilding of which in Germany my father and his generation played a role. What I also saw was the gradual regrowth of friendship of nations, the dismantling of trade barriers, the increased movement of people and the development of security, personal and cultural links to ground the continent’s future in its people and economic well-being. How can I not feel European?
So today, because of all that has happened since 1945 and 1973—and because of what happened in 2016—as we start on a new journey, we owe it to the past as well as the future to ensure that we continue with the motivation and drive that built such a successful, peaceful and co-operating bloc. This will not be easy as we erect new trading barriers with our neighbours, reduce access to jobs and education across Europe and step outside the customs union and single market. That is the treaty that the Prime Minister, having led the Brexit campaign, has now signed. Today, we are asked to pass the Bill, agreed to overwhelmingly by the elected House of Commons, to put his deal into law.
In normal times, our role would be to scrutinise this Bill, to test whether it fulfils its role, and to ensure that it is workable and allows for transparency and accountability. Sadly, that is not what we can do today, thanks to the Government having delayed and delayed, perhaps even to avoid such scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. Nevertheless, this is the beginning, not the end, of our process of our scrutinising how we leave and how we build our future with the EU. There remain many areas yet to be negotiated and many decisions on the implementation of the deal, so we will have the chance to exercise proper scrutiny post-ratification, including thorough examination by our European and other committees, and full debates on whatever reports they produce.
The agreement allows for a review and I hope that either a special committee here or a parliamentary-appointed major independent study prepares for that review, looking at all aspects of the UK-EU relationship and how it might be improved and developed across economic, social, cultural, environmental and climate change areas. Never again should we stumble into a profound shift in our international, security and trading relationships without full debate of the options and the paths to be taken.
Turning to today, we should remember two things, both relating to the mode of our leaving and our future relationship with the EU. First, the treaty is supported by all our EU colleagues and partners. Their Governments, including the Irish, have unanimously endorsed this deal. And for us on the Labour Benches, our continental sister parties support it and look to us to help make it work. Business has similarly welcomed the fact that we have a deal, removing the horrendous possibility of trading on WTO terms next week and at least beginning to see a new certainty.
Secondly, we face a seismic change in our relationship with the EU, but we are not leaving the continent; we are not turning our back on these major trading, security and friendship partners. Looking to the future, Labour, as an internationalist party, will forge a close relationship with the EU in the national interest—from the personal, where we want Erasmus-type arrangements so that our young people can live, work and study together, to industrial and service provision, where Europe-wide businesses will flourish where trade is easy, and with our consumers not only being spared import tariffs but having the ability to travel, holiday and explore the lands around our islands.
The agreement is not a Labour one. It is tariff-free for UK-made goods, and quota-free, and that we welcome, but it is sadly lacking on those invisibles—the service sectors, financial, educational and cultural, which are such a vital part of our economy. There are gaps in security and data exchange. There are real weaknesses in the protection of workers’ rights—one of the great benefits of our EU membership, where we worked in step across the Union. There is added bureaucracy for business—rather more, I fear, than Mr Gove’s “bumpy moments” and hardly amounting to frictionless trade. There are new regulatory hurdles, especially in chemicals and pharmaceuticals; limited mutual recognition of qualifications; and the ending of current police and security co-operation, with uncertainty over the European arrest warrant replacement. There is a lost opportunity for a far-reaching and comprehensive approach to foreign policy, defence and security co-operation, and a lost opportunity to safeguard the future status and economic prosperity of Gibraltar. Despite the people of Gibraltar being assured that there would be no UK-EU deal without Gibraltar, in fact this deal excludes Gibraltar. Yesterday, the Spanish Foreign Minister warned that if there is no deal in the next 72 hours, the Rock will become
“the only place where there is a hard Brexit.”
With Gibraltar becoming the external border of the EU, there could be passport-stamping and many other checks, leading to lengthy queues.
So this Bill implements a deal that we would not have negotiated: a deal that is less than it should or could have been and one made in No. 10 with an eye, I think, on the ERG rather than the whole of the UK. But it is the deal that we have, and it is so much better than the no deal favoured by some on the government side. For that reason, we accept the Bill, but with sincere regret that it is so late that we cannot do our job properly and that it excludes some of the country’s most vital interests.
Because there remains so much still to be negotiated, we call on the Government to work with Parliament to ensure full transparency and oversight of the umpteen special committees and working groups that still have big decisions to take. We call on them also to work with Parliament and the devolved authorities urgently and quickly to establish the parliamentary partnership assembly, so that parliamentarians across the EU and the UK can play their part in the remaining stages. I beg to move.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, some four and a half years after the referendum result, we can now see in the treaty that we are discussing today the outline shape of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, yet we have had no real opportunity to read it and no chance to consider its implications. It is the single most important treaty that this Parliament has had to consider since we joined the European Community in 1973, yet today we are invited simply to rubber-stamp it in a matter of hours.
A treaty which the Prime Minister claims restores our sovereignty begins its life by mocking parliamentary sovereignty. The Prime Minister of course disdains the convention that we call a constitution. If he can break any of those conventions to make his own life easier, he will, as he tried to do with Prorogation last year and as he did with his list of Peers last week. He has done so again in this case.
Today’s debate is a case not of Parliament weighing the arguments and forming a view but of it waving through hundreds of pages of law unread, unanalysed and unquestioned. There is no scope today to discuss the details of the Bill or, because of tomorrow’s deadline, to contemplate amending it, despite the extraordinarily broad Henry VIII powers which it contains and on which your Lordships’ House may wish to express a view.
The country will have many months and years to find out what the treaty means in practice, but that does not mean that we cannot assess it against the key purposes of any Government in any country at any time. Does it make us more secure? Does it make us more prosperous? Does it help to unite the country? And does it strengthen our position in the world? In each case, the answer is no.
On security, the EU has, over many years, built up a series of measures which has made it easier to identify criminals and terrorists and bring them to justice. Its crown jewels are the European arrest warrant and the real-time European crime-fighting databases, such as Schengen II. We are now outside all of those. The warm words of the treaty on security co-operation seek to make the best of a bad job, but it is a major step backwards, leaving us with literally zero prospect of establishing as effective a system for fighting crime and terrorism as the one we are leaving.
On the economy, the treaty provides for tariff and quota-free trade in goods, but literally hundreds of new impediments on trade in services. The Canadian agreement, to which the Prime Minister refers glowingly, has, by the Government’s own admission, more than 400 restraints on free trade in services, and we see that reflected in this treaty—whether it is ending mutual recognition of most professional qualifications or the end of passporting for financial services. Yet the UK has a big balance of trade deficit in goods and a big balance of trade surplus in services, so we are penalising the sector where we are strongest and favouring the EU in the sector where we are weakest. This is a massive win for the EU at our expense.
Even in trade in goods, exporters are faced with a massive increase in bureaucracy and red tape: some 200 million new customs forms to be completed each year and an extra 50,000 customs officials required to process them. Those who favoured Brexit made much of Brussels bureaucracy—just wait until they see how many new layers of form-filling they have imposed on British businesses.
We are told that any trade losses with the EU will be more than matched by our new global trading partnerships, but who are these to be with? Not the US, unless we capitulate on food standards. Not China, where our exports are actually falling, unless we stop criticising its human rights record—ask the Australians. Not India, unless we allow many more Indian immigrants —ask Priti Patel of the likelihood of that. And ask any small business about the relative costs of exporting to the EU and to the Far East and you will find that there is only one answer—and it does not support the Government’s argument.
On maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom—the third test for any Government—it is to me almost incredible that the Conservative and Unionist Party has erected a border down the Irish Sea and allowed the EU to dictate what goods we can trade across it. Seed potatoes have become the only good which will not encounter friction in moving west across the Irish Sea, and this is because Brussels has banned internal UK trade in them entirely.
As it becomes increasingly apparent that the economy of Northern Ireland has closer links with that of the Irish Republic than that of Great Britain, it seems to me that people in the Province will, inevitably, increasingly prioritise their relationship with the south over that across the Irish Sea. The Irish Government’s decision to fund Erasmus students from Northern Ireland as our Government shamefully exit the scheme shows just how aware the Republic is of this new reality. No wonder some in the Province who so enthusiastically supported Brexit now realise just what a price they are having to pay.
On our global influence—the final test of government —the world has looked askance as the Brexit saga has played out. People have not been patting us on the back and congratulating us on our pluck and resolve; they have all asked, “Why on earth are you shooting yourselves in the foot?” Incoming President Biden has certainly made it clear where his priorities lie, and it is not with the UK. As of today, the UK has no foreign policy and no capacity to influence international events, or even standards-setting, as part of a single EU response. With a weakened economy, a decimated aid budget and a new reputation for untrustworthiness, our soft and hard power will be less than at any point since before the Napoleonic wars.
Your Lordships’ House is being asked today to vote for a treaty which makes us less secure, less prosperous, less united and less influential. It has passed the Commons with acclaim and will pass your Lordships’ House with ease. On these Benches, however, we simply cannot join in what is, in effect, for many people, a collective sigh of relief that we are at least not leaving with no deal at all. Clearly, no deal would have been completely disastrous, but by choosing a deal which prioritises a two-dimensional view of sovereignty over what is best for our prosperity, the Government have made a deliberate choice for which responsibility rests with them alone. This is a Conservative Party treaty, the culmination of a process which began when a Conservative Prime Minister decided to hold a referendum to manage splits in his own party. The Conservatives, with their majority in the Commons, would, even without Labour support, have secured a majority for the treaty and the Bill, and they will be judged on the consequences.
As people in your Lordships’ House know, we on these Benches have opposed Brexit, as we oppose this Bill, because we believe that, on all counts, it is bad for our country. We did not win the argument with the electorate in 2016, but in a democracy, you do not change your fundamental views because at a particular time more people hold different views. You continue to argue for them, in the hope that you might eventually prevail. We continue to believe that, in every respect, Britain is better off at the centre of Europe. This treaty removes us from that position. We will therefore be voting against the Motion that this Bill do now pass, and invite all those across the House who share our vision of Britain’s place at the centre of Europe to join us.
Lord Judge (CB) [V]
We can—indeed, as it is the only opportunity we shall have, we must—discuss whether the future relationship agreement represents what has been described as a hard or soft, or, nowadays, a thin, scrawny or perhaps plump, deal, but I fear the single question for decision by us today is whether, however we choose to describe it or to deride it, and with whatever level of reservation or hesitation, we accept this deal or not.
Personally, I breathed the sigh of relief described by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, when I heard the news that a deal had eventually been negotiated. I share the views already expressed that there are problems and disappointments with it, which will no doubt be ventilated this afternoon, as they were in the other place by the leader of the Opposition this morning. But I respectfully suggest that the discussions that we have today about how and when the agreement was eventually signed should not overlook that there were two parties to the negotiations. It was the duty of the EU negotiators to do their best to protect the interests of the EU from the consequences of the unwanted departure of one of its members, and to do so in a way which kept 27 sovereign countries content with what was to be agreed. It was not open to us to require a negotiated settlement in which we dictated the terms of our departure; the EU was never going to make easy concessions and our negotiating hand was not strong enough to obtain them. One has to be careful not to be unfair to those responsible for the negotiations.
As I indicated, I welcome with relief what I believe to be a workable deal, the most important feature of which is the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. In years to come, we must make it clear that from now on—that is to say, from 1 January 2021—the Prime Minister has no sovereignty, the Executive have no sovereignty and there is no coronation after a successful election campaign culminating in a large majority for one party or the other. I am stating the obvious, but today’s legislation exemplifies the unwanted tendency—if I may adapt the words of John Dunning in 1780—of the Executive to command, and to expect to command, the legislative process, rather than to defer to it, which has increased, is increasing and should be diminished.
That is really all I have time to say—there is much more that I would like to say. However, there is one positive aspect of the Bill, which is that we parliamentarians in both Houses must wake up to the fact that there should now be proper, true parliamentary control of the legislative process. But that is up to us.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this historic debate today. It is also a relief to be here after four and half years. I congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Frost, the UK negotiating team and the EU negotiating team on reaching this deal in the teeth of a pandemic which made the negotiations so very challenging. But as the coronavirus has revealed inequalities both in this country and around the world, Brexit highlighted some inabilities in modern British politics—the inability to see that compromise is not always a bad thing; the inability to show that sometimes we can disagree well and respectfully with each other; and, most importantly, some people showed an inability to accept the results of a public vote that had been sanctioned by this very Parliament. At some point, both Houses of Parliament will have to demonstrate that we have learned from this period in our history.
There were some who asserted that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did not want a deal. Actually, he demonstrated with both the withdrawal agreement last year and now this deal that he absolutely wanted a deal that set the terms for a continuing and new relationship with the European Union, but with Britain very much not as a member of that European Union. We will undoubtedly hear criticisms today of what is in that deal, including from those who still seek to say that, actually, we should not have taken this step as a sovereign country. However, I hope there are many others in this country, in this Parliament and beyond, who will see that the deal negotiated and agreed on Christmas Eve presents great opportunities for Britain. We should take the opportunity to seize what is before us and build a success for our country, in a new trading relationship but also in a new co-operation relationship with the European Union as our neighbour and partner.
There are many businesses that have in the past complained about red tape and been told that it is impossible to do anything about it because it comes from the EU. Now, that will not be an option. Equally, there will be times when we want to take the opportunity to do things very differently, whether in terms of building trading relationships with other countries around the world or making decisions that are right for our businesses in this country. So, we have this deal and while there are areas that remain to be worked out, such as financial services and data flows, this deal signals the start of a new relationship with the European Union. I am pleased to support the Bill and the overall deal, and I hope this House will reject the amendment before it.
The news today shows that 2021 can well be a brighter year for everyone, and this deal and this new relationship with the EU will be part of that.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak as chair of the Constitution Committee and I say at the outset that this Bill elevates to a new level our concern about the way the Government present legislation to Parliament. The Bill fails all the tests for achieving good-quality legislation. It is long and complex and gives significant new powers to the Executive. We have not had anywhere near enough time to scrutinise the Bill as we would wish, and in any other circumstances the Constitution Committee would issue a detailed, thorough and critical appraisal of it. However, the committee did meet yesterday, and we published our immediate response. We acknowledged that the fast-tracking of the Bill is now necessary, but only because of the Government’s own actions ahead of the cliff edge of 31 December.
On the substance of the Bill, we noted that a prominent argument for the UK leaving the EU was to take back control of our laws—for laws to be determined by the UK Parliament, rather than the EU’s lawmaking bodies. Asserting the sovereignty of the UK Parliament was considered of such importance that it was included in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. It is regrettable that the Bill, which determines how the UK’s future relationship with the EU will be implemented into UK law, was published less than 24 hours before parliamentary scrutiny was due to begin. This does not allow Parliament much by way of control. This is the core of our concern. If, as the Government say, powers are coming back from the EU, where do those powers go? Are the Executive taking all these to themselves? What does this mean for the relationship between Parliament and the Government? Can this House fulfil its constitutional responsibilities?
In the Explanatory Notes, the Government say:
“The Bill is not suitable for post legislative scrutiny”.
We very much disagree, because the content of the trade and co-operation agreement cannot be amended by Parliament, but the mechanisms used by the Bill to rewrite UK domestic law to implement this have significant and potentially long-lasting implications, particularly for the role of Parliament and for the devolved arrangements. The Constitution Committee therefore recommends that the House consider how best to conduct post-legislative scrutiny as soon as possible. We believe that the quality of such scrutiny will be an early and substantial test of whether or not Parliament possesses a significant tranche of returned powers. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, this is what increased parliamentary sovereignty requires.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I was wondering last night what a cynical Government would do if they knew they could get only a poor deal because they had limited their own hand so much in negotiations. Leave it to the last minute? Issue inaccurate and misleading press statements when it was made? Allow only for minute scrutiny? Seek to prevent any post-legislative scrutiny and refuse to publish an impact assessment, perhaps? But, as others do, I love my country and it was a rather heartbreaking exercise, over the last few days, to read, side by side, the Conservative Government’s draft negotiating document for a free trade agreement, published on 19 May, and the final agreement. In almost every single area, from the betrayal of fishermen and Gibraltarians through to the vast new burdens on our businesses, the consistency and scale of the poor negotiating was laid bare in cold text.
The independent UK Trade Policy Observatory assessment stated:
“Even with the free trade agreement (FTA) announced on Christmas Eve, Brexit increases UK-EU trade costs, reduces trade between them, and requires resources for form-filling, queuing, etc. These in turn, lead to changes in consumption which reduce UK residents’ welfare.”
It goes on to a sobering conclusion:
“Exports of value added will fall by nearly 5.5% relative to a pre-Brexit scenario and GDP by 4.4%.”
My noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Kramer will outline this in more detail. The refusal yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord True, to commit to publishing an impact assessment, in direct contradiction to a letter he sent me in May, is likely to be seen more cynically by those communities and sectors that will be impacted most.
The punishing absence of services was expected, as the UK’s “red line” on securing services continuity turned to pink and then to a white flag ages ago. We knew some of the details of this already. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was appointed Trade Minister from being chair of one of the UK’s biggest banks, and when he moved Barclays’ European headquarters and almost €200 billion in assets from London to Dublin last year, he said:
“We believe this will give us a competitive advantage”.
Those of us warning of the damage of this course were told, first, that we were scaremongering and then that we were sore losers, but I looked at the Leave.EU website archive and in the questions and answers it said this to the question of what impact leaving the EU would have on trade:
“The remaining EU member states will seek a trade agreement assuring the same level of free exchange of goods, services and capital as is the case today.”
They did not, and this promise was made in falsehood and fully realised in its egregious breach. However, the lies, tangled webs of deception and parliamentary obfuscations are nearly over, and we will have to deal with the consequences.
Liberal forebears joined together to ensure the widest benefit of free, fair and open trade well over a century ago. We fought relentlessly against Conservative protectionism at the turn of the last century. We split from the Conservative and National Government over their imposition of tariffs all round. Now, a century on, we need to try to militate against the worst elements of this poor agreement. We will have to be in the vanguard of supporting women entrepreneurs in the service sector to tackle the new barriers, helping our businesses export against the new burdens and supporting those wishing to seek advantage not by moving out of the UK but by staying in it and working with others to reconnect with Europe. I never thought we would need to rejoin this fight, but we do—we must, and we will with vigour.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, the agreement with the EU covers such a wide variety of matters, and the time for scrutinising this Bill is so very short, that one has to be selective. My choice has been to look at how this necessary Bill seeks to give effect in domestic law to the surrender provisions in Part 3.
The surrender provisions must be compared with the EU’s framework decision that governs the European arrest warrant to see what we have lost and what we have gained. We were always going to lose our right as an EU member state to require those countries whose fundamental principles prohibit the surrender of their nationals to third countries to surrender them to us— and so it has been. But we have made up for that by securing agreement to some new protections and to a more comprehensive scheme that, as the European Court of Justice now has no role, leaves as little room for mishaps and misunderstandings as possible. On balance, the scheme—though second best—seems to be as good as we could have hoped for.
How, then, does the Bill seek to give effect to these provisions in domestic law? Clause 11 tells us that member states are to remain category 1 territories. That means that the new scheme is to be dealt with under the accelerated procedure in Part 1 of the Extradition Act. That is as it should be, as the surrender scheme itself provides for an accelerated procedure for which Part 1 of that Act was designed. However, there are differences. Part 1 of the Extradition Act does not mention the principle of proportionality, for example, which lies at the heart of the new scheme, and the new scheme clarifies the circumstances in which a public prosecutor can be considered a judicial officer—something that always puzzled us—which that Act does not do.
It is plain for these and other reasons that Part 1 of the Extradition Act requires amendment if it is to meet the requirements of the new scheme. For the time being, we are left with the general implementation provisions in Clause 29, but that clause leaves too much to the judgment of the individual judges and others who will be required to operate this system. Uncertainty and inconsistent decisions will follow. It falls very far short of what is needed here. We can be sure that on its side, the EU will do what is necessary. These amendments are required and must be made as soon as possible.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I will make four very brief points in this historic debate.
First, the Government and the Prime Minister are to be strongly congratulated on securing this landmark future relationship agreement. What has been achieved should not be underestimated, and this House should have no hesitation in supporting the agreement and the passage of this Bill.
Secondly, like so many others, I fervently hope that the agreement can finally resolve an issue that has poisoned our politics and divided our peoples like no other issue since the Irish home rule debates over a century ago. Although in many respects a Eurosceptic, like the majority of your Lordships I voted remain in 2016. However, from the moment the referendum result was announced, I believed strongly that it was the duty of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to deliver the democratic verdict of the people of this country to leave the EU. With this agreement, surely the time has now come to put the “leave” and “remain” labels behind us and try as a political class to unite our country to make a success of our new relationships with both Europe and the wider world.
Thirdly, while I support the agreement and the Bill, there remain significant anxieties in Northern Ireland regarding the need for regulatory checks down the Irish Sea. While the free trade provisions of this agreement will go some way to mitigating a number of these, they will not entirely remove them. There are particular concerns in Northern Ireland that companies from Great Britain could be deterred from supplying Northern Ireland markets, thus leading to reduced consumer choice in some areas. Would my noble friend assure the House in winding up that the Government will continue to monitor this situation very closely and that, if there is any evidence that Northern Ireland is being disadvantaged, they will not hesitate to take the appropriate action in the joint committee established for such purposes?
Fourthly and finally, there is little doubt that events since June 2016, as we have sought to extricate ourselves from one Union, have placed enormous strains on our much older union here at home. For those of us who value the maintenance of the United Kingdom above all else in politics and sit here proudly as Conservatives and Unionists, these have been and remain very difficult times. Hopefully this agreement will steady some nerves and stabilise the situation, but with important elections approaching we cannot afford an ounce of complacency. In conclusion, therefore, I urge the Government to approach with renewed vigour and determination the need to develop, across party lines where appropriate, a modern and compelling case for our union that we can take to all four parts of our country to secure our future outside the EU as one nation and one United Kingdom.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for half a century I have campaigned for a united Europe. Today’s Bill finalises Britain’s divorce from the most successful peace project in history, undermining our future economic potential, our national security and our influence as a force for good in the world. For a social democrat, it signals a retreat from a social market economy governed by rules, standards and rights of which there is no equal in the world. Today is a victory for a poisonous nationalistic populism over liberal, rules-based internationalism; it is a very bad and, for me, a very painful day.
The deal before us is thin in substance but heavy in governance structures. It is designed to accommodate a British Government of ideological leavers who prioritise reclaiming a theoretical sovereignty over the practical benefits of deep co-operation. Yet the Prime Minister this morning had no visible plan to demonstrate how this theoretical sovereignty will deliver the promised new opportunities for the British people. Once the concept of Brexit was to complete the Thatcher revolution. What is it now? The Government will find themselves trapped between the politics of the red wall on one flank and the treaty provisions on a level playing field and tariff retaliation on the other.
But bad as this deal is, the alternative is far worse: not just a chaotic no deal but a lasting rupture with the European Union with a rogue Britain on its doorstep. I am as emotional in my European commitment as anyone in this House, but in serious politics we must base decisions on objective realities. That is why I believe this Bill must pass. The big question for Labour now is: what next? The European question in British politics has not been settled today. Today simply marks the end of one historical phase. To think we can forget about Europe is to live in a world of illusion.
By all means, Labour should no longer parrot the referendum arguments for remain; we must accept that argument. This deal does not resolve the complexities of Britain’s economic security and political ties to the continent. However, it contains the institutional structures on which a new and closer relationship can and should over time be built. As for the Brexiteers, they should heed Walpole’s famous warning: they are ringing their bells now, but soon they will be wringing their hands.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, Martin Wolf writing in the FT last week accurately described the EU and the UK as “equally sovereign” but “not equally powerful”. This deal not only locks in that imbalance but leaves the UK in a position of dependency that I find quite shocking. As someone who opposed Brexit, I always regarded this deal as damage limitation, but I never expected any British Government to give up so much for so little.
Because of time, I will limit my remarks to financial services, a key pillar of the UK economy—perhaps its most important one—that provides nearly 2 million jobs and over £75 billion a year in tax revenue. With the signature on this deal, our negotiating leverage to protect key parts of this industry has disappeared. We have already seen more than £1.2 billion in assets shift to the EU. How could any responsible Government put the UK economy in this position?
Of course we keep domestic financial services, but our global role depends on our ability to be the overwhelmingly major player in the euro-denominated financial markets. The US has been repatriating dollar activity to New York; China has no intention of outsourcing any significant portion of its financial services; and India is equally committed to growing its own capacity. We are entering a period of regional blocs and rivalries. We are Europe’s hub or no one’s hub.
This is now entirely in the EU’s hands. It has the luxury of building capacity in the 27 at its own pace and then, like the python, gradually squeezing to require a shift out of the UK. In asset management, where, frankly, the Government always thought the sector would just “brass plate” in the EU, the industry has been adding jobs in the 27 at a pace unimaginable before Brexit. Now the EU is consulting on tightening its rules on outsourcing to push the trend further. In commercial insurance, the Herculean task of transferring contracts from the UK to the EU is close to complete, and Lloyds of London is now Lloyds of London and Brussels. Derivatives clearing, a global, trillion-dollar industry which underpins London’s global role and keeps a huge range of related activities in the UK, has been given temporary equivalence by the EU for 18 months with guidance to EU companies to use that time to shift their business to the 27. Even growth in fintech depends on an agreement on data exchange, which is not in this deal. An MoU by March will set a framework for regulatory co-operation—if we promise to be good.
We face a slow erosion, only because the EU is happy for it to be a slow erosion, but the pace and the proportion will be at the EU’s choice. That is the effect of this very botched deal.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con) (Valedictory Speech) [V]
My Lords, on the penultimate day of my membership of this House, my intervention this afternoon seeks to cover my considered views of this Bill and 30 years in Parliament, all in three minutes. I must disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter: there is no time, alas, for oysters.
I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her excellent opening speech. I look forward to supporting her this evening.
In campaigning to leave the European Union, I was guided by two overriding principles: first, to preserve and protect the very ancient settlement under which the people of these islands are governed by consent, and secondly, to defend this country from the horrors of unaccountable power. I believe the conduct of the EU’s institutions run counter to those principles and promise in future to diverge further still.
For most of my adult life, I have wondered how to arrest the erosion of our freedoms and the imposition of a form of government at odds with the character of the British people. Small wonder then that I feel a profound sense of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Frost and to our country’s brilliant team of negotiators, to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and most of all to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, for bringing me this peace of mind as I enter old age.
But let me be clear: I have no quarrel with the people of Europe, only with the institutions that govern them. It even occurs to me that these events could become the wellspring of a new train of political thought. I can imagine Europe’s political leaders beginning to press urgently the question of whether and for how long the EU’s direction of travel commands the consent of the people who elected them. One might echo the words of William Pitt after Trafalgar when he said:
“England has saved herself by her exertions and will, I trust, save Europe by her example.”
I fervently hope that, as this chapter draws to a close, we will recognise how much our friends in Europe, as well as here, have been puzzled and bruised by the Brexit process. I believe it is the duty of every one of us, and certainly, it is the duty of the Government, to move with energy and imagination in the months and years ahead towards finding ways of healing these wounds and divisions. Government can do practical things and I believe it will. The more meaningful change in the mood music needs to come from all of us. Christians and non-Christians alike understand the teaching of “Love thy neighbour”; there has surely never been a better time to put that into practice.
I close by putting on record my profound appreciation for the unfailingly generous help and support I have received from the staff of this House and, likewise, from all the officials I have had the pleasure of encountering. I will long remember with gratitude numerous kindnesses.
I say with sadness that I do not think the health of your Lordships’ House is good; in fact, I think its condition is possibly life-threatening. I am consoled however by the thought that the collective genius of this House is more than equal to restore it to what it should be; I will watch with interest.
Membership of your Lordships’ House has been a unique privilege and a tremendous pleasure, at least for most of the time. Something that will endure in my memory is my most recent experience, which was to have participated modestly in two committees upstairs, brilliantly led respectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her friendship and support, my noble friend Lord True as a friend and outstanding Minister, the Government Whips’ office for its patience, and special thanks go to my noble friend Lord Borwick, who has sought to keep me in order, his whip barely visible.
I have gained something from every Peer I have encountered these last 30 years; I have made friendships that I value highly from all sides of the House; I have learned hugely, laughed extravagantly, and with that, all that is left is to bid your Lordships an affectionate and slightly emotional farewell.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by complimenting my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness on his valedictory speech, which was typically eloquent and clear. I know the whole House will join me in thanking him for over 30 years of service to this House. His warm and friendly camaraderie will be missed by all of us. He has not sought to be safe through caution, but if anything he has been more than forthright in his illustrious time here, and he can retire safe in the knowledge that the Government have achieved in the Bill all and maybe more than he and I could have expected. He knows why I get a particular thrill every time I refer to him and that he will be greatly missed by all the House. I am also delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, is giving his maiden speech here. His proud stand against historic and current anti-Semitism makes him a particular hero of mine.
I have supported the Government at every step of their negotiations and it is true that I would have settled for a lesser deal, so I can only thank and praise our negotiating team, led by my noble friend Lord Frost, for its achievement. Mark my words: this will go down in history as a masterclass of negotiating success.
In this huge Bill I will pick out one area: namely, technical barriers to trade. Perhaps the Minister can answer this question in his summing up later. The Bill very helpfully allows for conformity of product legislation, codes, clarification and status. For example, the Soil Association needs to change and co-ordinate with the EU to enable trade to continue. The plea I hear from manufacturers now is to allow a grace period for the new systems to kick in and for guarantees that their customers in the EU will not remove the products from their shelves, as they are currently threatening to do, because after tomorrow, those products may not be EU compliant. Accordingly, there needs to be a grace period.
Finally, on financial services, as a practitioner in that field, I disagree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Those threats and worries were raised at the time of the referendum and they proved not to be true. I am convinced that the EU will look carefully at our negotiation through this agreement and will see that there can be a win-win between us on financial services. I have spoken about equivalence a number of times in this House, and I look forward to the Government achieving a more than satisfactory solution in this vital area soon.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have never made a secret of my regret that the 2016 referendum went the way it did. I hoped for some time that, when the implications became known, the British people would be given a second chance to vote and the result would go the other way. But I accepted long ago that the train had left the station and that we had to turn our attention and energies to negotiating a new relationship with our former partners. We now have the results of that negotiation.
I cannot agree with those who say, as some have, that this is a bad deal, on the grounds of the increase in bureaucratic controls on trade in goods, extra checks on exports of food and farmed products, and loss of access to development funding. They are not the results of the agreement; they are the inevitable results of the original decision to leave the European Union.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I take a more favourable view of these negotiations than some previous speakers. They seem to me to have been skilful, firmly based on principle and with a surprisingly satisfactory outcome. We approached them not as a mendicant, but as an independent country with a great deal to offer, as indeed is the case. The United Kingdom is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are one of the world’s two leading financial centres. We have pioneering universities and research centres, as our leading role on the coronavirus vaccine has shown. We have a structure of law that is admired and relied on by businesses around the world. We have the great asset of the English language. These things are not going away and are not affected by Brexit.
My view is that we can greet this agreement not just with profound relief that it is much better than no deal, but with positivity about the opportunities that it presents for continued trade and co-operation with Europe. We can be justifiably proud of the civil servant negotiators, who worked so hard and with evident skill to achieve this outcome. I believe that they have shown themselves to be at least equal in resolution and ability to their EU counterparts.
This is of course not the end of the story, as the President of the European Union said in her moving words when the agreement was announced. There are important areas where there is need for further agreements and co-operation in our mutual interest but, when we vote on the Bill, I will support it, and not just with relief but with optimism.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and agree with much of what he said. I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on achieving a negotiated outcome with the European Union. In doing so, I pay tribute not only to the Prime Minister but to the negotiating team, which bore a weighty burden, the Civil Service support that provided them with necessary expertise and, last but not least, the chief negotiator the noble Lord, Lord Frost.
The wider debate requires a candid and truthful recognition of what has been a complex process, including an explicit acknowledgement that a successful negotiation requires significant compromise. Such truthful recognition makes for good civil discourse. This will be further helped by more accurate language about the good and less good aspects of the package and appropriate scrutiny of detail—sadly not possible today. I hope that the public debate is less about the intangibles of rhetoric and more about the true and honest cost of the investment, outreach and spiritual renewal needed if we are to flourish as a nation state, going forward.
My final point begins with comments from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, recently retired from this House, who, early in the pandemic, spoke of what has become a much wider perception that our lives are bound together with those of every human being on this planet. That, he said, poses “the biggest moral questions”. A more positive focus on our continuing interdependence, not least with other European nations but more widely—globally—would be welcome and herald the future partnerships that are so essential to our national well-being.
Therefore, I hope that, as we consider the Bill and continue the shared endeavour that is our proud national story, we recognise that people and institutions flourish best under relational frameworks and that individualism, freed of obligation or collective provision, will ultimately fail. We are still in the season of Christmas, and the birth of a saviour transcends all national boundaries with a message of peace and good will to all people.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con) [V]
My Lords, one could view the Bill as the final step in the long process, over four years, of retrieving our laws from the EU, through hundreds of statutory instruments, and realigning them with domestic law. The Bill delivers the final batch and will implement it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I congratulate the negotiators on their remarkable achievement.
As such, the treaty and Bill are welcome, but they are welcome for so much more, because the outcome brings certainty by concluding four fractious years, at last allowing business to plan and invest for the future. More importantly, they restore sovereignty. Edmund Burke said that the state is something
“to be looked on with … reverence”.
Indeed it is, but it is something more than that: sovereignty gives a nation a mainspring, an inner core, without which its sense of identity and, therefore, its drive and purpose are blurred. Our sovereignty, shared with the EU for many years until now, has a direct and practical relevance to how we go forward.
It has been said that the treaty sets a new standard in trade deals. It certainly enables us to conclude further deals with other nations, free from the handcuffs of EU control. We have just concluded a major deal with Japan. Turkey is said to be poised to conclude one with us. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, embodying many of the fastest-growing nations in the world, is beckoning. Australia, Canada, the United States and others are also on the list. I was encouraged to read that the Department for International Trade, part of the old department where I sought to champion free trade, is already reassessing its former methods of appraising economic benefit in trade deals and tipping towards our national strengths in the international market, where the business potential is huge.
One cannot help but notice the change of tone within the business and financial commentariat. Where there used to be endless gloom about leaving the EU, now, from the Bank of England downwards, the tone is much brighter. The pound is stronger and the stock market is rising, because we are free from control in the slowest-growing continent in the world.
I hope that our future relationship with the EU, still a major market for us, will be close and productive. We may be able to support it better from the outside and by example, but the EU’s share of world trade has crashed during the years of our membership. We can do better, following the outcome that this fine broad-based treaty represents. We should now come together as a nation, look to the future and seize the opportunities.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lang, although not his line. Instead, I return to the 1960s and 1970s, when some of us were campaigning for the United Kingdom to join what was then called the Common Market, when it was supported by very few in the Labour Party. Those on the far left described it as a “capitalist conspiracy” and some of us were held back in politics because of our support for Europe.
Thankfully, by the time of the referendum in 1975, more had recognised that the EU was not just a force for peace, but a way of maintaining high environmental, safety and social standards, even when we had a right-wing Government in the United Kingdom. That referendum was won not by the slim majority of the 2016 referendum, but by a margin of two to one. I was pleased to play a part by helping to organise the campaign in Scotland.
But even that convincing majority never silenced the critics—the little Englanders who kept on and on with their anti-EU campaign and many false stories about Europe, which are too numerous to elaborate. Indeed, the current Prime Minister promulgated some of them. All of this resulted in David Cameron, like a rabbit caught in the headlights, conceding a totally unnecessary referendum to try—unsuccessfully, as it turned out—to appease his critics in the Tory party. With a campaign of dubious funding and even more dodgy publicity, they obtained just a slim majority, which took even them by surprise. As a result, they have struggled to negotiate this complicated and inadequate deal, which seeks to unstitch 40 years of really fruitful co-operation.
Today we have the unenviable choice of supporting a poor deal or rejecting it in favour of the even worse option of no deal. So, I will support the Government in this Bill not because I welcome the deal but because it is the less bad option. In doing so, while accepting the deal we are not endorsing it—that is a crucial difference. We also reserve the right to seek to renegotiate, as well as review, and ultimately—in my view—to seek to rejoin the European Union, which I believe will be increasingly successful.
Those who campaigned for decades to have us leave cannot deny us the same right to persuade the British people to think again. For those of us who fought the campaign in the 1970s, and the youngsters I believe will now join us, it is the time now to gird up our loins and prepare to renew the fight to restore our rightful position within the European Union.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is a whole series of security issues that makes the UK less safe as a result of this future relationship agreement. In the time available, I will concentrate on one: we have not taken back control of our borders.
Under this deal, EU, EEA and Swiss nationals will be able to continue to use e-passport gates at UK airports, allowing visa-free, no-questions-asked access to the UK. Currently, Border Force officers have real-time access to the Schengen Information System, SIS II, as my noble friend Lord Newby said. This system includes details of all those wanted under the European arrest warrant—something else the UK will no longer be part of—and details of travelling sex offenders and those of interest to the counterterrorism community. From 1 January, real-time checking against the SIS II database of those passing through the UK border will no longer be possible. Passenger name record data, covered by this Bill, is collected by airlines; it contains no information about actual or suspected criminal activity.
Not only is there no hardening of the border compared to what currently exists under EU free movement rules, but the ability to prevent the entry of undesirable foreign nationals will be significantly reduced, because it will be much harder to identify them. Patrolling police officers on the streets of the UK can currently check whether the person they have stopped is wanted in any EU state, whether they are known to EU law enforcement as a sex tourist or suspected by another EU state of being involved in terrorism, simply by checking the person’s details on the police national computer—a PNC check. From 1 January 2021, the link between SIS II and the PNC will be disconnected, and none of these real-time checks will be possible. As a result of this deal, wanted criminals, sex offenders and suspected terrorists, who would have been identified through a simple check, will be allowed to go on their way. The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for Brexit said last month that the loss of SIS II
“will have a massive impact on us”.
Anyone who claims we are safer with this deal than we were as a member of the European Union, or than we would potentially have been if we had paid as much attention during the negotiations to the safety and security of our citizens as we did to our fish, is sadly mistaken. The Bill is wholly inadequate when it comes to maintaining the security of the UK, and that is another reason why we cannot support it.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and the whole negotiating team in the Government, on achieving this deal. It is not perfect and could never have been perfect; the cake was never available to be had and eaten at the same time. But it is a remarkable achievement to have done this in such a short space of time. I spent much of my early ministerial career negotiating the UK’s way into the European single market during the late 1980s. I know better than most how slow, painstaking and meticulous that work was, but also how fractious the relationship frequently was.
Yes, this is a thin deal, as some have said. It does not cover services, but we know that the single market for services was far from complete, especially for financial services. We know that it does not cover mutual recognition of qualifications, but that does not immediately mean that professional qualifications will not be recognised. The same applies to conformity requirements.
The point has been made by a number of your Lordships that much work remains to be done. This is not the finished article, and it never will be the finished article. It should not and cannot be, because the world is changing, and technologies are changing. This has to be a dynamic relationship that adapts as time goes on to the needs, possibilities and challenges of the moment. If anything has shown how important the need to be agile and adaptable is, it is the dreadful experience of 2020. It shows how unexpected events can throw out what has been foreseen, but also throw up opportunities and challenges.
There is a great deal more to be done. I personally believe that there is an opportunity for the relationship to be taken forward in a better spirit than there was for much of the time when we were a full member of the European Union. We were never committed in the way that other countries in the European Union have been. Some noble Lords talked about Britain being at the centre of Europe—we never were at the centre of the European Union, nor could we ever have been. We were an important contributing member in many ways, and all the ways in which we can continue to contribute to and benefit from that close relationship with our European neighbours and friends remain available to us in the future. I hope that will be the spirit in which we enter into this next epoch in our nation’s life.
Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]
My Lords, I do not believe that this thin agreement—as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, called it—with the EU is in the long-term interests of this country. But I will support the Bill this evening, because the only alternative would be the worse chaos of a no-deal departure.
The British people will discover in the months ahead that this agreement will produce an avalanche of restrictions, bureaucracy, extra costs and delays. As that reality sinks in, at least this deal provides a platform on which to start the long process of building back a closer partnership in the years ahead.
I have two brief comments on the substance. The agreement on security and justice provides for a closer association with the EU than I, for one, had feared. I welcome that. But the principle underlying all the complex detail is that the UK will no longer have direct, real-time access to the EU databases and systems which have become so important for British policing, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, just explained. We heard in the Lords EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee that British police had consulted the SIS II database over 600 million times in 2019. In future, they will have to request information from the SIS II database, with all the delays that will entail.
Access to some of the other databases for fingerprints, DNA and passenger name records looks at first sight to be easier, but the overall loss will be significant. I cannot understand how it can be claimed that Brexit will make us safer. The question is rather: how much loss of capability will there be? What will be the operational impact of slower and more cumbersome processes, and more police officers tied up in front of computer screens making requests to the EU? Your Lordships’ EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee will hold an inquiry into this in the new year and will report to the House.
Briefly, my view is that the decision not to continue participation in Erasmus is short-sighted and mean-spirited. Erasmus gave life-enhancing opportunities to many thousands of students from the UK and across the EU. Less well-known is the fact that it also enabled vocational and adult education colleges and schools, many in disadvantaged areas, to set up joint projects with counterparts across Europe. It lifted the admin burden of organisers, which allowed smaller organisations that did not have the resources to arrange projects. I am deeply sceptical that a UK scheme, starting from scratch with the funding envisaged, will come anywhere near replicating the transformational impact Erasmus has had on so many lives. I hope this decision to leave Erasmus will be reviewed at the first opportunity.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much enjoyed the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, who has been a stalwart and perceptive member of the European Union Committee. I wish him well—and indeed many plates of oysters—in his retirement.
The EU Committee has reported many times in the last four and a half years on the risks associated with not having a wide-ranging agreement with the EU. The 1,256 pages of Christmas Eve are thus very welcome, and I add my congratulations to the Government on achieving a deal, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his large and hard-working negotiating team. However, this represents only the start of a long process. Many areas are not covered, as we have already heard, and—for many that are—much detail has yet to be hammered out.
As noble Lords have just heard, the EU family of committees has already begun its work of full scrutiny of the trade and co-operation agreement—the TCA—and will in due course publish detailed analysis on every aspect of the agreement in a series of reports. The TCA sets up a partnership council that will be supported by a partnership committee, 18 specialised committees and four working groups, and it will have the ability to create more committees. This structure will sit alongside the existing joint committee on the withdrawal agreement, its six specialised committees and working group—a total of 32 committees across the two treaties. Like the joint committee on the withdrawal agreement, the partnership council of the TCA has the very major power to alter the TCA itself by decision. Scrutiny of this new and powerful structure will be of great interest to Parliament, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will work with us to put in place a proportionate and transparent scrutiny system.
An important aspect of the TCA is the establishment of a parliamentary partnership assembly—a body that will involve Members of both Houses and of the European Parliament. I much welcome this and will return to it when we have more time. That assembly and the many TCA and withdrawal agreement committees represent a vital set of channels of communication and will offer the opportunity to help to repair the mutual trust that the Brexit process has dented. In the meantime, I acknowledge that legislation is vital to ensure that the TCA comes into force on 1 January to avoid the significant disruption and adverse risks that no deal would represent, so I support the Bill.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, having spent many years in your Lordships’ House on the Opposition Front Bench with responsibility for foreign affairs following my time in the Foreign Office long ago in the days of Francis Pym, I have always found it possible to combine a passionate interest and attachment to what the Prime Minister recently called the history, security, values and geology that bind us to our friends in Europe with an economic belief that the current European project, which is still in transition, will ultimately face challenges and possible failure on economic and then political grounds. I have always believed that we are better as a close friend and ally on the borders of the EU than one of 28 member states principally tied to the economic and political constraints within it.
Accordingly, I congratulate the Government and the negotiating teams on both sides, and associate myself with the 17.4 million people, including myself, who voted for Brexit and began the process that has led to the passing of this historic Bill. I believe the surprising strength of this deal will in time lead other member states carefully to consider their membership of the European Union.
The Bruges speech in 1988 was the turning point for many of us in government in the 1980s. We can now end the 30 years and more of fractious debate and often exhausting misdirected political energy and demonstrate increasing certainty for business after four and a half years of uncertainty. This Bill—this return to national sovereignty—comes at a time in our history when the establishment pillars of 20th-century Britain are also being challenged as we rightly move to a more meritocratic society where we must level up.
Today, we have loosened and restructured unequivocally the political ties of interstate integration. In 2021 there will be a growing awareness of the importance of entrepreneurship, productivity, competitiveness and opportunity in a global market—themes that will need to resonate as loudly in the boardrooms and on factory floors of UK-based companies as they will be reflected in the increasingly unfettered corridors of Westminster and Whitehall.
However, I temper my optimism with a recognition that, as has been said, this future relationship Bill is ultimately a tool—not an end in itself, but a new beginning, capable of unleashing this country’s potential and above all its people. In using that tool in the Bill before us, I regret the use of Henry VIII powers, which are widely evident in this Bill and which permit the Government to avoid parliamentary accountability and scrutiny with, as became known after the Statute of Proclamations in 1539, a swift flick of the quill that leaves spilt ink on otherwise excellent parchment.
That said, with unfettered optimism and determination, the Prime Minister has delivered, but what above all should be remembered is that Parliament today approves the Bill. The PM should be congratulated. Today is a historic day and a most welcome opportunity that cannot and should not be taken for granted. It must be grasped to be successful.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hayter’s Amendment. I chair the EU Services Sub-Committee, which conducted an inquiry into the future UK-EU relationship on professional and business services, including financial services. I had no expectation that these topics would be covered in this thinnest of thin treaties, even though they are vital to the UK economy. Professional and business services accounted for almost 12% of the UK economy, £224 billion in gross value added, 4.6 million jobs and 23% of all registered businesses in 2019. The UK has a trade surplus of £12.4 billion with the EU.
What we do know is that the Government have failed to achieve mutual recognition of qualifications or to maximise short-term mobility of labour, which will have a detrimental effect on creative industries. Anything involving selling goods or services will require a work visa. These barriers will have a disproportionate effect on small and medium-sized enterprises.
On the wider issues not yet covered, if we fail to achieve a data adequacy agreement, the cost to business, at a conservative estimate, will be between £1 billion and £1.6 billion to arrange standard contractual clauses. Agreements on equivalence and regulatory co-operation in financial services, intellectual property, cross-border supply of services, rights of establishment and business mobility, in addition to the mutual recognition of qualifications, are all vital ingredients to professional and business services’ continuing success. What priority will the Government give to these areas?
Finally, the decision to leave Erasmus+ is a political one. My committee will scrutinise the detail of any alternative, to ensure that our students and universities are not worse off. In reply to a Question in the Commons, the Prime Minister said that
“the hon. Gentleman is talking through the back of his neck. There is no threat to the Erasmus scheme”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/20; col. 1021.]
I suppose that that is technically correct; Erasmus will thrive without us. Is that what he really meant? It is still not too late to try to negotiate to stay in Erasmus and I urge the Government to do so.
Lord Fox (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. I will focus on three business consequences of this treaty. First, the deal creates an ocean of new paperwork. The Financial Times reports that each year British companies trading with Europe will have to fill in an extra 215 million customs declarations, at a cost of about £7 billion per year. At best, each delivery to and from the EU will take an average one day longer. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ameliorate this fettering of British trade?
Secondly, there will be double regulation. Any UK company wishing to export to the EU will now have to comply with both the new UK regulations and standards and the EU ones—an extra set of design, testing, certification and administration costs. For example, UK chemicals regulation requires British-based companies to reregister every chemical that is currently legal in the EU. Double regulation means double cost. In the case of chemicals, that is about £1 billion of extra cost. What are the Government doing to alleviate the millstone that is hanging around British industry?
Thirdly, on rules of origin, traders can self-certify the origin of goods sold and then enjoy what is called cumulation. That is good, but the deal does not allow for parts imported from regions outside the UK and EU to be counted towards local content—what is called diagonal cumulation. This will make it hard, or impossible, for our more complex manufacturers to avoid being hit by heavy tariffs from the EU. What are the Government doing about that?
These are undeniable issues. The Minister and the Government should face up to them. This Conservative treaty makes things worse for investors, workers and consumers.
Finally, it is clear that, despite its size—no skinny treaty here—this deal is actually a master framework. As the House has heard, from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and other noble Lords, there are many further deals to be made. As the noble Earl set out, there is a welter of committees to hammer out these details— 32 committees and working parties by his count. Noble Lords should remember that, if either party is not happy, the entire deal could be terminated with just one year’s notice. The UK and the EU will be arguing about our relationship for years. So much for this deal giving certainty to business. Business will soon realise that things are not fixed; they are still moving. Without certainty, capital takes flight.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, this is indeed a historic day and a historic debate. Over a year ago, on 23 October, I wrote to the Prime Minister thanking him for his tenacity over the withdrawal Bill. I do so again today, because he has shown leadership, vision, statecraft and sheer willpower. He and his team have produced the Bill before the House today and shored up a relationship which will stand the test of time, based on zero tariffs and zero quotas.
So, an opportunity beckons for the United Kingdom. Just look at Asia with its new 15-country grouping, covering 30% of global GDP. Africa is about to launch its free trade area in 2021, covering 1.2 billion people. South America’s covers 300 million. As the fifth-largest economy in the world, what do we do to make the most of that? We need leadership in every embassy and high commission, with someone appointed, with the status of at least the second most important person there, to seek out future agreements.
I will mention a couple of countries. I have known Chile for 15 years or more. It is the most successful country at negotiating deals around the world, now covering 90% of global GDP. Sri Lanka, which I love, and where I have lived and worked, is a fintech-oriented society of talented young people and another opportunity. Both those countries are very pro-British.
The City is not a problem. We were told that there would be a tremendous amount of unemployment there. There is not; it has not happened. Its wholesale finance is much better prepared than any other part of the UK. It is historically very rare for anywhere which has as dominant a role as our City does to lose it. Of course, it needs some help in the forthcoming months. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has done such a good job. Will that help be forthcoming as they negotiate the details with Europe? I am sure it will be. Perhaps there is a role for a Minister of State to be appointed temporarily to look after the City for 18 months.
To conclude, there are massive opportunities around the world. The key, though, is leadership and an understanding of the role of marketing. I promise to do my best to help our country and my Government on this journey to becoming a really successful country. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost said, the Brexit trade deal is a “moment of national renewal”.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, of course I feel some relief—as anyone would—that we did not fall off the cliff edge of no deal, but I am not joining in the fanfare. Bill Cash compares the PM to Pericles and our EU membership to subjugation. I prefer Margaret Beckett’s word “salvage”, because this incomplete deal could have been done weeks, if not months, ago. It would have been just as incomplete then, but it would have satisfied the farmers, manufacturers, SMEs, students, musicians and many others whose livelihoods have been damaged, even wrecked, by the delays. What was all that about preparation? How can anyone be proud of setting up a massive lorry park against no deal, when it turned out to have a completely different and unexpected use in the pandemic? That was lucky, was it not?
The deal was, of course, cleverly announced by the Prime Minister on Christmas Eve with all the hallmarks of a gala, with the magician drawing rather small rabbits out of a top hat.
What is still not done? There is parliamentary scrutiny and financial services, and fishermen need more reassurance. Devolution is in a lot of trouble; the Schengen data is missing. We will lose Dublin III regulations for asylum seekers seeking family reunion. Gibraltar still has no deal. Then there is, of course, Erasmus. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, I feel the loss of that scheme almost personally, because it is founded on a great European scholar. The Turing scheme is fine, but its resonances are different.
Some say that Brexit is all over, but there is, and will always be, a fundamental divide between those who see themselves as European and those who see Great Britain in a global context. I am not sure that the Government appreciate that the first group may already be a majority. I was brought up as a European in a post-war climate and, for me, the UK has always been in Europe. I agree with those who want a European family of nations, not a political union or a giant bureaucracy—we are going to have some of that ourselves. Of course, the EU has to be reformed and it has an equal right to a level playing field. Europe will still be here on 1 January. Because of our shared experiences, we will inevitably have a closer relationship in the future. Most people will want that in the course of time. Meanwhile, we cannot expect Europe to want us back.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate so far. I am sorry to hear so many occasions where people are criticising the Government for what they have done and in particular suggesting that in some way they were dragging out the proceedings, for whatever benefit. This is a most unfair approach. One could predict at the beginning of the negotiations that there would always be a flurry at the very end—that is how the European Union carries out negotiations. It only puts its hands on the table right at the very last minute, and sometimes then things get into a mess when you are trying to sort them out. There is a lot still to be done to sort out what has happened, but to put the blame for the handling of this solely on our Government and Prime Minister is not fair, and the party opposite should reflect on that.
I look at this as a unionist, and I do not particularly like what I see. There was a reference from the Front Bench about there now being a division down the Irish Sea. There is a worse situation, actually: the position we have arrived at is that the European Union now governs part of the United Kingdom. That is the present situation. The part that is governed is the one dealing with a lot of agricultural matters. The problems there could always be handled, but instead of handling them the EU has walked away with a position where it now legislates for agriculture, and some business things in Northern Ireland are now governed by the EU. How long is that going to last? What are we going to do about it? We cannot accept this. I have listened with interest to people talking about setting up discussions, or at least pursuing the matters—we must not go around thinking we have solved this issue, because we have not. Today, we have no choice because this has to be carried through in order that we have an Act—we do not want to have a situation where we end up with no deal; we have to have that. But we have to realise that it is only a beginning, and we have to pursue it further.
I particularly want to go back to what people call the Good Friday agreement, and to remind people of the core element within that agreement. Under Article 1, paragraph (iii) says:
“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
This agreement changes the status of Northern Ireland, in that part of Northern Ireland is to be governed by the EU without the people of Northern Ireland having any say in that process at all. We cannot allow that to continue, and it is for that reason that we have to press on with this Bill, so that we achieve what is necessary. I will leave it at that point—I can see the Front Bench thinks that no more should be said—but, as I said, this is unfinished business. Waving hands may feel nice, but it will not solve the problem. We are going to have to come back to this as soon as possible, without delay, so that we get something worth while out of it.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, critics complain that Brexit and the trade and co-operation agreement will somewhat reduce economic growth, but should maximising growth be paramount? They regret too that we will lose freedoms to study, to start a business, to live; even, the Observer laments, to fall in love in Europe. Those who foresee such a diminished life for us ignore that we will regain a fundamental freedom: the freedom to make our own laws, in our own Parliaments, accountable to our own citizens, with those laws applied in our own courts, subject to no foreign jurisdiction. That parliamentary sovereignty is the great prize.
There has been much misrepresentation of the concept of sovereignty. The term does not denote untrammelled freedom of action; all nations operate within constraints—of physical and economic reality, power politics, the need to negotiate and compromise. The point is obvious and banal. It is not a ground for deriding Britain’s reassertion of sovereignty, properly understood as the right to legislative autonomy and self-government. As democrats, we should treasure sovereignty. Some who oppose Brexit deplore invocation of sovereignty as populism, a fantasy of British exceptionalism, anachronistic, a slide into isolation and ugly nationalism. It should not be any of those things. To reclaim our sovereignty is to articulate anew the liberal constitutionalism that led us over centuries to develop parliamentary government. If British exceptionalism means a proud and tenacious attachment to parliamentary democracy, I embrace that exceptionalism now and for our future.
Why do politicians who applaud the assertion of democratic values in other countries regard it as retrograde in our own? Why do they assume that as a self-governing democracy we will not enter alliances with mutual obligations for mutual advantage, working with the European Union and across the globe on the great issues that require international co-operation, honourably observing international law?
Since the 1970s, we have witnessed, with sadness and foreboding, a growing disaffection from Westminster. It has been no coincidence that this has happened since the enactment of the European Communities Act 1972. There have been other sources of political disaffection for sure, but the fact that Westminster alienated sovereignty—abdicating to Brussels its responsibility to govern across a broad range of policies—has been a primary one. Westminster now has the opportunity to recover the respect of our people. This is Britain’s opportunity for democratic renewal. I say to my friends who are despondent: we only need faith in our democratic capacity, confidence that we can govern ourselves successfully and ambition to be a model to the world.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that Britain’s democracy presently has many problems with public alienation and that we need democratic renewal. But leaving the European Union neither restores nor respects the sovereignty of Parliament. To add to the list of wildly misleading promises about Brexit, which have fed public alienation, Michael Gove’s assertion on 26 December that the agreement and its implementation will establish
“a special relationship… between sovereign equals”,
linking the UK to the EU, is a whopper.
Our special relationship with the United States is of course an unequal one, in which the USA matters far more to Britain than we do to them. We allow American bases within the UK to operate without parliamentary scrutiny. We embed British officers in US commands. Within the EU for 40 years we shared foreign policy co-operation with our partners. Indeed, the whole framework of European foreign policy co-operation was constructed under British leadership, from Jim Callaghan to Lord Carrington to Geoffrey Howe. The EU offered to maintain that relationship. Theresa May’s Government agreed to do so. It was Boris Johnson who preferred the illusion of sovereignty and who has thrown away the European foundations of any British global role.
This Bill, and the agreement it transposes into domestic law, commits us to continuing negotiations across a very wide range of issues, in which the UK will be the dependent partner. I mention two issues only out of the many that remain unresolved. The issues of data access, and the adequacy of data protection, are vital to the future of our economy. Three-quarters of UK data exchanges flow between here and the European continent. Sovereign independence on data regulation for the UK is not on offer; our choice is between closer alignment with American or European regulation. We will pursue the Government on this.
Mutual recognition for cultural professionals, musicians, actors and artists is left out of the agreement, as has already been mentioned. I declare an interest as a trustee of the VOCES8 Foundation. Many of us will seek written assurance from the Government that mutual recognition will be negotiated.
Lastly, I query the territorial extent clause of this Bill. This Government have pledged to “take back control” of UK sovereignty. Yet the Crown dependencies and overseas territories—the offshore havens that benefit from British sovereignty but avoid many of its obligations —are left outside. These are of course sources of large donations to Conservative groups and right-wing think tanks, and the headquarters of companies that win public procurement contracts. It is a deceit on the British people to proclaim total sovereignty against the EU but to permit British possessions exemptions from the obligations of sovereignty. This too we will pursue further.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will vote for the Bill without hesitation because I do not see any realistic alternative. However, although I will vote with relief that we have escaped no deal, I will not vote with euphoria because I have some regrets and concerns. I regret that we did not rally behind the deal that was painstakingly negotiated by Theresa May some two years ago. I regret that the Government have been so fixated on meeting their self-imposed deadline even in the midst of pestilence and recession—a recession such as we have not seen for 300 years. I regret that parliamentary sovereignty has been violated by obliging both Houses to pass an 80-page, 40-clause Bill, peppered with Henry VIII provisions, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, in just a few hours.
I am concerned at what we are approving: an inadequate recognition of our financial services sector; an abandonment of promises to maintain Erasmus, which a number of colleagues have touched on; a neglect of our cultural sector; and, in everything, a proliferation of bureaucracy and red tape, such as the creation of 23 supervisory committees. I am also concerned, and others have touched on this, that the future of Gibraltar remains uncertain.
I do not want to sound churlish but I fear there is more tinsel than guiding star in this Bill. Having said that, we must make it work, and in doing so we must put past differences behind us. We must seek to repair and strengthen our own union because it is at risk. We must do everything that we can to recreate close and convivial relations not only with the EU but with each and every one of its constituent countries. They are all our colleagues and our friends, and we need to go forward together in these difficult times.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall greatly miss the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness; one could not ask for a more congenial opponent.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on these farcical proceedings, rubber-stamping a crucial Bill in an afternoon.
What is most striking to me about the treaty is its asymmetry. We are a service economy running goods deficits and service surpluses, yet this treaty gives the 27 free access here for their goods but gives us nothing in return on services. There is nothing for the City or Edinburgh; no passporting, no equivalence and no recognition of qualifications; nothing on data adequacy; and nothing for the digital or creative economy, hard hit by the loss of free movement.
As for exports of UK goods, on top of the new borders and bureaucracy, our negotiators have lost on rules of origin, on SPS and on testing and certification. EU exporters to us face no similar costs here, so it is not just asymmetrical, it is lose-lose. We have let the 27 get away with saying that our service access will be determined by their autonomous, reversible decisions. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is right, and that is just the reality of being the junior partner—we are sovereign but not equal; they are seven times bigger and they call the shots—but the outcome is a treaty that may grow their trade but cannot and will not grow ours.
But at least we have taken back control and with one bound we are free. Alas, no. Gulliver is tied down by that web of 32 committees, where we have to explain ourselves not to the member states but to the Commission. If we ever use our sovereign right to diverge on standards or subsidies, the Commission has been given—by us—the treaty right to punish us with rebalancing tariffs. So in practice we will still be rule-takers, though no longer with any say in the rule-making. We have sold our access for a mess of pottage and our real economic interests for a sovereignty shibboleth.
I reckon that is a rather bad deal, but no deal would have been worse, so today’s farce must run its course. It is a bad day for the country and a very sad day for Parliament. I share the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I will vote for her amendment.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness on his valedictory speech. I know that many in this House will miss him, but he will never be forgotten.
I congratulate the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Frost and all his team for their steely determination to deliver what is without a doubt a historic deal. The Prime Minister has—I am sure to the shock and bemusement of many in this House—delivered what he had promised all along: a trade deal by the end of the year and no extension of the transition period. He has honoured the result of the referendum and delivered what a majority of the British electorate demanded four and a half long years ago: Brexit.
Divorce can be a bitter affair, especially after a 47-year relationship, but what is extraordinary about this negotiation is that we have achieved a win-win result, no better illustrated than by the fact that both sides are claiming victory. Of course there have been compromises on each side, some painful, but without compromise there can be no agreement. That is why the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, is for the birds. It would appear that the Labour Party has little experience of international negotiation.
This deal is by any account a truly remarkable achievement—the first ever free trade agreement that the EU has reached based on zero tariffs and zero quota, worth £600 billion. We will recover our independence, no longer be subject to a foreign court and take back control of our own laws. The challenge now is to make the agreement a success. There is no realistic way to go. It is time to stop fighting the referendum campaign over and again—that is a colossal and useless waste of energy. We should concentrate on rebuilding our economy after the ravages of the pandemic, on fortifying our union and on giving real meaning to the vision of global Britain—the global ambition that has been our national instinct and destiny for the last 500 years. It will take hard work, enthusiasm and imagination, but nothing is beyond a nation that believes in itself and is united in pursuit of its goals. This is a bright future to be seized with both hands.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
Many noble Lords have expressed reservations about this Bill. Like me, many noble Lords will vote for it with reservations. As a committed European, my feelings are tempered by the need to move on with certain knowledge that there will be a clinical dissection of the issues in the Bill and an examination of its implications, and that individuals and organisations in the UK and Europe will continue to collaborate in different ways to maintain relationships.
I shall address, as several noble Lords have already, the potential loss of the Erasmus scheme, which I greatly regret. Erasmus is a long acronym, but many associate the name with the great Dutch scholar Erasmus, who said:
“The main hope of a nation lies in the proper education of its youth.”
How very appropriate and true. Noble Lords will know the Erasmus scheme aims to help students, many of whom are from deprived backgrounds, to take advantage of educational opportunities abroad, with supplementary funding for the needy students. I do not know how or why the Government are proposing to reinvent the scheme in some way, when a perfectly good system exists already. The Government often express their commitment to social mobility, so why diminish such an enterprise as Erasmus, which contributes to social mobility?
In 2018-19, I was a member of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee, which carried out an inquiry into the Erasmus and Horizon schemes. We interviewed many people with experience in managing the programmes and young people who had benefited. These young people expressed passionately the positive impacts and life-changing opportunities Erasmus had provided, and many of them were from needy backgrounds. The EU Committee stated that the
“loss of access to Erasmus or Horizon … could have a significant impact on ‘mobility opportunities’ for people in the UK to study, train, teach, and gain experience”
and be involved in research abroad.
I have five questions for the Minister. I do not expect answers today; I merely flag them up. What influenced the decision not to continue the Erasmus programme? Who did the Government consult in reaching the decision? Did they consider the report drawn up by the EU Committee? What, if any, interim or long-term alternative arrangements are envisaged for the future? If there are any, how will they work, what funding streams will be available and what costs are estimated? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I, too, felt an enormous sense of relief on Christmas Eve when this agreement came through, delivered, as it was, four and a half years after this country decided its interests were better understood in Burnley and Bournemouth than Brussels. But I, too, share a sense of regret, being married to a German who was forced to become a Brexit Brit. His experience of nationality here was very different to mine some 40 years ago, when I became a British citizen. Mine was exuberant, enthusiastic, optimistic; his was merely to protect his rights. But for me, this deal will do. Importantly, it leaves us on good terms with our neighbours and allows us to build on those terms as we go forward towards a better future.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked what this Bill will do to unite the country. I have thought of that quite frequently. The House will know of my movement from the Liberal Democrat Benches to the Cross Benches on the case of democratic accountability. I would ask him the question, in light of his contortions of the last five years, of why the Liberal Democrats believe that they can help unite the country by disagreeing with this agreement. To vote against this agreement is effectively to say that no deal is better. That may not be what they want to do, but it is fortunate for us that this is just a gesture. That is what it is—a gesture that will have no consequence for the passage of this Bill today.
Let me turn to the most significant missing element of the Bill, which is the lack of a comprehensive agreement on financial services. I had the privilege of chairing the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee from 2015 to 2019. Five reports on Brexit and financial services later, it cannot be said that the costs of losing passporting were not calculated. But the fact is the sector had to take decisions on regulating approval in good time, and most firms made the necessary moves to onshore in the EU before the current deal even started to be negotiated. Our financial services sector will do fine. It is well regulated and well regarded. It is known for its high professional standards and will continue to thrive, most importantly in the greatest growth area—east and south-east Asia and other emerging markets.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in my sense of optimism—that, as we go forward in a different trajectory, we will do more than survive and we will have new opportunities and horizons. We must prepare with optimism for the new challenges. For the next generation, we must strive to demonstrate that we can be a force for good in a global world.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall start by saying how sad I am to hear of the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. He is a great expert on trees, and I enjoyed many conversations with him. Turning to the Bill, I congratulate and thank the Prime Minister for his courage and tenacity throughout this process. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and all his team for the excellent work they have done in negotiating this deal.
What a momentous occasion this is—an occasion I hoped for but never expected to see. I am delighted and, although I expect the way ahead to be difficult in parts, overall, it is a way full of hope, excitement and expectation that, as a people, we can make a great success of our independence and our freedom. Recriminations are sorely tempting but must be resisted and firmly put aside for two important and obvious reasons. The first is that history alone will judge the divisive events of the last four and a half years and the parts that different people and institutions played in them. The second, and most important, is that we must all put divisions behind us to make these changes work. The opportunities will be there; we just have to grasp them. I really do believe the country is sick of all the rancour, particularly when we are trying to deal with Covid-19, and mightily relieved that we can be one nation again, pulling together for the sake of people, their families and the country.
The Bill before us, which I happily support, and which confirms the recently finalised trade agreement with the EU, may not be perfect, but it is a huge step forward; it is a milestone, thankfully marking the end of a prolonged period of destabilising uncertainty. As one era ends and a new one begins, we shall remember that as a country, we are truly blessed in so many ways—in our unwritten constitution, our peace and stability, the steadfastness of our people, our inventiveness, our industry and our monarchy. We should count our blessings, have faith in our traditions and institutions, appreciate all we have, put past divisions firmly behind us and, with our new-found freedom, all work together for the sake of our country and generations to come.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this historic debate, but I am disappointed by the lack of time afforded to Parliament for prior scrutiny of the legislation and debate in the House today. I welcome the signing of a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is better than a no-deal outcome, but it does not undo the detrimental effects of the Northern Ireland protocol. Any consideration of the trade deal has to take place in the context of the withdrawal agreement, which includes that protocol. That is why we will be voting against the Bill today.
The protocol was, as your Lordships know, imposed on Northern Ireland without its consent. It means the promise of restoring control over laws, borders and money does not apply to the same extent in Northern Ireland following Brexit. It should be stressed that Northern Ireland is outside the EU alongside the rest of the United Kingdom—out of the common fisheries policy, out of the common agricultural policy and out of large parts of the single market rules, and it remains within the customs territory of the United Kingdom.
Nevertheless, it is deeply regrettable—and frankly it was unnecessary—that the United Kingdom Government chose to go down the path of the protocol, given that there was never any intention to have a hard border on the island of Ireland, as both the EU and the Irish Government openly stated time and time again. Also, given the vastly greater importance of Great Britain for Northern Ireland’s trade, going forward we will work with the Government to ensure that they hold to their promises and commitments on unfettered trade between Northern Ireland the rest of the United Kingdom in both directions. There are many important outstanding issues still to be agreed, and with sovereignty restored to Parliament, along with the review mechanisms available in the treaties, the Government must prioritise the safeguarding of the internal market of the United Kingdom and deliver economic prosperity for Northern Ireland.
Nationalists, who of course were hoping for a no-deal outcome, will nevertheless use Brexit to seek to undermine the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, even though I suspect they will have to change their tune as the UK capitalises on new opportunities. Nationalist arguments against Brexit apply even more strongly against the break-up of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The benefits of being part of the fifth-largest economy in the world have been illustrated again in recent times, and there is little enthusiasm among most people in Northern Ireland for a future characterised by continuous republican eulogies for terrorists and their sordid deeds.
There remains a great deal of work to be done, and we are committed to seizing the opportunities and progressing the challenges as a full and integral part of the United Kingdom in the years ahead.
Baroness Morrissey (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to speak on this historic occasion. I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and their hard-working team, for reaching an agreement that means Great Britain will once again be a sovereign power and still be able to trade goods with the EU free of tariffs and quotas. That itself is an outcome that many said could not be achieved, and it should be greatly celebrated.
Of course, as others have said, the agreement is not perfect. It could not be perfect. It is the result of negotiations involving compromises, and some disappointments, especially regarding the border in the Irish Sea. As others have said, there is much work to be done to protect Britain’s interests, and there are gaps and uncertainties. The absence of an agreement on financial services has been noted but, as a practitioner, I beg to differ from the pessimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. This sector prides itself on reinvention and innovation. The City has always had a global perspective and is already eyeing up the potential positives in the event—should it occur—of regulatory divergence.
Notwithstanding any flaws, the Bill before us is a watershed, because it finally enables Britain to become a truly independent nation, four and a half years after the referendum, eight years after the then Prime Minister David Cameron said that the British people must “have their say” on EU membership, and after decades of rancorous argument in this country and in Parliament over the issue. Now, after a year in which our freedoms and economy have been ravaged by the pandemic, when we have the opportunity afforded by the deal to start a new relationship with the EU that reflects the democratic wish of the British people, it is surely time to put our destructive Brexit divisions behind us, as my noble friends Lord Framlingham and Lady Meyer urged.
Until now, leaving the EU seems to have been managed more as a damage limitation exercise, to do as little harm as possible to existing trade. That has been understandable but, as we look to the future, it is vital that we encourage and support the British tendency to entrepreneurship and innovation. As my noble friends Lord Lang and Lord Naseby suggested, it is time to focus somewhat less on the EU and rather more on the rest of the world for multiple vibrant and lucrative trading relationships. A new era for Britain starts on 1 January 2021 and we in this House have a specific responsibility to help to seize the opportunity through our various areas of expertise, including those with business and finance backgrounds. I will be supporting the Bill so that Britain can move forward and focus on creating jobs, on helping people get their freedoms back and on being a force for good in the world.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, these agreements fairly reflect the political priorities of their parties. These included, on our side, a dogmatic and substantively empty notion of sovereignty that confounds the reputation that we once enjoyed as Europe’s canny pragmatists. As a young man in the office of Commissioner Lord Cockfield, I observed the removal of precisely the red tape that now returns to constrict us, so my enthusiasm for this deal has its limits. In the security field, a particular regret is the loss of access to the immensely useful SIS II database. We must hope that dogma on the European side does not defeat the data adequacy determination on which so much else will depend. However, given the dismal alternative, I greet these agreements with relief, see much in them that is good, and will focus today on the terms of the Bill itself.
I would describe it as an essay-crisis Bill. Four increasingly expansive styles may be spotted in its hastily assembled pages. The first style, seen at the start in the treatment of criminal records, is the careful hand-threading of these agreements into existing law. On VAT fraud and social security, a more broad-brush approach is taken. Whole protocols to the agreement are simply pasted into domestic law—whether seamlessly or not, only time will tell. Thirdly, we have delegated powers. These clauses feature elements that your Lordships found exorbitant in the 2018 EU withdrawal Bill, including a power to create new criminal offences punishable by up to two years in prison, and a bootstraps power to amend the Bill itself, if “appropriate”. Henry VIII has been on the steroids again.
Finally, to cover any gaps left by even these broad provisions, we have Clause 29, which requires our judges to give effect to domestic law
“with such modifications as are required for the purposes of implementing”
the agreements. The objective is noble, but implementation often requires choices, and to impose those choices on the courts is to push them towards the forbidden ground of policy. The existing legal doctrines of direct effect and strong interpretation have inherent limits which avoid that result. Clause 29 contains no such limits. Perhaps it is an afterthought. It certainly needs knocking into shape.
This is a rushed Bill—inevitably—which I strongly regret that we are in no position to scrutinise or to improve. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, our committees will scrutinise it after it becomes law. If necessary improvements are identified, I hope that we will find a way of making them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate both negotiating teams on concluding the agreement before us today in this Bill, and I welcome the fact that there is a deal allowing the United Kingdom to transit out of the European Union in an orderly fashion. However, I would like to pause and consider the plight of the great British banger, which seems to have fallen foul of the rules of origin—as indeed has milling flour. I urge the Minister to use the next three months before the Bill finally comes into full effect on 28 April 2021 to ensure that the British sausage will again be allowed to be exported to Northern Ireland and the European Union. This is one of the unintended consequences of the Bill being drawn up at short notice, which brings many benefits but has a number of unintended consequences as well.
I will take this opportunity to pursue parts of the Bill with my noble friend, and I hope that he will respond in his summing up. It was mentioned earlier that financial provision 8 allows for either party, by written notification through diplomatic channels, to terminate the agreement. So the whole agreement could be terminated unilaterally by one or other party. Is that really something that the Government intended? Obviously, they have agreed to it, but is it right that it should be terminated simply by notification, even through diplomatic channels?
Pursuing the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the architecture that is set out in this Bill, what will be the role of both Houses of Parliament in those institutions which form the architecture set up by the agreement? I hope that we will play a full role in that because, as my noble friend Lord Cormack and others have said, we want to repair some of the damage caused to relations with the European Union and individual member states.
There will be a review of the agreement every five years. What form will that review take? As regards the implementation of judicial agreements, do the Government have a date in mind for the adoption of the Lugano Convention, which would enable recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments to ensure that the rule of law is maintained through the agreement and the Bill before us today?
Finally, on Erasmus, I believe it was the lack of knowledge of foreign languages by parliamentarians, officials and businesses, that has led us to the state we are in today. If so, I do not believe that abandoning the Erasmus programme is the answer.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I am sure it is much better to say exactly what we think about public affairs and this is certainly not a time when it is worth anyone’s while to court political popularity. I will therefore begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget, but which must be stated, that
“we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/10/1938; col. 360.]
Those were Winston Churchill’s words in the House of Commons on the Munich agreement 82 years ago. Alas, they apply word for word to the Brexit agreement we are being asked to rubber-stamp today.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, we are directed to debate this 85-page Bill, which hands extraordinary executive powers to Ministers and gives effect to a trade agreement running to over 1,000 pages, in three-minute speeches, without hesitation, scrutiny or amendment, and to pass it in less than a day.
I, for one, have no intention of supporting a Bill representing such an unprecedented and indefensible contempt of Parliament and the public. The European Parliament, by contrast with ours, will have the opportunity to properly scrutinise the deal during the period of its provisional application, which runs until 28 February. It was open to the Government to arrange matters to provide a similar opportunity to our Parliament. They chose not to—so much for parliamentary sovereignty.
Who can blame the Government for hiding from scrutiny? Far from being a triumph, this trade deal betrays our young people, abandons Gibraltar and undermines our businesses, our farmers and our fishing industry. It provides tariff-free access to the UK market for trade in goods, in which the European Union has the overwhelming advantage, and no comparative access to the EU market for services, in which the UK excels. It is inherently unstable because tariff-free access is dependent on maintaining alignment with the EU and, should we diverge, it explicitly provides for the imposition of tariffs.
The deal provides a 25% reduction in fishing quotas for EU boats in UK waters instead of the 80% which was promised and allows tariffs to be imposed if we go further than that. It ties us in to an abundance of new UK-EU governance structures wholly unaccountable to this Parliament. So much, again, for parliamentary sovereignty.
It is a deal which compromises our prosperity and our security and for which the British people will pay a heavy price in lost jobs and lost opportunities. It is not even the end of Brexit, just an inherently unstable prelude to the neverending negotiations that will follow.
So, four and a half years on, the Brexit illusion ends, not with the easiest trade deal in history, but with the first that constrains trade rather than liberalises it. It is a deal with instability woven throughout and red tape wrapped all around it. To get even this threadbare deal, there was nothing the Government were not willing to sacrifice. First, they sold out Northern Ireland, subjecting it to EU law over which its people will have no say. They then sold out our service industries, the most important sector of our economy. Next, they sold out our young people by breaking their pledge on Erasmus and finally, after all the bluster and baloney, they sold out the fishing industry too.
In the end, they sold out the British people by promising things that were never possible and proving it by failing to deliver them. So much for having our cake and eating it. With this deal we discover that we have not eaten it and we have not got it either.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, four and a half years after the referendum we have a deal—hallelujah. It is with our biggest partner and our neighbour, our principal economic partner, with 43% of our exports and 52% of our imports. We have achieved this deal in the midst of a pandemic at a time when we have the worst economic crisis in 300 years—our economy is expected to have shrunk by 11% this year and businesses have had nothing short of a nightmare. It is important that we have achieved a zero tariff and zero quota deal with the EU.
There is a lot to be done, as has been mentioned, such as financial services equivalence. The deal is lighter than the EU trade deals with Canada and Japan. The Government need to prioritise a dialogue on equivalence with urgent speed. Next week, regarding the situation management and problem solving with keeping the borders open and moving, if there is disruption, what plans are in place to manage the crisis? Could the Minister reassure us?
Looking forward, Brexit is what we make of it. How do we make the UK competitive and dynamic? How can we boost business investment across our regions and make ourselves a world leader in net zero? How can we continue to be the second or third largest attractor of inward investment in the world and continue to be an open, outward-looking economy with the best of the best capabilities of everything in every field? How do we build on this deal? That will be a priority, including the services sector which makes up 80% of our economy.
I want to thank Michael Gove for his Brexit business task force. That task force will continue to operate over the coming months. I was relieved to hear that the we are going to continue to be members of the Horizon programme. Will the Minister confirm this? However, I am disappointed that we are leaving Erasmus, which has been a phenomenal opportunity for our students; as president of UKCISA I know how good it has been. Will the Minister reassure us that the new Turing scheme will be as good and give our young people a chance straightaway—that there will be no time lag and that opportunity will exist? Much has already been said on security. We need to make sure that we continue to have the security arrangements with the EU that have been so fundamental to us.
Business has proven itself. Even in this time of doom and gloom, we have shown that we can bounce back when given a bit of a chance. I think that now, with this deal, with the AstraZeneca vaccine announced today and mass testing being rolled out, next year is going to be a great opportunity. Britain will be a leader on the world stage, holding the presidency of the G7 and hosting COP 26. We have shown world-class collaboration between our universities and business, as has been shown with Oxford and AstraZeneca, and internationally. This is going to be fantastic—I am very optimistic.
We have rolled over more than 60 trade deals, including with Canada and Japan. The CPTPP opportunities and opportunities to do deals with countries such as the USA and India are enormous. We will continue to be members of BusinessEurope. As president of the CBI, I want to say this: we are now moving to an era of partnership with the European Union. There is an African saying:
“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
We are going to go together in prosperity with the EU and the UK working together.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to speak here for the first time. I want to thank the officers of the House, Black Rod, Fiona Channon, the doorkeepers and everyone who has made me so welcome. I would like to thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her kind words earlier today. I am especially grateful to my supporters the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Mendelsohn. I have learned so much from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about education, a subject on which I hope to be able to contribute. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has been a great friend for many years and an enormous support to me. I cannot thank either of them enough.
I am very proud to have the title Lord Austin of Dudley. Dudley is where I grew up, where I live, where I served on the council and where I was a Member of Parliament. I am so grateful to the people of Dudley for electing me four times. I will never forget them and places like the black country, which have been denied opportunities others take for granted. The Government’s promises to level up the country after Brexit will be judged on how they bring new jobs to communities which lost industries on which their prosperity was based.
I voted to remain in the referendum, but 71% of my constituents voted to leave. I thought that their MP should respect their decision and that the referendum result should be upheld. I was worried about the economic impact of leaving and very worried about leaving with no deal. I was particularly worried about the impact on manufacturing and the car industry, which are so important in the Midlands. That is why I supported Theresa May’s deal in the last Parliament and why I am voting for this one today. I was also very worried about the impact on trust in our democracy that trying to overturn the result would have. One of the most important lessons of the last few years must be the responsibility we all have to protect our democracy and the institutions that underpin it, because these are the foundations of a fair and open society.
My dad came to this country as a 10 year-old Jewish refugee in 1939. The rest of his family were murdered in Treblinka. He was so dismayed to see an organisation so robust and important to our democracy, and which had such a proud record of fighting racism, as the Labour Party embroiled in anti-Semitism over the last few years. This terrible situation led to me leaving the party which I had been so proud to serve all my life. It is a shame that my parents were not alive to see me join your Lordships’ House, but it is a great thing about our country that the son of a refugee can end up here. I intend to use this great privilege to speak up for the values that he taught me and which I have believed in all my life: democracy, equality, freedom, fairness and tolerance; listening to other people and trying to find compromise; and the power of education to open up opportunity, and bring good jobs and prosperity to people left behind for too long.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
It gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I regret only that he was driven from the Labour Party by its wrangle over anti-Semitism, which was deplorable, but he is very welcome. I approve very much of what he said about his stand in defence of democracy and those who need support in our society.
I registered the fact that the noble Lord was also a shadow Culture Secretary, so I want to endorse his interest there by speaking about the damage that this agreement will do to the cultural life and artistic reputation of this country—indeed, it is already doing so. Last week, a professional trumpeter was sent an invitation to audition for the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam. Yesterday, he received a letter cancelling that audition because we are no longer in the EU, so he is not able to participate in an audition. This damage is already happening. The youth orchestra of Europe no longer invites young British musicians to audition to belong to that remarkable institution. We are already losing out. In this regrettable settlement, which I disapprove of, there is still time to do something about it.
The problem with travel for performers of all kinds is that it is damaged by our leaving the EU. They will not have freedom of movement and their careers will be at risk. These people include classical musicians, jazz musicians, pop musicians, artists, actors, dancers, photographers and filmmakers. They will all suffer unless the Government institute a visa-free cultural work passport—I put this to them, and please will they do so—that avoids their having to apply for a visa to each of the 27 countries where they want to travel, tour and be distinguished. There is also the carnet which they have to have to carry their equipment with them. This will make a huge difference but without it the earning capacity of this country through its cultural life will fall. At the moment, the creative industries are worth £110 billion and the arts earn £13 billion for this country. This problem needs remedying.
I also add my voice to many of those, including my noble friend Lady Massey, who spoke so eloquently about the Erasmus scheme, which has served young people very well. We should build on it and extend it, instead of starting from scratch with a new scheme having learned nothing. We should depend on what we have learned from Erasmus and go forward to make it even better.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, the proposals before us are not the end of the road as far as our relationship with our former partners in the European Union is concerned. I speak as one old enough to have participated in our entry to the EEC in 1973, and to have been elected to the EU Parliament in the first direct elections in 1979. I therefore welcome the Bill as something on which we can build. As circumstances change, we must be prepared to change, too, as the Prime Minister has been heard to say. My hope is that we shall be able to re-establish a much closer relationship in the future, in particular to restore many of the cultural, educational and professional links built up over the years.
My purpose in wishing to speak today is in part to participate in what is undoubtedly an historic debate, but also to raise the specific issue of Gibraltar and our other overseas territories. It is the last moment to try to safeguard the future of the loyal people of Gibraltar; I had hoped and tried to do so previously but was not as fortunate in those ballots as I have been today. It has already been said that Gibraltar had received assurances that there would be no deal unless its position was covered, and it has been excluded. But I think the Government of Gibraltar agree, as I do, that the worst-case scenario would have been no deal at all.
Is my noble friend able to put on the record assurances that, for the future, a free trade agreement between Gibraltar and the European Union would be the appropriate light-touch approach to deal with the movement of goods, and that the airport, ports and border with Spain will be the subject of further careful and detailed negotiation, which will always include the Government of Gibraltar? Let it be said that the Government of Gibraltar have behaved in an exemplary manner by not making a fuss or falling out of line with official UK policy. They have always sought to find ways to resolve the difficulties that Brexit has brought to them, even though 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain. Can my noble friend further outline the extent to which this Bill affects our other overseas territories, especially perhaps Anguilla, which also has a border with the European Union, albeit in the Caribbean?
I believe we should always look after our friends and family with care and look to a post-Covid and post-Brexit future with as much optimism as possible. Finally, I welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, and say a sad farewell to my noble friend Lord Cavendish.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I want to pick up a theme from my noble friend Lord Newby’s speech: British global influence. The Prime Minister claimed after the referendum campaign that post Brexit we would become
“a great European power, leading discussions on foreign policy … to make our world safer”,
as if being in the EU hampered rather than helped that or as if we could, for example, do more if we left NATO or the UN. We were the bridge for the United States to the EU; that will now be Germany or France, which is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
As my noble friend Lord Wallace pointed out, the EU agreement has no provision for British involvement in foreign policy. That was not an EU decision but a British one, even though the UK working within the EU meant that we were able to maximise our influence. Thus we led across EU capitals on tackling climate change, helping to secure the agreement in Paris. The EU, working together, helped to bring about the Iran agreement.
The treaty states:
“The Parties shall continue to uphold the shared values and principles of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights”
and “promote” these “in international forums”. How exactly will we do that? In advance of key UN votes, we will not be in the meetings that decide the EU position. Take the example of Hong Kong. When China enacted its national security law, we had newly threadbare support at the UN. What of Gibraltar? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has just said, the Government said they would not agree a deal without including Gibraltar; they have done just that. Can the Minister explain exactly how and when the Government will resolve Gibraltar’s position, and why they failed to finalise it as we rushed towards their self-imposed deadline of 31 December?
Those who urged Britons to vote for Brexit pointed to sunlit uplands. Now, those claims are rarely made; the Government do not even dare to commission an impact assessment. What do we hear? The circular argument: “The British people voted for Brexit, and this is what we have delivered for them”—nothing about how they sold this to the British people: the cake and eating it, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, referred. The Minister spoke of asserting global Britain and said that now we could play a leading role on the world stage. However, we are already seeing in foreign affairs that we have, in fact, made it more difficult, not easier, to play that global role.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, in supporting this Bill, I start by adding to the shower of congratulations that the Prime Minister has received on his brilliance as a negotiator. I couple his name with that of Ursula von der Leyen; I hope she may one day be Chancellor of Germany, but, of course, it is crucial that she continues in her present post for several more years.
I was a reluctant, although convinced, Brexiteer. I always believed in de Gaulle’s concept of Europe des Nations. That was proving a losing battle—but a battle not yet lost, which is why we had to get out while there was still time. The internal contradictions of a single currency with multiple economic policies was sustained only by the courage and skill of the ECB, fulfilling many of the functions of a federal finance ministry.
It was when the EU Commission overreached its legitimate mandate of getting things done, in particular with the single market, by intruding to an ever-greater extent on the sovereignty of the EU member states that the limit of political integration was exposed most egregiously in September 2015, when it proposed mandatory quotas of how many illegal migrants each state should accept. Since then, the whole EU political structure has become increasingly fragile.
Brexit may be done, but we still have a crucial role in protecting Europe, not only with our military. Europe is under threat from external forces greater than any of those that have, from time to time over the last 1,300 years, torn it asunder from within. This is not the moment to spell them out, but their menace becomes clearer with every month that passes. In his foreword to HMG’s summary of the agreement, the Prime Minister wrote:
“The UK is, of course, culturally, spiritually and emotionally part of Europe.”
When our European values are at stake, Britain will always step forward to be part of a united Europe.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this agreement; it is roughly as good as we could have hoped for in the circumstances. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his team of civil servants, diplomats and lawyers on their huge and successful efforts. As some noble Lords will know, I was appointed as a Cross-Bencher for my work on immigration, so I will concentrate on those aspects today.
The Government claim to have taken “control of our … borders”. It is true that they have secured control of our laws on immigration but, sadly, they have done nothing to control the numbers—quite the reverse. Their new points-based system will open 7 million UK jobs to new or increased international competition—they do not even dispute that. At the same time, they have substantially reduced salary and skills requirements so that literally several hundred million workers from around the world would qualify for a work permit. The effect of this is that the Government have closed the door on low-skilled workers from the EU but have opened wide a barn door for an unlimited number of medium-skilled workers from all over the world. This is a total surrender to business interests; it is not what the public had in mind when they voted for Brexit, and it is not what they want now. A poll by YouGov in July found that 54% think that immigration has been too high over the past decade; only 5% thought that it had been too low.
So finally, what can now be done? The consequences of these new arrangements may of course be delayed by the collapse of international travel due to the Covid crisis. However, it is extremely difficult to rein in a wave of immigration once it has developed. The Government would therefore be well advised to place a cap on work permits before the numbers start running out of control. I shall leave it there and I will of course vote for the Bill.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to put on record my huge relief that we have reached a deal and thank all our negotiating team, EU negotiators and the parliamentary staff for their exceptional work to ensure that we can pass this legislation today. This Bill must pass; given the alternative of no deal, I shall vote for it.
My concerns about Brexit are well known. These stemmed not from a love of the EU, as I recognise its many faults, but most particularly from the value I place on peaceful, post-World War 2 intra-Europe relationships. The loss of peace caused unspeakable horrors not so long ago. As a fellow child of refugees, I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and congratulate him on his exceptional work standing up against anti-Semitism. I also thank my noble friend Lord Cavendish for his valedictory speech and wholeheartedly agree with his sentiments: to love thy neighbour and rebuild close relationships with the EU.
Part 2 of the Bill provides for tariff-free, quota-free trade with the EU, as well as for co-ordination on social security, energy trading and Euratom. These are welcome, but I regret the serious shortcomings that many noble Lords have outlined: the border in the Irish Sea, new non-tariff barriers, border frictions, bureaucracy and mountains of business red tape that the Bill introduces, no deal for financial services, inadequate security partnerships and recognition of professional qualifications, and no Erasmus. These are no longer fears; these are facts. Yes, we have restored our sovereignty, but this Bill, which we will have to ratify without proper scrutiny, contains frightening Henry VIII powers excluding Parliament from law-making or modifications relating to it. Taking back control was surely not intended just for the Executive, so I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that we must stand up for the role of both Houses.
Perhaps I may put on record some apologies. I am sorry that we failed adequately to explain the huge value of EU membership, its agencies, integrated supply chains and research co-operation. I am sorry that we failed adequately to counter misinformation about what Brexit would mean for Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. However, I fully accept that the referendum is over. We have left the EU.
I finish on a note of hope. I hope that, as a sovereign, independent nation, we will in coming years rebuild much closer co-operative relationships with our European neighbours, including on issues such as research, data flows, security and education, than are contained in this Bill.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—particularly as I find myself in a large measure of agreement with her on this issue, as on the many other issues that she raised.
I shall support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter. I am in no way challenging the referendum decision—that is water under the bridge—but these negotiations represent a brave effort, although “brave” is perhaps too complimentary, at damage limitation and making the best of a bad job. I do not think that anybody has contradicted that sentiment.
I have a sadness about this because I believe in the EU, its values and its internationalism. Many of these attributes are British attributes—things that we helped to develop and encouraged within the EU. However, we have to move forward. Over the years, I have had the privilege of serving on the EU Select Committee and two of its sub-committees. These committees and their work were well regarded across the EU; sometimes, their reports were translated into local languages, indicating the high regard in which many parliamentarians throughout the 27 have held this country for a long time.
In the negotiations, I was impressed by the solidarity that the 27 showed—something that our negotiators never expected, I think. Our Government acted as if we could pick off the EU leaders one by one and try, as it were, to sign little deals and try to get a more favourable outcome, but we were thwarted in that. The solidarity shown by the 27 was commendable; I congratulate the EU on the way on which it retained that sense of unity.
I will refer briefly to a number of specific issues. All of us individually, and the Government and both Houses of Parliament, must work hard at improving our relations with the 27, which have gone through a bad patch during the negotiations. We must use all the existing methods whereby we can relate to parliamentarians from EU countries. For example, the Council of Europe is not exclusively EU, but many European parliamentarians are there. There is the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, of which I am a member, and its parliamentary assembly, the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and the sterling work done by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We have to use those opportunities.
Like many others, I am saddened by Erasmus. It gave young people an opportunity to see Europe and become more international in their outlook. I am sorry that we have closed that door.
I regret that we are in a very vulnerable position as regards maintaining workers’ rights, some of which stem from the sensible policies of the EU. I hope that we will be able to debate them more fully in future.
We are also in a much more vulnerable position regarding security. Over the past 10 years, using the European arrest warrant, we have sent back 10,500 people and received in return 1,500 criminals, including drug traffickers, rapists and murderers. The Schengen Information System was consulted 600 million times by British police forces in one year.
Finally, I am saddened that refugees and asylum seekers have been left to separate declarations, which we will have to negotiate.
I will vote for this with a heavy heart. I look forward to a better day in the future.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, the draconian limitation of our scrutiny of this Bill—with no Committee stage, no Report stage, no amendments and three minutes each to speak—flows directly from the Government being too cowed by the ERG to seek to extend the transition period beyond tomorrow. So we have a disgraceful Hobson’s choice between this agreement, which is rushed and inadequate, and leaving the EU without an agreement.
I will vote against the Bill, not because I want to leave the EU with no deal but in protest against this bad agreement and its chaotic, undemocratic implementation. The Bill is undemocratic not just in its timescale but in its content, with massive, all-encompassing Henry VIII powers in Clauses 31 to 33.
I turn to the justice system. The Prime Minister wrote to us all on Christmas Eve that the agreement prioritises the safety and security of citizens. Why, then, are we abandoning the European arrest warrant for an inadequate substitute surrender system that is, in effect, traditional extradition with probable court delays and many escaping justice?
Why, too, are we giving up real-time access to the Schengen Information System—our main source of criminal data—accessed, as others have said, by the UK police 600 million times last year? Why are we giving up our leading roles in Eurojust and Europol, the world’s most successful international collaborative policing body ever, for fig-leaf spectator seats and limited, conditional and slow information exchange?
In civil law, why are we losing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments and the choice of court rules under the Brussels regulations, leaving British litigants, including children, without the international co-operation and civil and family cases that have served us so well? Yes, we have the three Hague conventions that we recently passed into law, and we may ultimately have the Lugano Convention, but that requires unanimity among the Lugano members and cannot be achieved in time. The replacements are no match for what we are losing.
Why, then, this series of retrograde steps for security and justice? The answer lies in the Government’s wrong-headed fear of any involvement in the European Court of Justice, even in areas that plainly advantage the UK. There has been a lack of any attempt to negotiate some limited special UK judicial involvement in the court, where we, this country, have a clear and special interest.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, the deal has been struck, and I would like to concentrate on the necessity for a digitally enabled 21st-century border.
For the last decade, the UK has had a comparative advantage in many of the elements of the fourth industrial revolution, not least AI, distributed ledger technology, fintech and cyber. As a result, on 1 January this opportunity—this advantage—now becomes absolutely imperative when it comes to our border provisions. Is my noble friend the Minister aware of the proof of concept around reducing friction in international trade, which I was fortunate enough to be involved in?
I know that we have a great opportunity to deliver at Dover. An excellent, forward-thinking chief executive runs the port there. Also, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there is a key need to get this right around the UK, and that absolutely includes Gibraltar. Will my noble friend the Minister update the House on our 2025 border plans? What will happen in 2021 at scale and at speed to get us to the place where we need to be to have a digitally enabled border right around the UK? Does he agree that, if we get this right, we can enter the 21st year of the 21st century digitally enabled right around the UK, not least at Dover, and look forward with pride from the white cliffs of technology?
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is a grand and historic day for democracy because, after four years of unprecedented resistance by parliamentarians to the will of the people, as expressed through three votes—the referendum and two elections—it has come to pass. We should congratulate the draftsmen and draftswomen and the determination and skill of the negotiators on reaching an agreement up against a deadline and on upholding the goal of sovereignty in the face of huge resistance and chicanery, not least in this place. It was clear that Mrs von der Leyen had never understood it when she defined sovereignty as being able to work, travel, study and do business in 27 countries—as if sovereignty was an Interrail ticket—and said that in a time of crisis it was about, as she put it, pulling each other up instead of trying to get back on your feet alone, which is precisely what the EU states have not done during the Covid crisis.
We have had a lucky escape. Had the UK stayed in an EU pursuing further integration, we would have been faced with more euro crises, more bailouts of states stricken with Covid, a common defence policy and European forces under the command of the EU. In its pursuit of federalism, the EU has given rise to the repression of minorities and to extremist politics. The former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said in his first Reith lecture that the EU embodies financial valuing over human valuing. It is a union that pursues economic benefits but does not share fundamental values, whether over foreign policy, religion, immigration, freedom of speech or the rule of law, where the UK has clear beliefs.
For example, this month your Lordships voted by a large majority to revoke trade deals with countries found guilty of genocide. Meanwhile, the EU is finalising the EU-China comprehensive agreement on investment. The EU has asked nothing new of China; there are no preconditions relating to the abuse of the Uighurs, or even of Hong Kong. So where is the EU’s commitment to human rights, so often proclaimed? It has even thrown the British judge off the court, which was not called for and not because it was dependent on our being in the EU. As Voltaire said of the English,
“They are not only jealous of their own liberty, but even of that of other nations.”
Never again must we tie our fate to countries whose history, laws and customs are so antipathetic to our own. We can now pursue the rule of law and human rights without hindrance.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I admit to feeling conflicted. As a pro-European and former MEP—I declare my interests as in the register—who had responsibility, actively and enthusiastically encouraged by my Government, for putting together measures on security and justice encompassing a high level of co-operation and closeness with our neighbours, the present circumstances are somewhat regrettable. However, I am also someone who always likes to look ahead; using too much of my ever-dissipating energy on fighting old battles would be unsatisfying and unproductive.
What we have in the agreement, and in the Bill, will, of course, be interpreted in different ways by different factions and individuals. Some will suggest that it draws a firm and unbendable line under our relationship with the EU. Some will be somewhat dissatisfied, like the self-styled ERG, having probably hoped for a greater separation from Europe’s institutions. Some, like me, know that it is better than no deal and the then inevitable total collapse in the prospect of any meaningful future relationship. In fact, I regard this, like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, earlier, as a platform: a place and event where we can at least maintain a reasonable closeness to Europe pending the construction of new and positive connections.
Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are talking of “our friends across the channel”. Friendship does not just happen, nor can it be assumed by one party; it needs hard work, especially following a divorce. It may need time too, but in a world that is moving fast, with so many challenges—in health, the environment, the economy, technology and security—that may be a luxury we cannot afford. The gaps and uncertainties in the agreement must be filled and consolidated quickly. My interests in the fields of security and justice, for instance, oblige me to press for the maintenance of real-time exchanges of information and data between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, rather than a simple “note of intent”, which is currently all we seem to have. That is a priority, and I hope the Government pursue a solution, but it can be achieved only if we are genuinely seeking to keep a real friendship with our European neighbours. It also requires trust. Some of our actions and political rhetoric over the last few years have put that element of friendship at great risk.
As we move on, we must ensure that we do so openly, positively and amicably. While some talk of the new global canvas for our country, they should be reminded that Europe continues to occupy a significant part of that globe and continues to occupy the hearts and minds of many of our citizens.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, Brexit, like devolution, is a process, not an event, and such a process often evolves in unanticipated directions. Brexit is a framework which impacts on our links with Europe but also on relationships within these islands. It will probably trigger an independent Scotland, quite possibly the reunification of Ireland and, in Wales, greater support for independence than ever before.
Such key proposals should never be bulldozed through Parliament without adequate debate. We are told that we must vote for this deal because the alternative is a no-deal Brexit, but why is this the only option? It is because the Government have chosen to make it so. Over four years, successive Tory Governments have failed to secure a consensus. So Boris Johnson drives this deal at gunpoint, assuming that we will back anything to avoid a no-deal Brexit.
This deal will create a mountain of bureaucracy for those exporting to the EU. They were unable to make adequate preparations because the Government could not tell them what sort of Brexit would emerge. This will strike the food-exporting sector hard. The Food and Drink Federation begged the Government to provide a six-month adjustment period for new rules to be assimilated and actioned. The EU was willing to facilitate such a period, but the UK Government refused, because of the Prime Minister’s macho stance on getting Brexit done. Yet, in Northern Ireland, where the British sausage—or, I should say, “le saucisson anglais”—was about to be banned this week, he took up the EU offer for a six-month delay. For him, it seems, the sanctity of the sausage in Northern Ireland ranks higher than the rest of Britain’s food-exporting sector altogether.
This deal, contrary to Boris Johnson’s earlier pledges, takes us out of the Erasmus scheme so valued by young people. He now tells the Governments of Scotland and Wales that, despite education being fully devolved, they may not seek direct access to Erasmus. We are to lose the vital criminal database. The deal leaves key sectors, such as social care, unable to recruit staff from Europe to fill empty jobs. It leaves Brits who work in Europe, particularly in the creative arts, uncertain of their futures, travellers in doubt of their passports and unsure about their healthcare cover, and the fishing sector in despair.
The uncertainty we now face could have been avoided if successive Tory Governments had sought a sensible compromise, involving a single market and customs union. Had time allowed, this rushed deal should have been rejected and the Government told to return to the negotiating table, but the Prime Minister’s self-imposed deadline has denied Parliament that option. As was rightly asserted by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, these issues will not go away. We shall return to re-establish links with our European cousins and to build with them a secure future, economically, socially and politically—a future that, today, is being wrenched away from our children’s generation.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
I congratulate and thank the Prime Minister and the Brexit negotiating team on achieving a good deal and ongoing relationship with the EU. I agreed with much of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the constructive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
My question for the Government is: what will the deal do for the financial services industry? From reading the co-operation agreement, it appears that little or no material changes are proposed. None presented in the co-operation agreement is specifically damaging to financial services. This is surprising given the French hostility and claims, during the negotiations, that France would win over substantial business from London.
Chapters 2 and 3 in the agreement include well-established provisions on cross-border trade in services and investment, which are expected to secure continuing market access across a broad range of sectors. Section 6 deals specifically with financial services. It includes provisions on cross-border trade in financial services and investment. The agreement provides protections that should ensure that EU and UK regulatory authorities can act to ensure financial stability and integrity, and to protect customers. The two parties agreed a joint declaration of commitment to their shared objectives, and a memorandum of understanding for regulatory co-operation has been signed.
Section 7 provides the important reform enabling lawyers acting for clients in the UK but who have business elsewhere in Europe to deal with the clients’ business across the EU. There is the important liberalisation of digital trades, which will be dealt with subsequent to its first being raised. Title VII provides joint support for SMEs but does not address the seven-year life limitation and state aid issues, which have limited EIS funding for SMEs.
Overall, the agreement looks okay for the financial services industry, but there is much more yet to be agreed. I keenly await the Government’s reaction when they negotiate areas for the financial services industry.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a tragedy. Dogmatism which confuses sovereignty with power and influence has triumphed. This thin deal is better than no deal, which is why I will not vote against it today, but no pumped-up, jingoistic celebrations can disguise an act of gratuitous, enormous national self-harm.
Our weight and influence on the global stage as a senior member of the world’s biggest trading and diplomatic bloc is now reduced to that of a bit player in an increasingly dangerous multipolar world. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, explained, we will be a rule-taker, excluded from the very European trade, defence, foreign and external security policy-making that still impacts directly upon us as a close neighbour and trading partner.
Leaving the EU single market, which constitutes around half our trade, will, the Government estimate, reduce national income per head by around 5% and have two to three times the medium to long-term economic impact of Covid-19. Non-tariff barriers, estimated by HMRC to cost £7 billion a year, will damage UK goods, where we have a trade deficit with the EU. Yet on services, where the UK has an £83 billion surplus with the EU, the deal provides absolutely nothing, future access humiliatingly dependent on EU permission.
As for taking back control of immigration, since the 2016 referendum net immigration from the EU has collapsed but from the rest of the world it has exploded. As EU nationals have been driven away, our NHS has been left with over 40,000 nurse vacancies and our care sector with over 120,000 vacancies—not much increase in sovereignty for our sick and elderly citizens.
UK nationals are losing sovereignty over our rights to live, work or study in the EU and will need visas to stay there for more than three months. We are losing sovereignty over rights to free healthcare, mobile roaming charges, frictionless border entry and much else. In the name of reclaiming sovereignty, we are torpedoing the sovereignty of the UK, as Scotland threatens to go its own way, maybe to be followed by Northern Ireland. Even my homeland, Wales—long a bastion for UK unionism—has recently seen an unprecedented boost to the independence cause.
Project Fear? More like “Project Reality”, for which I cannot and will not take personal historic responsibility by voting for this sovereignty-reducing, control-surrendering, rights-destroying, job-cutting, poverty-increasing, nationalism-inciting, miserably demeaning Brexit deal.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Austin, on his powerful maiden speech and thank him for his heroic efforts in fighting anti-Semitism.
Almost all this debate has focused on the contents of the agreement, which this House cannot amend. I will focus briefly on how the Bill implements the agreement into our law, a matter on which some of us would have wished to move amendments.
Like my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I am particularly concerned about Clause 29, which makes all existing domestic law subject to the contents of this agreement, unless equivalent provisions have been enacted. I understand of course why this needs to be done as a matter of urgency before 11 pm tomorrow, but as a permanent provision on our statute book it is not acceptable. Clause 29 means that in all the areas covered by the agreement, from agriculture to transport, the legal clarity and certainty which our statute book aims to achieve, and usually does, is now subject to the terms of the agreement—terms which are in so many places deliberately vague in order to secure consensus between this country and the EU.
Because of the legal uncertainty that Clause 29 will inevitably cause, it is a great deal for lawyers—I declare my interest—but not for anyone else. Clause 29 should therefore have a shelf life of no more than six months. Clauses 31 and those following already confer broad powers on Ministers—I would say excessively broad—to make regulations to ensure the consistency of our laws with the agreement. Ministers should have a duty to do that and to sort the statute book out by 1 July next year, on which date Clause 29 should cease to apply.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said, in the 21st report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, produced at unconstitutional speed yesterday, we give notice that we will be reporting on this and other constitutional concerns about this Bill early in the new year. We must pass this Bill today, but post-legislative scrutiny in January is essential.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have a trade deal with the EU and, as someone who voted to remain, I celebrate it and will be supporting the Bill. Listening to this debate, it is clear that some noble Lords are still struggling to accept that we have left the EU and, rather than support this Bill that will deliver the platform for the UK economy to prosper, would rather vote against it, in what will appear to many as being nothing more than a vain attempt to prove that they were right and the British people were wrong.
The Prime Minister, however, has proved his doubters wrong and delivered a deal that takes back control of our laws, borders, money and trade, and changes the basis of our relationship with our European neighbours from EU law to free trade and friendly co-operation. I have heard noble Lords complain that there will now be greater friction for trade with the EU, and they are undoubtedly correct, but this rather misses the point. The price of increased friction with the EU in some areas delivers the flexibility to strike deals with other parts of the world where it is in our national interest to do so. With the signing of our trade deal yesterday with Turkey bringing the total to 62, and worth a cumulative total of £885 billion, we are clearly seizing this opportunity. The point is that the restrictive one-size-fits-all straitjacket of the EU is off, while at the same time preserving the immense benefits of free trade for millions of people in the United Kingdom and across Europe.
I am not claiming the deal is perfect. By definition, any successful negotiation relies on compromise. The numerous political declarations published on 26 December demonstrate that this is far from the end and questions remain. To take just one example, while there are broad overarching commitments on state aid, we still await the detail on what exactly the new UK subsidy control regime will look like.
The safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority. I agree with the growing consensus that the deal with regard to law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters is better than expected. The agreement provides a comprehensive package of operational capabilities that will help protect the public and bring criminals to justice. If I have one criticism it is that while many of the relationships remain —for example, data sharing, the exchange of DNA and fingerprinting through Prüm, or access to the ECRIS criminal records database—these will no longer be in real time. The point here is that speed of access to information is paramount, and I would be grateful if the Minister can outline how the impact of a move from real-time access to data sharing will be mitigated.
Finally, if there is one threat that respects no national boundary it is that to cybersecurity, and I am pleased that the agreement provides a framework for UK-EU co-operation in this field. Having experienced first hand the very real benefits of the exchange of co-operation in international bodies promoting global cyber resilience, I seek the Minister’s assurance that the UK’s voluntary participation in the activities of the various expert bodies will continue to be a priority.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as the Cabinet Office lead NED.
Today’s Bill completes the process of ceasing to be a member state of the European Union. This is the beginning of a new relationship based on mutual respect and geography, as well as shared values and interests. It preserves the UK’s sovereignty as a matter of law and fully respects the norms of international sovereign-to-sovereign treaties. That was the core of Vote Leave’s promise to “Take back control of our borders, laws, tax and trade”. This deal delivers that promise.
We are leaving on good terms—“good” as in having achieved a better deal than many of us had hoped to expect. This was not easy to achieve, and I congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the team. Any deal involves compromises on both sides, and this deal has got the balance about right. It protects mutual interests as well as allowing the UK to make its own decisions and shape its future. But it is also “good” in the sense of amicable and orderly.
Ursula von der Leyen quoted TS Eliot:
“What we call the beginning is often the end
And to make an end is to make a beginning.”
The UK always has been and will continue to be European. Our new relationship can be, and should be, to the benefit of both sides. This is a rare moment in history, when everything is “unfrozen” and as a nation we have the chance to reset. The EU can proceed with the deeper political integration a single shared currency requires, and we can no longer blame the EU for not doing things domestically.
But I acknowledge that for some today is a day of deep regret. I understand that. In Burnt Norton TS Eliot speaks of:
“What might have been and what has been”
and writes:
“Footfalls echo in the memory”.
We should now give these things their proper place and look ahead, grasping the opportunities as well as the responsibilities coming our way. We must invest in our future, with new industries, new skills, and greener technologies; work on smarter regulation to boost our competitiveness while enhancing environmental and social standards; and levelling up so that the four nations of the United Kingdom can prosper and narrow the gap in prosperity between cities, towns and regions across the UK. By passing this Bill today, we now have the certainty of a framework to do all these things.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, the parliamentary proceedings in which we are participating are a travesty. How else can you describe a Bill set to go through all its processes in one day; a Bill endorsing an agreement of more than 1,200 pages; a Bill accompanied by a distinctly partisan summary circulated by the Government; and a Bill which is getting no genuine parliamentary scrutiny and has not been reported on by either of the two committees of this House explicitly set up to deal with these sorts of agreements? If that is taking back control, it is certainly not effective control by Parliament.
The Government’s case needs, of course, to be listened to and examined with care. But it is not helpful when it is accompanied by a tidal wave of hyperbole, flippancy and plain untruths. Does the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country cease on Thursday of this week? No, not in Northern Ireland, and not in respect of issues relating to the status of EU citizens living and working in this country. Are we regaining our independence on Thursday? No, we never lost it. How otherwise could we have decided to leave the EU? Are we regaining unfettered sovereignty, that golden calf before which so many supporters of leaving the EU seem now to worship? No, this agreement we are debating inhibits the exercise of our sovereignty in hundreds of different ways, as does our membership of NATO, our acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the UN’s International Court of Justice and of the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement procedures, as do the provisions of the rules-based international order we are, quite rightly, defending and promoting.
I suggest that one of the best tests of the agreement is what is not covered by it—what we really will lose on Thursday, or at least risk losing. That includes freedom of services, which are 80% of our economy and in substantial surplus with the EU; financial services, which depend on the thread of equivalence of treatment yet to be settled; recognition of professional qualifications, which depends on a cat’s cradle of bilateral arrangements yet to be negotiated; and data exchanges, which are still in limbo. Our internal security and the ways to deal with the challenge of international crime are severely reduced from what we have now, with the Home Secretary surely alone in asserting that we shall be more secure.
The Erasmus student exchange programme is being thrown overboard as too costly, but why on earth, then, do other non-EU European countries belong to it? There is not a trace of any provision on co-operation on foreign policy and security, yet we need not only bilateral co-operation with other European countries, but co-operation with the EU’s decision-making institutions. I really would like to hear the Minister’s views on Gibraltar when he comes to reply. Why are we not sticking to the commitment that we would not enter into a deal in which Gibraltar was not covered?
This is a sorry tale before we even get to the detail. I suggest a simple set of conclusions: Britain could have done better, Britain needs to do better, and Britain will do better at some future point when we have regained some of our national characteristic of pragmatism.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, today is an extraordinary day that few of us were certain we would ever see: Britain, her sovereign status restored, having taken back control of our laws, borders, regulations, money, trade and fisheries, ended the role of the European Court of Justice and left the single market and customs union. I add my voice to that of others who congratulated our Prime Minister on the way he conducted these negotiations and the results he has achieved.
For nearly five years we have been shaken to the core of who we are as a nation, with many asking what it means to be British and to stand on our history, looking forward, free to decide our values and our character. A sovereign nation, able to take responsibility for our own decisions and future, able to shape who we are: this is the opportunity we now have; this is a moment to think carefully.
As a member of the EU there was safety in numbers, so we hardly noticed the complacency of an overdeveloped nation that was beginning to take root. Now that our future is entirely in our own hands, we can see the challenge that lies ahead. There are no well-worn paths ahead of us, and each of us will need to keep taking risks and driving innovation into the space that does not yet exist. This takes leadership, courage and the ability to see and create the new—the not yet. This is all in our hands and we are responsible.
What are the building blocks that need to be rooted and cemented into the foundations of this nation at this moment of transition? In my three minutes I will suggest two: first, a building block of creativity and innovation; and secondly, one of care and compassion.
Our future prosperity relies on economic decisions that foster employment, productivity, innovation and dynamism. Building back better and levelling up: these are terms that recognise that there is work to be done and things to stretch for. They are not static terms; we need to create, innovate, build and level up across the worlds of commerce, manufacturing, engineering and agriculture with our global partners in Asia, Africa, the Americas and, yes, Europe.
But a nation is only ever as strong as the character of its people. We are strong when we stand on our Judeo-Christian heritage. If we want to build our nation and to genuinely level up, it means rediscovering the ancient paths and the values that unite us. Yes, we must be economically strong and innovative, but also caring and compassionate. For too long we have neglected to support our families, and our healthcare and social care systems. If it is true that a nation is measured by how it cares for the elderly and the young, we have work to do. So, as we cast our vote to celebrate this moment of transition, let us also feel the responsibility and commit to innovation and compassion that expresses itself in building a strong economy and a society that genuinely invests in all.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my friend the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, on a brilliant maiden speech. When normality returns, I look forward to working with him.
The proceedings today are a farce. Parliament has failed again to stop more powers going to the Executive without scrutiny. And it is not the end of Brexit; it is just the start. Food, our largest manufacturing sector, is badly served. Rules of origin are more important than tariffs. Several products are now impossible to export to the European Union. Trade rules in food for the European Union are now more onerous for the UK than they are for New Zealand.
Confidence in food safety must be maintained at all costs. The Bill means that the UK is now outside many of the notification systems, and those have mainly been invented during our membership, so there is no previous system to fall back on. For animal diseases and pests in plant products, there is RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed. Of RASFF notifications, the top seven EU members account for more than 50%, with 11 notifications a day around the EU. The UK is the second-highest notifier, Germany being the highest, followed closely by France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Austria. The United Kingdom is kicked out of RASFF while Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are still members.
Real-time information is crucial for food safety. In my view, it is urgent that the Food Standards Agency, for which I have massive respect and of which I declare an interest as a former chair, and which has been working on this issue for a long time, asserts its operational independence and publishes, before 11 pm tomorrow, the policy to protect UK consumers, manufacturers and others. It is a two-way process: we need to be able to alert others as well as looking after ourselves. Confidence will not be maintained as matters arise without an open and transparent system. I was very pleased to learn in the last hour from the director of FSA Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland is remaining in the RASFF.
That is a bit of detail out of the way. One of my biggest problems is that I do not trust the Prime Minister. EU members have no reason to trust him. His word is not his bond. I am reminded of Churchill, when he wrote:
“Great nations are no longer led by their ablest men, or by those who know most about their immediate affairs, or even by those who have a coherent doctrine.”
That completely sums up our untrustworthy Prime Minister and his Government. We need a firm commitment, not to make the treaty work or to build on it but to renegotiate it to avoid being smaller and alone and to be bigger together and greater than the parts. I have not heard that from any quarter. This Bill will not have my name on it.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
The Prime Minister is fond of claiming world firsts, and he has one here: we will be the first nation in the world to put up trade barriers as the result of a trade deal. This is the first trade deal that creates additional bureaucracy: 23 working groups, a partnership council and some 4 million new forms— every one of them a non-tariff barrier deterring free trade and increasing business costs—along with £13 billion of expert red tape for business and 50,000 new customs agents needed, only half of whom have so far been trained.
Logistics businesses are at the sharp end of this. They have reduced rights to trade in the EU. They estimate that each delivery to and from the EU will take a full day longer, with obvious price implications for goods in our shops. In today’s world of optimised business chains, that will inevitably encourage many businesses to move to the EU. Last week we saw how quickly queues build up at our ports. We saw the impact on surrounding areas and how unprepared the Government were; they could not even manage to provide the basics of food and toilets for hauliers stuck in the queues.
The automotive industry is also at the sharp end. Today’s vehicles comprise parts from many countries. Although there are some useful provisions on rules of origin, it will still require additional paperwork and data gathering, and that means additional costs. The timescale is hopelessly short; the industry believes that a phase-in period is critical, but we are not getting that. Of course, businesses are not ready.
There are huge uncertainties built into this deal, because it is based on today’s standards, and standards change, particularly in vehicle manufacture and aviation, as technology advances. Each change needs a complex approval process, with potential penalties. Of course, this is just a framework deal, subject to endless reviews and supplementary agreements.
For all these reasons, and many more, I will vote against this tonight, because I will not vote to lose my voice on so many rules that will govern my life. I will not vote to reduce the rights for young people to study and travel abroad. I will not vote for more bureaucracy. I will not vote for job losses in the auto industry, aviation and haulage. I will not condone lower environmental standards, and I will not condone this charade of scrutiny. Be in no doubt: this Tory Government must bear responsibility for what follows. This is not getting Brexit done—it is just the beginning.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I rise to ask the Minister how this excellent new relationship will help Gibraltar. What form will the strengthened link with the United Kingdom take? As we know, most importantly, the excellent prosperity of Gibraltar is linked closely to the prosperity of the local region around Algeciras and La Línea particularly. Some 15,000 Spaniards depend upon their jobs in Gibraltar through having access each day to Gibraltar across the border. What can be done in the new improved climate to enhance economic co-operation in the region to the benefit of both Gibraltar and the neighbouring Spanish region, even given the current problems and restrictions from Covid-19? I believe it would be most helpful for Gibraltar to get some encouragement from the Minister in his wind-up speech.
Of course, as a former first vice president of the European Parliament’s senior committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am keenly interested in growing our nation’s strength and enlarging our influence in all parts of the globe. Naturally, there are already many “doubting Thomases”, whose fearful commentary of our supposedly weakened position they foresee as a consequence of this excellent legislation now before your Lordships’ House. I can assure these would-be harbingers of doom that no less personages than our two closest contributors to our new and powerful position, Mr Barnier and Charles Michel, have indicated that they hold a different view, closer to my own, of Britain’s uniqueness in this position.
As Mr Michel tweeted last night, he is “looking forward to co-operate on … foreign policy issues as allies sharing common values”. Mr Barnier added correctly that:
“The British have experienced diplomats who don’t give up and always ask for more”.
Of course, I would remind Mr Barnier that we do not just have excellent diplomats—we do indeed have the best in the world—but we also have fantastic people in the departments of industry and trade, and in other departments too. But I would suggest to the Minister and other Members of your Lordships’ House that with those endorsements from the two people who gave us the most difficult of times, and with this historic agreement in the bag, we cannot fail.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
As there is now no alternative to this deal, except no deal, there is one brief point I wish to make for the future. There we do have an alternative: implementing the deal in a way that rolls back the growth and supremacy of the executive branch of Government, which this Bill seeks further to strengthen, in ways described by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson of Ipswich. That alternative requires the restoration of the position of Parliament, adherence to the devolution arrangements and ensuring the continued independence of the other branches of Government.
I will take one illustration: state aid, set out in part 2, heading 1, title XI of the treaty. Its proper implementation and operation are essential to our prosperity, and to a strong relationship with the European Union. One central provision again suffices: article 3.9 within that title, which requires the UK and the EU each to establish
“an operationally independent … body with an appropriate role in its subsidy control regime.”
There are at least five defining tasks that we must carry out in relation to this one article alone. First, consensus is needed with the devolved Governments for, although state aid control is now a reserved matter, state aid is devolved. Secondly, proper registration, dealing with all the detail, is needed, not framework legislation with delegated powers. Thirdly, the independent authority that is to exercise the control over subsidies must have independent decision-making powers, and not be some sort of quango advising the executive branch of government. Fourthly, there must be no attempt to curtail proper judicial review or appeal, by independent courts or tribunals, of the decisions. Finally, the working of these arrangements in the UK, and the way the corresponding arrangements work in the EU, must be scrutinised by a properly resourced parliamentary committee.
That is the task in relation to one article, but if it is achieved for that article in relation to state control, and there are similar achievements in the countless other new arrangements necessary, we should be able to ensure that, as the UK regains control, that control is exercised through parliamentary sovereignty, under the properly balanced operation of our constitution, and not under executive supremacy.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, like other speakers I welcome the fact that there is a deal, albeit that we do not have the opportunity to scrutinise it properly tonight. I also welcome the reference in the Bill to the peace programme, which was negotiated between former EU President Jacques Delors and Northern Ireland MEPs John Hume, Ian Paisley and Jim Nicholson. It has been an enduring programme to help Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic and I welcome it.
However, I have to say that one theme stands out for me. In a recent letter to us, the Prime Minister said that the deal,
“takes back control of our laws, borders, money, trade … and ends any role for the European Court.”
He goes on to say:
“We will be a truly independent country, with our sovereign Parliament in full control of the laws that we live by.”
Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said that we are no longer bound by EU law, there is no role for the European Court of Justice, we will have full political and economic independence from 1 January, and our laws will be determined by our own elected politicians.
I am sorry to say it, but all those statements are untrue, because one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—is left in the European Union. The European Court will still have a role; we will be subject to laws and regulations that will be negotiated and agreed in Brussels, where we have no representation; and we cannot even bring over €10,000 of our own money into Northern Ireland without permission. The idea that these statements are factual is wrong. I wish that somebody on the Government Front Bench would openly admit that we have done a deal that works for Great Britain but, because of certain circumstances, Northern Ireland is not at this stage able to benefit from it. EU officials will stand beside HMRC officers at customs posts at all Northern Ireland ports. One of them being built at Larne is 44,000 square metres, which does not seem to me to be “light touch”, and we will have to treat Great Britain as a third country.
Unfortunately, I want to ask the Minister: what consent was obtained from Northern Ireland for these arrangements? Can he give me that answer, because nobody so far has? I hear some unionists in the other place, and indeed in your Lordships’ House, railing against this deal because of the protocol that was introduced last year. But the very same people facilitated the introduction of that protocol, so they are not in a position to challenge things tonight.
What I want is honesty. We will make the best of what we can, but the union is seriously weakened as a result of this decision, and it is a fact that our laws will be determined by others and not by our sovereign Parliament. That is not taking back control.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
I welcome and support this historic Bill. Following the agreement, we will truly be an independent country, in control of our laws and national destiny, without any influence of the European Court. We will also set up an arrangement which can be worth more than £650 billion in reciprocal trade with the EU.
The agreement covers a number of subjects but, in view of lack of time, I shall discuss issues relating to the financial services sector, which I declare is my business. The financial services sector contributes around £130 billion to the UK economy and employs more than 1 million people. It generates more than 10% of tax revenues and contributed about 40% of the country’s £18 billion trade surplus in services with the EU in 2019. We should do all we can to protect its future.
As of 1 January 2021, UK financial services firms will not be able to continue their passporting privileges, which have allowed them to undertake financial services activities freely in the European Union. To undertake financial services activities, firms will need to register and comply with necessary requirements in each country or rely on equivalence.
Our Prime Minister has commented that the Brexit trade deal perhaps does not go as far as he would like on financial services. If a firm is to seek authorisation from individual countries, this will add to its costs and make the matter complicated. I appreciate that equivalence was not part of TCA negotiations and have noted that access to European markets can be established by a separate process which can grant equivalence to UK firms. I hope that further negotiations will be undertaken as soon as possible to establish market access to the European Union for our financial services firms. I very much hope that an agreement is reached and a memorandum of understanding is signed as soon as possible. I emphasise that we must endeavour to secure equivalence on a permanent basis.
Another issue of concern is that, from 1 January 2021, UK professional qualifications will not be recognised by the European Union. A British-qualified person will need registration in the country where he or she would like to undertake work. British qualifications are of a very high standard and are the envy of the world, and they must be treated accordingly. I hope that this point is discussed further and that an agreement is reached on this issue, together with the important matter of equivalence. I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the matters that I have raised regarding the financial services sector.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend’s amendment. In practice, under the CRaG Act, we cannot stop the treaty; we can only delay it. However, the Leader’s upbeat assessment in her opening speech was entirely misplaced. It is a thin deal, with no properly thought-through impact assessment and on such an important matter—a serious omission.
However, like many others, I shall vote in favour because, as they have said, the alternative of no deal is worse. I do this not because the agreement facilitates business trade—it does not; unlike any other trade deal, it creates more non-tariff barriers and more bureaucracy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, explained—but because it provides a period of certainty, enabling businesses to plan and, hopefully, invest and adapt to our new status outside the EU, while at the same time coping with this terrible pandemic.
Yes, I shall vote in favour, because the Government’s mismanagement is threatening the integrity of our union. The Government have given practically no opportunity for the devolved Administrations to give this matter proper consideration, yet unity is of interest to us all.
I shall vote in favour in the hope that it will make our departure less acrimonious and will create a better atmosphere to settle the many outstanding issues, such as the future of our services sector, which the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and many others mentioned, where we have a healthy surplus. We must settle the outstanding non-trading aspects of our relationship, which are so important—academic, scientific, educational, cultural, data sharing, security, climate change and emissions trading. We will have to learn how to operate the 30-odd specialist committees that set standards, arbitrate and settle disputes and with which we will have to work—otherwise they will operate at our disadvantage.
Meanwhile, we must deal with the pandemic, the double-dip recession, high unemployment, public and private debt and the inevitable change in taxation. We will need a Government who do not indulge in wishful thinking about sovereignty and who will put our relationship with the EU on a much better footing than this.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is no surprise to me that we are sitting today, at the last gasp of 2020, to consider legislation published just yesterday to deliver the most radical change of trading circumstances in our history. The Government never wanted Parliament to be involved in the process. We are being bounced into giving the Government sweeping and unspecified powers to do what they please without further reference to Parliament. Much of the detail was clearly agreed months ago, so it is total hypocrisy to suggest that legislators must simply buckle when it could and should have been perfectly possible for adequate time to be provided.
The compromises now reveal that all the braggadocio about sovereignty was just that. It is a pity that it was done with such ill grace and to such long-term damage. We will accept EU rules without having any role in shaping them and face endless argument and disruption should we seek to diverge.
With so little time, I wish to ask for clarification on two points and issue a warning on one. As a member of this House’s EU Services Sub-Committee, I was party to our long letter to the Secretary of State regarding Horizon and Erasmus+. We were concerned that, in participating as a third party to Horizon, we would move from being a net beneficiary of to a significant net contributor to a programme over which we would have limited control. Can the Minister tell me whether that has been addressed?
In the case of Erasmus, 53% of all students who studied abroad did so through Erasmus, which also funded EU students to study in the UK, bringing an academically enriching and economic benefit. Yet we have opted out completely. Why? Can the Minister say what that will mean to current students looking for a placement in the next academic year? Can he also explain how the proposed Turing scheme can possibly deliver comparable benefits to the multinational, multilayered Erasmus scheme? Will it just focus on the English-speaking world and further distance us from our European friends?
The warning relates to the impact of this deal on Scotland, and it is aimed both at the Government and people of the UK and at the Government and people of Scotland. It is becoming too glib and too easy to remark airily that Scotland is on course for independence and to assume that negotiating Scexit—Scotland’s exit from the UK—will be quick and easy compared with Brexit. We have heard that before. The institutions that we share are not peripheral; they are the arteries of our society. Similarly, the assumption that Scotland will achieve a rapid and seamless transition to membership of the EU, regardless of the lack of a central bank or currency and with debt several times the permitted threshold, is simply unreal. More to the point, erecting a border with the rest of the UK before any agreement can be reached with the EU should give anyone pause for thought.
Of course, the devolved Administrations should be treated with more respect, just as the reality of the benefits that we share across the UK should be valued more. The nightmare of the last few years, topped off with Covid, should surely teach us the value of togetherness, however strained relations become. If we do not learn from this, we face a future of endless debilitating division and argument as we decline in influence. If we can learn and find a more constructive way of engaging with each other, we might—just might—begin to see the glimmerings of a brighter future. I do hope so.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I share the dilemma expressed so often today, faced with an agreement that is far from the one I would like to see but far better than no deal at all. I particularly regret those places where even the Prime Minister concedes that the deal does not go far enough, and I make no apologies for revisiting my familiar theme of services, which contribute so much to the economy, exports and employment but which are so poorly served by this deal. Its service provisions are not only limited but are subject to a vast list of exceptions, varied by sector and member state. Crucial issues such as data adequacy, passporting rights and financial equivalence are unresolved, and the end of mutual recognition of qualifications is a serious blow.
Services were always going to be hit hard by the determination to end freedom of movement. So, although the deal allows short-term business visitors to enter the EU visa-free for 90 days in any six months, the activities they can undertake are limited—more a case of networking than work. Meetings, trade exhibitions, conferences, consultation and market research are all fine, but any selling of goods or services directly to the public is subject to a work visa, the requirements for which will vary across each member state.
The cultural sector is particularly ill served, with visa-free travel seemingly denied to working performers, artists and musicians, who now face new burdens of admin, carnets and costs. The absence of any creative, cultural or media services and occupations in the SERVIN 3 and 4 lists of suppliers and independent professionals will impact across music, film and TV, dance, theatre, journalism, gigging, photography, fashion and more.
The Prime Minister spoke this morning of
“restoring a great British industry”—
he meant fishing—
“to the eminence that it deserves”,
but one cost of this has been the sacrifice of services, including the creative industries, which really are one of the truly great British industries of today. The Minister assured me in yesterday’s very helpful briefing that performing artists and musicians are in fact covered in the deal, but I still struggle to understand how. Perhaps he could clarify this on the record today and, subsequently, in writing to the House.
This deal denies the next generation the freedoms that we have enjoyed, and I believe that it will have economic, social and cultural consequences. But today we are all Henry Hobson—we face Hobson’s choice—and I cannot support no deal. This agreement will at least delay divergence. It carries the promise of further agreements and, at five-year intervals, it gives us the chance to review and improve. It offers a framework on which our future relationship with our nearest neighbours can be built. For those reasons, and despite my reservations, I will be voting to implement it in law.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con) [V]
My Lords, when we last held a referendum on Europe in 1975, like many businessmen I strongly supported membership. The entrepreneur in me felt that to be part of a bigger bloc would give us the advantages that American companies already enjoyed in their huge home market. In the early 1990s, as president of a group representing European ship owners, I spent a great deal of time in Brussels meeting many Commissioners on a regular basis, and in the following years in connection with the European interests of my own company, P&O SN Co, I continued those meetings.
Why did I change my mind? Taking account of what I have just said, the original aim of it being a trading bloc has been lost. The European Commission is the sole initiator of policy, and the ambition of most in Brussels is a fully united Europe instead of a confederation of nation states. That is why I worked with Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Gisela Stuart in the leave campaign—and, subsequently, with David Davis for four years, when he was Brexit Secretary. Our 40-year membership of Europe is a very short period in this country’s history. Many keep referring to our decision to reassert control of our own destiny as a divorce; I never understood why because we were never married—at most, we were engaged.
Power today is no longer about possessing territory and heavy industry; nor is it even dependent on having a large population. Increasingly, it is a corollary of the extraordinary advances in technology and the expansion of world trade through the ever-increasing global supply chain—economic strength is vital. One lesson I have learned in international commerce is as valid today as it ever was: trade is a natural human activity—as natural as communicating with each other. It should not be dictated by government bureaucracy. That is why this country has always believed that free trade and freedom are inextricably linked—a view strongly held by Margaret Thatcher. I have no doubt whatever that we can more than hold our own outside the EU, working closely through strong long-term relationships worldwide, particularly with the Commonwealth, the USA and the far east—and, of course, by enlarging and enhancing our trade relations with the European Union.
We must never forget the magnificent role of our armed services in defending our realm night and day. Hearing the comments of many others, I emphasise that Gibraltar is of extreme importance to the Royal Navy, and we must make certain that, in due course, this is addressed in a way that helps it and our interests.
I have never liked the word “deal”. In business, long-term relationships are founded on an agreement, where trust and respect are fundamental. At the announcement referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, spoke warmly about the ongoing relationship with partners in the United Kingdom. Many of us have deep friendships and family in continental Europe, and, with such sentiment, I have no doubt that our relationship will only deepen in the years to come.
I strongly welcome this agreement and congratulate the Prime Minister and all those involved in the negotiation. Having been involved in major negotiations in many ways over 50-odd years, I have to say that the Prime Minister’s judgment in the last two to three weeks before they came to an agreement, the risks he took and the courage he showed are something to be admired—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I have three minutes to describe a great national disaster—a tragedy—and to issue a plea to noble Lords to do what they can to mitigate the impacts. The appropriate approach for today is not a comparison of the thin deal on which we vote—a kit sailboat of matchsticks, put together by a careless child—against the storm of crashing out; rather, we need to compare this Bill to what we had before Brexit.
First, on freedom of movement, Britons historically had, and were able to force on the rest of the world, freedom of movement across the Empire, and for decades we have enjoyed consensual, two-way movement across our continent. However, from 1 January, the majority of Britons, who do not have the cash or social capital to grease their way, will have less freedom of movement than their ancestors enjoyed for centuries. The nation has been put into permanent global lockdown.
Secondly, I cite our services sector, that hugely dominant part of our economy, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, was just talking about. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, EU states will be calling the shots about what architects, lawyers, musicians and copywriters can and cannot do. For trade in goods, this is not frictionless trade, but the addition of voluminous tangles of red tape. This is “a wonderful thing”, says the Prime Minister, striding firmly into Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.
Individuals and businesses have lost the rights they can assert and enforce for themselves with EU membership. Instead, there are meagre rules and obligations that exist only between the UK and the EU. If you, as an individual, lose out, you will rely on the Government to act for you. Good luck.
Our already depleted and degraded environment has lost crucial EU protections—just ask Greener UK. The non-regression provisions involve a test that is “notoriously difficult to prove” and has been ineffective in previous trade agreements. Rebalancing mechanisms are restricted. The full horizontal dispute settlement mechanism does not apply to the environment or sustainable development chapters. We have lost the democracy these islands have enjoyed through the European Parliament. For Westminster, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said, the events of today represent a massive power grab by the Executive. This speed is engineered by either incompetence or design.
Both government and opposition opening speakers lingered on the overwhelming majority this Bill won in the other place. But 521 to 73 in no way reflects the views of the country. I beg each noble Lord individually to represent the people abandoned by the other place. Show your opposition to this disaster and provide a counterbalance to the extreme forces that want, as we patch up this ill-assembled boat, putting up sails and rigging and a hand on the tiller, to steer us straight on to the undemocratic, exploitative, destructive, deregulatory shores of Singapore-upon-Thames.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to contribute, albeit for three minutes, to this debate. I agree so much with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his team. Anybody who has been involved in negotiations, with the EU in particular, will know they are a challenge. They often end in the small hours of the morning, and there is always compromise. I accept, as somebody who voted to leave the EU back in 2016, that compromises were always going to be needed. So, I do not feel bitter in any way, and I hope, whatever side of the argument people were on, bitterness can be put aside because, frankly, we have work to do. That work will fall so much on our House—our Chamber and our committees.
I hope, as we go forward, we will make clear the standards and values of this country which now holds the reins to set its own legislation and create its own rules. For example, when we set the professional qualifications we are prepared to accept across a range of businesses and professions, we can aim for the best. We can aim for quality and decency and things people can rely on and trust.
Also, I hope we can get our own House and our own Parliament in order, because the recovery of sovereignty in this area means that we have to make sure we hold the Government to account. So, I hope we will see fewer pieces of legislation where Henry VIII clauses and other devices that give power to the Executive are just automatically built in, as though a scattering of them is needed in every Bill. I say that as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, where it is a matter of great concern. I hope, too, that we will look at what is good regulation.
A lot has been said about gold-plating and people wanting to go for the best, cheapest deal. We do not want to be the cheapskates of the world; we want to be people who, with our design and cultural history, can produce the industries, technologies and cultures of the future, which can be relied on everywhere, not least at home. As we look forward to 2021—and I hope we are looking forward to it—this is a great opportunity for us, and I hope our House, in particular, will play its part in making sure that it is successful.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow on from the speech of my noble friend Lord Austin, who has been a great friend over the years, promoting cycling at a time when it was not quite as popular as it is now. He is very welcome in your Lordships’ House.
There has been a lot of talk from the Prime Minister and others about regaining our sovereignty, but I have to ask this question: whose sovereignty and what exactly do they mean? It is very easy for Ministers to sit here, at the end of 2020, and think that we are a sovereign island state, maybe even with an empire whose every move they can control, forgetting that they do not have one any more and that most of the Empire sought more relevant economic and cultural links long ago, and we are left alone. After 50 years of war and its aftermath, our involvement in Europe and with our neighbours, and the encouragement that we gave to widening the EU eastwards, was a major contributor to peace: the free movement of people for work, leisure and relationships, and the understanding of the different traditions, languages, local rules and customs has been a major contributor to peace. Of course, the Erasmus programme, about which many noble Lords have spoken, is an essential part of that, and I hope the Minister will come back with a positive answer when he responds.
I lived in Romania for several years in the 1970s, under the Communist regime, and it was not a happy place. There was no liberty and no freedom, and the issues that occurred then are not over yet—as we see when we look at what is happening in Ukraine and Belarus. I have a train-operating business colleague who sent me a photograph a few years ago of one of his freight trains with machine-gun holes all the way up the side. Just imagine trying to run a business when you have machine guns going past you all the time.
I think the rest of Europe should be seen as our friends and trading partners—to which, of course, we export some 40% of our trade—and we should really encourage them. Therefore, the criticism of Europe as being bureaucratic is wrong. The people are not bureaucratic, but some of the processes needed to be, maybe to cope with 26 member states. Are our Government really right to criticise the EU for this when they produce just a framework Bill, which many speakers have said will dramatically increase the bureaucracy of trade with the EU, just as the interests of that mythical idea of sovereignty are lost?
My conclusion is that all the Government are doing is transferring sovereignty from what they believe was Europe to themselves, bypassing Parliament. For the reasons many other noble Lords gave, I will support the Bill, but through gritted teeth.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, today we are debating a Bill to implement the Brexit agreements with the EU. I want to focus on one aspect of the Prime Minister’s comment that, despite the agreement, the UK would
“remain culturally, emotionally, historically, strategically and geologically attached to Europe”.
Those cultural and emotional questions are fundamental. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister identifies with elements of historic European culture; we have all noted how often he quotes from pre-Christian Greek and Roman sources. While Jean Monnet, one of the great architects of the European project, may not have made the comment often attributed to him that
“If I were to do it again from scratch, I would start with culture”,
the question of culture is fundamental for Europe.
Supporters of the European project emphasise the transnational commonalities of European culture, and I share that perspective, but many people identify more with the culture of their own historic national community. They are prepared to sacrifice economic and social well-being to protect it when they feel it is under threat; that is much of what Brexit is about. Immigration, for example, is felt by people like that to be changing the culture of their communities more quickly than they can accommodate. Within the EU, constant effort is required to contain the historic cultural and religious differences between the north and the south, and the east and the west. Those who promoted Brexit, like those who are trying to undermine the European project from within and without, have released powerful nationalist forces that will not be put to bed by Brexit.
The complaints that the Prime Minister laid against the EU and his solution of taking back control are now being turned against him from within the United Kingdom. The Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish did not want to take back control from Brussels in order to hand it to London. That is why he is having such a problem with the passage of legislative consent Motions. Mr Johnson may see himself as the British Prime Minister and wrap himself in the union flag, but in Edinburgh and Belfast, and even in Cardiff, he is increasingly seen as an English Prime Minister. My wife and I moved from Belfast to Oxfordshire a couple of years ago. We are very happily settled there, but we immediately sensed the depth of the cultural differences between the community that we had left and the one which is now our home.
Our United Kingdom has held together deep historic cultural differences that are now being exposed by Brexit. The appearance of a border down the Irish Sea, so clearly described by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the decision of the Irish Government to offer Erasmus and EHIC benefits to British citizens in Northern Ireland are significant straws in the wind. If, or perhaps when, Northern Ireland leaves, it is the end of the United Kingdom—for, as noble Lords will recall, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The impact on Scotland could be profound. Are Her Majesty’s Government as blind as their former Brexit-voting allies in the DUP to the fragmentation that may be triggered by the powerful centrifugal dynamic that they have released? Can the Minister tell the House what Her Majesty’s Government are going to do to hold our United Kingdom together?
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my relevant interests, as detailed in the register. Like other noble Lords, my overwhelming sensation on hearing the Prime Minister’s announcement was of relief. I could not believe that any British Government would take us out of the transition period with no deal, trading on World Trade Organization terms as advocated by the ultras. Today, it is clear that this legislation must pass. However, I and many others are left with a number of worries, which I hope the Minister addresses when he winds up.
I worry for the fishermen, who have not achieved what they were promised in the referendum. I worry for small hill farmers, who will find that their sheepmeat must comply with new bureaucratic processes to enter their principal continental markets. I worry for all exporters, who will certainly encounter delays in the European ports. I hope the process can be streamlined to create something closer to the promised frictionless trade.
I worry for business travellers, artists and performers who need to move in and out of continental Europe without hindrance. I worry for students, as we have chosen not to remain part of the Erasmus programme. I hope that the new Turing scheme gives students as much chance to study overseas, and international students to come here. I worry for the City of London and financial services. I hope that the Government move with speed to negotiate an agreement for access to the continental markets.
I worry that the police and security services will not have the same access to European databases. I worry for the National Health Service, which has a lengthening list of vacancies, where EU citizens have been such an important component in the past. I worry for the citizens of Gibraltar and hope they reach an agreement with Spain to keep the frontier open. Finally and most importantly, I worry about our union of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Despite my concerns, we must commend the Government for making a deal, however imperfect. It is my fervent hope that Ministers realise that there is still much to do. I hope that the country finds a renewed prosperity under these very changed circumstances.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Government and their negotiating team under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Frost. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult this must have been for the negotiators, but the stresses and strains over the weeks towards the end were indeed palpable to those of us who observed the negotiations closely. While the whole Brexit issue may have caused division within the ranks of politicians, and indeed the public at large, whichever side you were on, we can now all hopefully come together in the knowledge that we have a deal which, all being well, will bind us together for a prosperous future with our new trading arrangements.
In the limited time allocated, I should like to touch from a practical perspective on two areas that I have a particular interest in. To some extent I am pleased to see the agreement struck in relation to aviation, particularly with co-operation on aviation safety, security and air traffic management. It will, however, impose a restriction on UK airlines as they will no longer be considered EU carriers and will lose existing traffic rights in the EU. The practical effects of that are yet to be seen and experienced.
It also has consequences for general aviation. A simple example of this is the light aircraft pilot’s licence, which was originally and rather ironically conceived by EASA as a simpler and easier way to obtain a licence. However, from 1 January 2021, British pilots who hold such a licence cannot fly into Europe as a pilot in charge of an aircraft, as it will become a national licence with UK-only privileges. This is very regrettable.
I am, however, a little more sceptical in respect of security and policing. I voted remain on the basis of my experience of working as a police officer in eastern Europe and my belief that the UK’s best interests would be served by maintaining our close working relationships, both formally and informally, with our European security and policing cousins. I am still of that opinion. Key tools such as the Schengen Information System SIS II, and membership of Europol and Eurojust, enabled us to work closely with our European partners, but membership will now be lost.
The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Ricketts, and my noble friend Lord Lancaster, have already referred to the effects of the loss of SIS II. I agree that it will deny the operational officer on the street key real-time information with regards to foreign nationals engaged in criminality or who may be wanted for serious crimes. I do not therefore fully share the enthusiasm of the Home Secretary, who has
“hailed the UK’s new comprehensive security agreement with the EU.”
Yes, we have arrangements for the sharing of information on air passenger travel, vehicle registration, DNA and fingerprints, but I fear that these amount to only the basic essentials. It is real-time database access that is vital and is lacking in this agreement and, as a consequence, in the police toolbox.
All of that said, this Bill was brought about as a result of a democratic vote by the people of the United Kingdom. I respect that, as I believe others should. While I have reservations on some areas of the deal, there are many aspects of the deal that I applaud. Above all, it is the will of the people. It is fair to say that the EU has certainly developed into something far greater than that that which was voted on way back in the 1970s. I feel sure that many of the issues raised by your Lordships this evening, including those raised by myself, can be addressed in due course. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill this evening.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the regret amendment, but with the greatest reluctance will vote for the Bill. Leaving the EU on the Tory Government’s terms—with or without this Bill—will produce immense economic and social damage to the UK. But the option of having no legislation to implement the Government’s deal would be worse. I have three substantive points.
First, it is clearly nonsense to suggest that the treaty means that we take back control, as the Brexiteers claim, particularly if we mean democratic control. The Bill creates a whole panoply of joint regulation and control between the UK Government and the European Commission, with the partnership council, 19 specialised committees and four working groups. These bodies will reach agreements at the European level, without parliamentary scrutiny, which will apply directly in British domestic law. So the UK Government will be subject to next to no democratic scrutiny or oversight of what they negotiate with the EU. There will be less democratic oversight than we had as a member of the European Union. What we will see are truly the horrors of unaccountable power, with laws being made by administrative diktat.
Secondly, of the many unknowns left open by the treaty I want to highlight the inadequate provision for mutual recognition of professional qualifications. What we have here is simply a framework, with the practice to be agreed through the joint partnership council along the lines of the CETA treaty. What this means in practice is unknown, but, judging by the slow progress of recognition under CETA itself, this means years of uncertainty. This will not only affect UK professionals, who will be at a competitive disadvantage, but will make matters worse for our hard-pressed health and education sectors, where EU nationals have provided essential support. It also poses an additional challenge for delivering the world-class academic research that underpins so much of the UK’s competitive advantage.
This undercooked and ill-thought-out Bill presents not the solutions we need but simply a long list of undecided but vital UK links that have provided great advantage to the UK, its economy and its standing in the world.
Thirdly, and all too briefly, I must mention the failure to guarantee labour standards. We know that it is the Prime Minister’s ambition to weaken employment rights in a race to the bottom. This has not been forgotten and it is most certainly an issue to which we will return in future debates.
Lord Taverne (LD) [V]
My Lords, when Chamberlain came back from Berchtesgaden with a piece of paper proclaiming “peace in our time”, he was greeted with almost universal acclaim. When Johnson came back from Brussels with his free trade agreement, he was greeted with adulatory praise from most of the Conservative press and his party. It was, he announced, the realisation of the claims made for Brexit in the referendum and in the last Conservative manifesto. Well, will it really be the journey into the sunlit uplands? Not according to the vast majority of economists, for reasons powerfully argued in this debate by several speakers. I believe that Johnson’s Panglossian optimism will prove no more justified than Chamberlain’s belief in “peace in our time”.
We will probably continue to wallow in nostalgic complacency: “We are the best, especially when we are fighting alone”, “We won the war”, “We have a special relationship with the United States and the Commonwealth —who needs the Europeans?” As a result, we are likely to fall behind our European colleagues in economic growth; we already have the lowest productivity of any advanced European country. The great deal that Johnson has will be no help to our services industry, which makes up 80% of our wealth. There is great uncertainty among manufacturers about the new bureaucratic delays at borders. In addition, we may well find that Johnson has created an irresistible desire for independence in Scotland, which wishes to remain part of the EU, and may set Northern Ireland on the path to a referendum for a united Ireland. Part of Johnson’s legacy could well mean the end of the United Kingdom, leaving us as a relatively small, chauvinistic and isolated country with very little influence in an increasingly hostile world. Is that really what Brexiteers voted for?
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, we now step out into a future whose course will be set largely by ourselves. This is as it should be.
It was on a Friday morning almost exactly seven years ago that, from these Benches, I introduced the European Union (Referendum) Bill. It was a wonderful piece of private legislation that belonged in the other place to the excellent James Wharton MP, now our very own noble Lord, Lord Wharton of Yarm. He had rather more luck than I did: it passed through the Commons with a massive majority. In this House, of course, it was destroyed with malice aforethought. I said then:
“The principle behind this Bill is that the people have a right to decide their own future.”—[Official Report, 10/1/14; col. 1738.]
Now, those who were once derided as swivel-eyed loons have turned out to be the largely silent and remarkably insistent majority. Swivel eyes gave way to tousled hair, hope and the herculean stamina of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Callanan—and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, whose impact has been like that of an entire Spartan army. Then there is our Prime Minister, of course. What a year he has had, worthy of all his beloved ancient Greeks.
There are those who still believe that the earth is flat, made of nothing but level playing fields. They spend their nights sleepless, worrying about the possibility of molehills, whereas we see our world filled with different shapes, glorious colours and the opportunity to rebuild our society, renew our democracy and bring government back closer to the people it serves. We see the opportunity to raise both the spirits and circumstances of those who have for too long been left behind.
All this comes at a price—of course it does—but what price freedom? We made the principled, democratic and yes, moral, case, and that case won. We have done what we promised the people we would do and what they instructed us to do. To use the jargon, Brexit at last means Brexit—and I, for one, am very happy.
Lord Kerslake (CB) [V]
My Lords, I fear that today’s debate is something of a sham. We have just an afternoon and evening to debate the agreement, which was made available to us only a matter of days ago, with little realistic prospect of amending it. To all intents and purposes, we are spectators and commentators rather than true legislators or scrutineers. This is deeply regrettable, but it does at least free us up to talk instead about the wider issues involved.
There are two ways of looking at the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement: first, what we have avoided, and secondly, what we have lost. We have avoided coming to the end of the transition period without a trade agreement, with all the disruption and economic damage that that would have involved. At a time of great uncertainty due to the impact of Covid, we have at least been spared that. This leads some, not unreasonably, to conclude that they should reluctantly vote with the Government, as the immediate alternative is a lot worse.
However, the alternative way of considering this agreement is to look at what we have lost. Compared to what we have now, what we have lost is very considerable. Our ability to trade with the EU will become harder—especially in the vital area of services, where we have an advantage. Consequently, growing the economy will be more challenging. Freedom of movement and cultural exchange will be more difficult. Our global influence will be much diminished. Ironically, despite these big losses, we will stay firmly in the orbit of the EU, which will surely challenge us on policy diversions a lot less serious than returning to sending children up chimneys. The Government have declined to produce an impact assessment. I sincerely hope that others will take up that task on their behalf.
We all want the UK to succeed and prosper post Brexit but, if we do, I fear that it will be in spite of this agreement, not because of it. The passing of this Bill will bring an end to the dreadful Brexit years. We all want closure on this unhappy and divisive period in our history. But it will not end the proper debate about what is the right relationship between Britain and the European Union. The Bill will undoubtedly be passed today. To vote for this Bill would for me signal, at some level, satisfaction with the way the Government have handled the issue, the choices they have made, and the relationship we have now arrived at with the European Union. I have to say that I am not satisfied, and so I shall not support the Bill.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, there are some of us who have spent a political lifetime opposed to the UK’s membership of the European Union, who look on with a sense of sadness that the Brexit that is being delivered for GB will not be enjoyed by the people of Northern Ireland. Those who live in Northern Ireland and contributed to the 17.4 million people who voted leave were entitled to expect that they would leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, as recently as Christmas Eve, the Prime Minister declared:
“We have taken back control of our laws and our destiny. We have taken back control of every jot and tittle of our regulation in a way that is complete and unfettered. From January 1 we are outside the customs union and outside the single market. British laws will be made solely by the British Parliament, interpreted by UK judges sitting in UK courts and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will come to an end.”
As a Member of this House, I think I am entitled, and indeed have a duty, to ask the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who is this “we” that he speaks of? Because as “we” will become all too common to hear in the time ahead, this offer does not extend to Northern Ireland. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister must know that.
I do not deny that the work done by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his team in the JCC has blunted some of the worst aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol, and I hope more progress can still be made. But the reality is that reducing friction in trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain cannot remedy the constitutional outrage that laws will be made for Northern Ireland over which people who live in the EU will have more say than the people in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday the ERG star chamber concluded that the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement preserved the UK’s sovereignty as a matter of law. It did not and could not conclude that the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol preserved the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Had that rigorous legal analysis been conducted 12 months ago, I doubt we would find ourselves in the position that we do now.
There are those who are claiming victory today although, if it is a victory at all, it is a pyrrhic victory, for a clean Brexit for Great Britain comes at the cost of the economic integrity of the United Kingdom. I am just sorry that, although we joined the EEC as one country, we are not, in a meaningful sense, leaving the European Union as one country. It would appear that the military saying “leave no man behind” lacks any political equivalent.
Finally, the protocol under which Northern Ireland will now operate is a travesty and I and my party have consistently opposed it. No consent has been given to the protocol by the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill, and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cavendish on his brilliant valedictory speech. We will miss him, his historical perspectives, and his love of small business.
Virtually my whole career has been spent in EU circles, either negotiating in and with it as a civil servant and later as a Minister, operating across its single market as a retailer or, most recently, sitting on the EU Committee. I love European art and culture and travelling across the continent, but the last five years have changed my view of the viability of the UK’s position within the EU.
I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Frost and the rest of the UK negotiating team, and I welcome the treaty and the Bill before us today. My sister reminded me yesterday that on the day after the referendum in 2016 I told her, “It has to be Boris.” I have taken that view consistently because only he had the chutzpah, the confidence and the experience of Brussels necessary to take the hard line that would convince the EU negotiators that we might really proceed with no deal on trade if what was on offer was inadequate. Only that could shift red lines crafted when we had made the catastrophic error of agreeing a schedule of talks that separated the money and Northern Ireland from the trade provisions. Even worse, the UK negotiators had to operate against a background where some UK legislators, no doubt well-intentioned but hopelessly misguided, were actively seeking to make it a legal requirement to reach agreement, thereby fundamentally undermining their own side.
The Prime Minister has been admirably honest that the deal is not perfect, with which I agree but, given the background, that ought not to be a surprise. However, overall it is in our economic and political interests, and much better than many had feared. By ending in agreement we also have the chance as a sovereign state to chart a friendly path forward with the EU once the dust settles. I can foresee—correctly, I hope—a revival of interparliamentary political dialogue with the EU, as advocated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and of collaboration on business, economics, health, digital, creative industries and climate change. However, for the first time in 50 years, we also have a chance to forge independent relationships on those matters right around the world and to create a simpler climate of control for our entrepreneurs at home. With a successful vaccination programme and Covid behind us, we can emerge from the fog and the gloom of recent times. Opportunity knocks. Thank you, Prime Minister. You have changed the weather.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I share the sadness of many in this debate as we reach the end of the road for our EU membership, of which I have been a strong supporter since well before being elected to the first directly elected European Parliament in 1979. Indeed, my support for the EU was strengthened when I was a Minister attending Council of Ministers meetings on justice and home affairs, agriculture and foreign and general affairs. In contradiction to the caricature of the bullying EU, I found it a forum where British interests could be defended and advanced, and where you could forge alliances and conclude beneficial agreements. It is a tragedy that we left when we had a number of special arrangements and had made a huge success of the internal market. Rather than being a victim of rules imposed on us, we were leading lights in forging those rules in many sectors of our economy.
This is a bad deal, exacerbated by being unnecessarily squeezed up against a self-imposed deadline, causing difficulties and uncertainties for business. It is certainly a worse deal than Theresa May’s deal, particularly because of the creation of a border down the Irish Sea. It represents a loss of freedom for our citizens to live, work and study in the EU. It fails on proper mutual recognition of qualifications, which may cause us to lose contracts as a result. It causes difficulties for musicians and freelancers in our vital creative sector. It even creates new restrictions within the UK, an example that I came across being the introduction now of rules for pet travel between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland where no rules previously existed. It does not surprise me that so many parties in Northern Ireland represented in our Houses of Parliament find the deal unpalatable.
This morning, I listened to the impressive speech made by my party leader, Keir Starmer, who not for the first time showed the qualities that I hope will make him Prime Minister in due course. It was clear that he knew the details of this deal better than the Prime Minister, who still will not admit that he was wrong to claim that there were no non-tariff barriers in the deal when there obviously are.
I am glad that Labour was united against no deal, and I am glad too that Keir Starmer pointed out that those voting against the deal do not actually want to win the vote, because it would lead to a no-deal outcome. However, I still believe that abstention is a credible course of action for people like me. This is the Government’s deal. As we have seen, they have the majority to get it through. Abstention is not walking away when it is accompanied by a clear statement of the reasons behind it, and it does not facilitate no deal but simply makes clear how poor this deal is. While I support my noble friend’s amendment to the Motion, I shall actively and deliberately abstain on any vote on the Bill itself.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have a nasty habit of telling us to sing “Land of Hope and Glory” while selling key sectors and interests down the river. Last year it was Northern Ireland, now it is Gibraltar and the fishing industry, and it has become clear that our creative industries too are being sacrificed on the altar of so-called sovereignty.
We have been assured by Ministers countless times of the value they place on the arts, but they have now abandoned one of our most successful sectors, already heavily battered by Covid lockdowns, to its own devices. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Bakewell, are absolutely right. In the trade and co-operation agreement, our hugely successful audio-visual sector is specifically excluded. They represent 30% of all channels in the EU, but if they are not to be subject to the regulators of every single country, they will need to establish a new hub in a member state.
We can look in vain for anything that helps our touring artists, particularly musicians, actors and sports professionals, with the ending of freedom of movement for UK citizens. From January, when freedom of movement ends, anyone from the UK seeking to perform in an EU country will need to apply for a costly visa for that country, carnets for their musical instruments and necessary CITES permits, and even, perhaps, provide proof of savings and a certificate of sponsorship from an event organiser. No wonder a petition seeking the UK Government to negotiate an EU-wide touring work permit and a carnet exception has gained over 200,000 signatures in record time, and no wonder UK Music and the ISM have expressed their dismay.
On top of this, quite apart from its dramatic impact on the creative industries, there are huge gaps in the agreement. Services are barely covered, despite making up 42% of our trade with the EU. There is no deal on recognition of professional qualifications, no deal on data adequacy, no membership of the Erasmus scheme for our students, as we have heard, and very limited recognition of the needs of the tourism, travel and hospitality industry, especially given the catastrophic impact on jobs that Covid is forecast to have on the sector. This is a failure of negotiation on a grand scale.
Our architects and engineers, who have made a huge impact on the built environment on the continent over the past 40 years, will have no right to work in the EU. Service industries, global business and tech companies who depend on data exchange with the EU will have no assurance that data flows can continue after six months. Our UK students, 15,000 of whom have taken advantage of the Erasmus scheme each year for exchanges and work placements, will no longer take part.
To describe this as a thin deal does not quite cut it; the Bill implementing it hugely erodes parliamentary sovereignty. “Negligent” and “ignorant” are words that describe it most aptly.
Lord Darroch of Kew (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall be voting in favour of this Bill. This is not because it is a great outcome—far from it—but because we are faced with a binary choice here between a poor deal and a no-deal outcome, which would be catastrophic for British interests.
I want to make two brief points about why I think it is nevertheless a bad deal for British interests; the first concerns trade. The Government have made some extravagant claims, and the agreement in principle provides for tariff and quota-free access, but it also creates new non-tariff barriers in the form of extra bureaucracy and checks on goods, imposing significant extra costs on British business. I spent 15 years of my Foreign Office career working on EU policy in London or representing the UK in Brussels. I recall endless criticism, from many quarters, of a supposed unstoppable tide of EU bureaucracy. The reality is that, especially in comparison with what is coming, this was a golden age of genuinely frictionless trade.
By comparison, we are invited to see this deal, with its creation of a vast amount of form-filling and red tape, as a triumph. To put it gently, this feels a stretch. Moreover, the deal does nothing for the British services industry, as others have said, which is 80% of our economy and is an area, unlike goods, where we have a surplus with the European Union. Frankly, it is hard to understand the negotiating strategy, which seemed to prioritise fishing—0.01% of the economy—and did almost nothing for financial services, which contribute £75 billion to the Exchequer every year.
On trade, the deal is also not the sovereignty triumph that is claimed. Behind the detail about processes and committees, there is a hard reality: if now or in future we diverge significantly from EU labour or environmental standards, the EU will respond by restricting our access to its market. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, if we want to maintain free trade, we must become rule-followers rather than rule-makers.
As for the security provisions, senior government Ministers claim the deal makes the UK safer. As my predecessor as National Security Adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out, this is impossible to reconcile with the facts. The deal delivers some worthwhile provisions, such as the fast-track extradition arrangements, but, most damagingly, we have lost access to the Schengen Information System, which delivered our police and security services real-time information on the location of terrorists and criminals. I know from my time as National Security Adviser how valuable that was. Now it is gone, and British citizens will be less safe as a result.
It is not all bad news. The deal at least provides a framework and structure on which we can build. This process will go in only one direction; both common sense and, I anticipate, economic necessity, will compel us to build deeper and wider co-operation in future. I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that this is not an end but a beginning, but I suspect I have a different vision of the ultimate destination.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to speak in this debate, which, for me, will be most memorable for the excellent valedictory speech of my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness. He is much respected on all sides of your Lordships’ House, and his wise and sensible interventions will be greatly missed.
I congratulate my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal on introducing the debate with a powerful speech that fully recognised the significance of the occasion. I also add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords for the triumph of the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Frost and his team, and all those who have worked so hard for so long to ensure that the majority of the population’s will, as expressed in the 2016 referendum and confirmed by the stunning election victory in November 2019, has been honoured in full. It is immensely reassuring for business that free trade in goods, without tariffs or quotas, will continue.
I have felt for a long time, since soon after I first went to work in Japan 40 years ago, and when I worked in Brussels, that we were uncomfortable passengers on the European train because we did not agree with most of our fellow passengers on the ultimate destination. I am delighted we have finally recognised that fact and had the courage to get off the train.
Many have expressed an opinion that the trade and co-operation agreement is somewhat thin in its services chapter. I do not think that matters much. Will the EU really put politics ahead of economics and try to stop Daimler or Axa raising funds in London’s capital markets? Anyway, the single market is only partially constructed as far as services are concerned. Furthermore, the EU has been including political as well as technical and economic criteria in its equivalence assessments. As a financial services practitioner, I agree strongly with the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Morrissey but completely fail to recognise the financial world described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Does my noble friend agree that it is important that the UK’s regulators, rather than continuing with special pleading for equivalence, should urgently start work on devising a simpler, principles-based, innovation-friendly, more British style of financial regulation, consigning the cumbersome, expensive and complicated MiFID II, AIFMD, EMIR and UCITS to the dustbin in the process, in order to retain the UK’s position as the world’s leading financial centre and recognising that its competitors are New York, Dubai, Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong rather than Paris and Frankfurt? We need to adopt a completely different regulatory style and framework rather than continue with cloned copies of EU rules based on individual regulations and directives.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is with considerable sadness that I shall vote to support this Bill; the alternative is even worse. The Bill is further confirmation that we have turned our backs on a great European initiative. From the earliest days of the Coal and Steel Community, the driving vision has been political—of course, it has. Economic arrangements have never been a primary end in themselves; they were the practical means of building a peaceful, stable Europe in which the horrors of two world wars would never return.
In this context, I want to record my admiration for the statesmanlike fortitude and firmness of Monsieur Barnier, the President of the Commission and their colleagues, who largely refused to be provoked by the petulant and provocative way in which our media and, too often, our own Government performed. We owe our European friends great appreciation for the fact that there is in the end any deal at all, however thin the gruel.
We are the prototype of a highly interdependent nation. It is difficult to think of any major issue confronting the men, women and children of the United Kingdom, not least the coronavirus, which can be resolved by the UK alone. We desperately need international co-operation, starting with our European neighbours, on climate, health, security, law, education, human rights and much more, as well as on trade, finance and social policy, especially workers’ rights. It is essential from this moment onwards to make central to our foreign policy the rebuilding of our friendship and trust with our many European friends and a determination to recognise our interdependence and the indispensability of international co-operation to our mutual interests.
While we must of course seek to meet the frustrations and anxieties of too many of our fellow citizens, we must never do so by selling them short on the imperative of the international co-operation which is necessary to build a strong future in their own interests, let alone those of anybody else.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
The two health-related issues that I shall raise relate to our reliance on radioactive isotopes produced in the EU, to which Clauses 27 and 28 relate, and the employment of health and care workers from EU states, on which the Bill is silent.
Approximately 1 million UK patients each year rely on radioisotope procedures to diagnose or treat many conditions. These include cardiovascular imaging and cancer treatment. In addition to the TCA, the UK and the EU signed a nuclear co-operation agreement which is to define the future of the UK’s relationship with the European Atomic Energy Community, or Euratom. This is a good deal for clinicians, for researchers and, of course, for patients.
We import around 80% of the medical radioisotopes we use, most coming from the Netherlands, Belgium and France, and it will be critical that their transit is smooth and without delays, or we will not get what we pay for. These cannot be stockpiled, and as soon as they are produced they begin to decay. The longer the delay in transit, the smaller the dose of useful isotope that remains. These amendments are good for our health.
Less positively, I regret that in the Bill there is no mention of mutual professional recognition of qualifications. Will the Minister outline how this will now function, or is the idea now defunct? The EU’s policy of freedom of movement and mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the EU meant that British health workers could work across the EU, and many health and social care professionals currently working in the UK come from other EU countries. This includes 55,000 of the NHS’s 1.3 million workforce and 80,000 of the 1.3 million workers in the adult social care sector. These will not be easy to replace. A recent rough estimate of the current shortfall of nurses across all disciplines in England is 43,000. Now, EU nurses are feeling unwelcome and the number leaving the NHS to return home has grown. Are EU nationals working in our health and care sector still welcome? The Home Secretary is on record saying that we should be reliant on British staff.
Finally, I return to scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, made some powerful remarks, and her Constitution Committee’s response to the Bill makes for interesting reading. It notes the Bill’s omission of sunset provisions and disagrees with the Government on post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, recommending that the House should decide how best to scrutinise the trade and co-operation agreement. I get the impression that today’s debate is not the end of scrutiny, only the beginning.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s valiant efforts to secure a trade deal with our friends in the European Union ahead of 1 January. It is no mean feat to have accomplished such an important and complex deal during the unprecedented pandemic crisis in the UK. Many speakers have already said that a deal is a better outcome than the alternative of no deal at all, and a great many things have been achieved in this deal, such as no extra charges on goods and no limits on the amount of goods that can be traded. We now also have control over our own laws and borders, as any sovereign state rightly should have.
Sadly, some MPs in the other place voted against the Bill today, especially those from the devolved nations. Some of their issues relate particularly to fishing rights around the coastal waters of Scotland and Wales, and in Northern Ireland there is continuing disquiet about the protocol. Can the Minister tell us how the Government are going to take things forward, so that we have a united front on all matters and harmony between our devolved nations, and so that the United Kingdom does not break up as a result of this deal?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is not just a historic day, it is actually quite an emotional day for many of us who have spent many years arguing that the future of the United Kingdom was best outside the European Union. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who, through his determination, and despite many people, even in your Lordships’ House, saying that it could not happen, has brought back a trade deal that must be the catalyst that will allow us to grow and thrive and trade with the whole world.
I recall the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, saying this about our country in relation to negotiations with the EU:
“We will huff and puff but, in the end, we will basically come to heel”.—[Official Report, 16/1/18; col. 585.]
Well, our Prime Minister did not come to heel, but it is very sad that talking our country down has been so typical of many of the ex-mandarins, a few of them in your Lordships’ House. This has to end now. The culture in the Civil Service must now change—no more relying on an EU bureaucrat to blame, and no more kowtowing to an unelected commission. We can finally, unashamedly, put the British people and our country first, and work more closely with the Commonwealth, so shamefully betrayed when we originally joined the Common Market.
Of course this deal is not perfect. There is too much red tape and too many committees, which I hope will not be filled with Sir Humphreys who think that close alignment with the EU is somehow glorious. We have not moved as quickly as I would have liked on fishing. The extra money for fishing communities is so welcome, but can the Minister assure us that the policing of our fishing waters will be constant now and that we will stop immediately—as we legally can—the huge Dutch trawler that comes into our waters and hoovers up fish while destroying the seabed?
As many noble Lords have said, the Northern Ireland protocol is unfinished business. Every day we find something new which divides Northern Ireland further from the rest of the United Kingdom. Once again, those who threaten violence have been rewarded, while the pro-union community, who have not threatened violence, are rewarded with a trade border with their own country and their biggest market. I have a gentle warning for Michael Gove, who I know to be an ardent unionist and friend of the union. Those of us who really care about the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will see tomorrow as the beginning of the work to end this protocol as soon as possible, and certainly in four years’ time.
Finally, I pay tribute to the remarkable courage, fortitude and enthusiasm of all those in our country who made that brave decision to vote to leave in 2016. It is they who took the brunt of the ridicule and nasty abuse. Their dedication and continued support for those of us in Parliament fighting the remainers, who wanted to ignore the referendum, kept us going when sometimes it looked like we were losing the battle. That meant a lot to us.
One other man apart from our Prime Minister who has been absolutely instrumental in getting us to where we are today is Nigel Farage, and the country, and millions of people—whatever Members of this House think—will for ever hold him in their debt. Never has a man been more attacked and vilified, yet throughout, he kept focused. Today, as he said, the war is over. I am confident that if our Government and our people show positivity, vision and enterprise, we can make our country great again, and even greater.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the next speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. Oh, we cannot hear him. I will call the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth? No? I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak as a Brit but also as a European. I will always be a proud European, though sadly no longer a citizen of the European Union. I remind noble Lords of my interest, as set out in the register, as Principal of Somerville College, Oxford. It is a proud day for everybody associated with the university, and I pay tribute to the extraordinary vaccination team and to the partnership with AstraZeneca which means that hundreds of millions throughout the world will be vaccinated on a not-for-profit basis—a reminder that we live in an interdependent world in which collaboration among scientists and researchers is crucial. The most extraordinary co-operation that we have enjoyed in the last 40 years is as part of the EU, but we are now on the outside, looking in, grasping at this very thin deal.
One of the great benefits to our universities has been participation in Horizon 2020 and the previous research and innovation programmes. The financial benefits were huge, but likewise the networking and the freedom of movement for our academics. I am glad that the UK will continue to participate in Horizon Europe and I look forward to details, including on freedom of movement for academics, researchers and students.
Students—indeed, all young people—seem to have been entirely forgotten where the deal is concerned. It is our young people who will suffer the long-term economic, social and cultural consequences of both Covid and Brexit. It is their horizons that have been drastically narrowed and their opportunities that have been curtailed. They will no longer have the freedom to live, work and study throughout the European Union. Those who are performing artists will no longer have permit-free access across the EU, and newly qualified doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, vets, engineers and architects will no longer enjoy mutual recognition of their professional qualifications.
Everyone engaged in Erasmus is devastated that we will no longer be participants. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, that it is short-sighted and mean-spirited. In January, the Prime Minister categorically said that its future was secure. The failure to live up to that statement will once more diminish the trust of young people in not only government, but politics, which is far more dangerous.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster suggested that Erasmus was being abandoned because, in addition to funding the new Turing scheme, the Government wished to invest more in disadvantaged young people. They could and should do that. He implied that Erasmus was for the elite, whereas in reality it is for students, trainees, apprentices, pupils, adult learners, youth workers and professionals of all organisations active in education, training and the youth sector. It is a brilliant tool of soft power, nurturing mutual understanding between not just individuals but institutions. It is also a great vehicle for social mobility, not to mention the learning of languages. We have few details of how the Turing scheme will work, so a large number of Written Questions will follow from me.
I recognise that we have to look to the future, and I will play my part in ensuring that all young people with whom I have contact, privileged and disadvantaged, understand the value of friendship, co-operation and collaboration with our European partners.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD) [V]
My Lords, I find it quite astonishing that a Conservative Government should introduce a Bill such as this. During the 1990s I was chairman of the northern region CBI. At conference after conference I listened to Conservative spokesmen promising a bonfire of red tape. The same dubious cry was taken up by David Cameron, and more latterly by Boris Johnson.
Yet here we are, facing a Bill that will not have proper scrutiny and gives businesses no time for preparation. It will increase the number of forms that have to be filled in by in excess of 200 million. It will cost businesses anything up to £15 billion. As my noble friend Lady Randerson pointed out, it will require at least 50,000 additional customs officers, along with thousands of additional public servants in government departments and quangos.
This is a bonfire not of red tape, but of business, and it presents an uncertain future for financial services. It is a perverse and retrograde step by a Conservative Party captured by an ideological, anti-European group, fuelled by populist, xenophobic nationalism. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast, this bonfire of business will directly lead to a fall in GDP and to us being poorer, particularly those at the bottom of the pile.
That alone is a very good reason for voting against the Bill, but there is an even more important reason. As my noble friends Lady Northover and Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, it represents a damaging change in role for the United Kingdom that is wholly against the interests of its people. Never has there been a time since the Second World War when we need close allies and the closest co-operation between the nations of the world more. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, there never has been a time when we needed closer dialogue more, and a forum in which to solve world problems that we all face together.
Instead, we have the politics of slogans straight out of the Donald Trump playbook of making America great again. We are told we will have a “Global Britain”. We are told we are going to “Take back control”. They are meaningless slogans. As Churchill said after Dunkirk:
“Wars are not won by evacuations.”
This Bill is facilitating an evacuation and will do great damage to the country. For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, it should be opposed. I shall vote against it tonight with great enthusiasm.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope you can hear me this time. It was my fault last time, and I apologise. I was going to say what an honour it was to follow the courageous noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, on his valedictory speech. The ratio of good sense to words spoken is probably higher in him than in any other Member of the House. We will miss him very much.
The hour is late and much has been said, so I shall digress and take a long view. Whatever your views on Brexit, there is no doubting the peculiar agony of Britain's relationship with its neighbouring continent. Ever since the day, 8,100 years ago, when the sea broke through the chalky gorge between Dover and Calais, there has been a dilemma: are we separate from or close to the continent? If the Strait of Dover had been six times wider, as is the Tsushima Strait between Japan and Korea, I suspect we would never have joined the Common Market, and if there was an isthmus, I think we would never have had a referendum. Britain is close enough to the continent to be repeatedly entangled in continental political systems, but far enough away to repeatedly regret joining them.
Henry VIII’s break with Rome and the events of 410 AD were both a form of Brexit. Of the Reformation, a former Leader of this House, Lord Salisbury, said during the referendum campaign:
“Henry VIII declared independence from the Pope and the Emperor for the lowest of reasons, his lust and his wallet”,
but it
“released this country from its obscurantist shackles and made the industrial revolution and the period of British dominance possible.”
Of 410 AD, the writer and historian Paul Johnson, in his book The Offshore Islanders, written the year before Britain joined the Common Market, argued that by then the British were by then terminally fed up with the “festering incubus” of Roman colonialism. Opportunity came when a barbarian army crossed the Rhine and the Goths sacked Rome itself. At that point, something peculiar happened to Britain. It is a myth that the Romans told Britain it was on its own. Rather, a rebel force of semi-Romanised British nationalists inspired by a British-born theologian, Pelagius, with his heretical doctrine of free will, captured London and other cities, imposed peace and then wrote to the Emperor Honorius requesting legal recognition of their independence. Otherwise preoccupied, the emperor agreed. Johnson wrote this, which I think has interesting echoes:
“There was no provision in Roman law for a territory to leave the empire. But by an ingenious use of the lex Julia, the British got round the difficulty and severed their links with the continent by a process of negotiation.”
Rumour has it that the British negotiator was named Davidius Frostus.
That Brexit did not end so well, although the Dark Ages were no picnic on the continent either. This separation is as historic. It is up to us to make it work by unleashing enterprise, innovation and economic growth.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, as many others have said, taking the UK out of the Erasmus programme is a short-sighted, false economy. As an administrative decision, it is not in the Bill, although it is clearly of importance. Despite its illustrious name, the new Turing scheme will be a cheap, inferior substitute whose unintended consequences have not been thought through, and funding is guaranteed for only one year. The DfE says that it will enable students to go to countries worldwide, not just Europe—as if Erasmus has not provided such choices, whereas in fact it covers 190 different countries. The DfE says that the new scheme will target disadvantaged students who benefited little from Erasmus, yet this year in the FE sector, 38% of Erasmus participants were disabled students or those with fewer opportunities. Our EU Committee concluded that Erasmus
“offers unparalleled financial support and flexibility to enable people from lower income backgrounds”.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the Turing scheme will match Erasmus in benefiting apprentices, volunteers, jobseekers and those with disabilities? The most strategically important gap in the new scheme is the claim that it is “truly international” when, in fact, unlike Erasmus, it is not reciprocal, providing only for outward mobility. The British Academy says:
“Incoming students and staff through the Erasmus programme provide important economic benefits to the UK and an invaluable contribution”
to the UK’s
“academic, intellectual and cultural … life.”
Universities UK estimates a net profit of £243 million a year for the UK from Erasmus, once incoming students’ local spending is taken into account.
Finally, there are two particularly severe consequences of a non-reciprocal scheme. First, it may not be accepted by key universities around the world. This is exactly what happened to the non-reciprocal scheme devised by Switzerland, which ended up having to fund incoming students as well in order to secure any international buy-in. What guarantees have the Government sought from other countries that they would sign up to a UK alternative?
Secondly, Erasmus has been a vital part of the supply chain for modern language staff in schools and universities. Erasmus is not just for linguists, of course, but without reciprocity the Turing scheme would risk further damage to the sustainability of MFL teaching and learning in the UK. Combined with the Government’s refusal to accept the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation that MFL teachers should be added to the shortage occupation list for post-Brexit immigration purposes, future recruitment looks very vulnerable.
If we abandon Erasmus, then a so-called global Britain requires nothing less than a fully reciprocal and fully funded replacement. Given that the time-critical factor of this legislation is not an issue, will the Government please think again about sticking with Erasmus?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join many noble friends in paying tribute to my good and noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness for his moving and powerful valedictory speech. He will be sadly missed in this House.
This is a very great day for me, for two reasons. First, we are finally unshackling ourselves from the EU. Secondly, it is my birthday. I can think of no better way to spend one’s birthday than being here on this historic occasion.
How are historians going to look at this moment? I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby; I am glad that he is still in his place. He said that the referendum was called by David Cameron as a result of splits in the Tory party. I take issue with the noble Lord on two points. First, he seems to think that it was a mistake for David Cameron to call a referendum and put it in his manifesto. That is rather strange, coming from Liberal Democrats—I thought that they were rather keen on referenda. Perhaps it is only referenda where they can agree with the result.
Secondly, it was not because of Tory splits. It was for the very simple reason that many Tory Members of Parliament, particularly those in marginal seats, were challenged at the time by Nigel Farage and UKIP, who were undertaking to stand on the basis that there would be a referendum on whether we stayed in Europe or not. A number of Tory MPs came to David Cameron and persuaded him that we must put it in our manifesto as well. As a result, a number of votes moved over to Tory MPs and saved their seats. As we know, it turned out that there was an overall majority.
I have a theory—I do not know whether it is true—that David Cameron was looking at the polls and expected that he would end up with another hung Parliament and a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Was it possible that he thought that, if so, he would make it a condition of going into coalition with the Liberals that they dropped any commitment to a referendum?
As it is, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in commending Nigel Farage and UKIP. They have made a material difference to this country. It is shameful that he is not in your Lordships’ House. You do not have to agree with somebody to accept the major contribution they have made. He was pivotal to this referendum being held, and as a result, we are now leaving the EU. To this day, he has substantial support in the country, and I do not know how many Members of your Lordships’ House can say that.
I strongly support this Bill; I commend my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for his negotiating skills and for keeping no deal on the table, which has been critical for getting the agreeable terms we have today.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, many still argue the UK is not in step with the world order of regionalism and question whether the people were right to make the call they did. Those points of principle have now had their day. Uncertainty has been removed, and I join others in believing that this agreement appears positive. I am equally relieved that many of those who have been vehement remainers throughout appear to be in support as well. This should serve as a reminder to European parliamentarians when they consider ratification.
There is no time for complacency. While being an optimist, I sense the sword of Damocles hanging over us to ensure that in certain quarters we do not step out of line. However, with pragmatism, flexibility, nimbleness, and strategy in abundance, we can and will be match-fit for tomorrow’s world. We have arrived at a new chapter to build back better, to be inclusive in arriving at solutions to challenges and to take stock with fresh eyes. The voices of business, unions, consumers, academics, NGOs and civil society from regions up and down the nation should be at the heart of the national debate. Now is the time to cast divisions aside and work together for the common good. Hard work lies ahead to ensure that Brexit happens happily. When opportunities present, we must ensure that a great equalling of the regions within our kingdom of nations is paramount.
There have been, and will be, winners and losers. The fishing and financial services industries are expressing concern, but taken on balance, given that the Europeans were always, understandably, going to defend their interest to the hilt, the Government have delivered on the mandate of the people and negotiated the possible within the agreed timelines. All sides should now see the advantages of bridge-building and strengthening co-operation for mutual advantage. The real work begins now. Now is the time to forge and deepen relationships and maximise the synergies between political interest and supporting international development, business and international investment. Now is the time to invoke the British spirit to secure a bright future for our country.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the support for this Bill and the agreement underlying it, as anyone with common sense should surely do. It is plainly an historic and remarkably comprehensive achievement.
I have two quick observations. First, now that we have an agreement on which to build, I plead for a new phase of illusion-dissolving honesty from our leadership, our opinion-formers and our phrase-makers. Could we henceforth take much more care in using the overworked phrase “taking back control”? This is accurate in narrow legal terms in that our Parliament will make our laws and British courts under British judges will implement them. But it is equally obvious that we cannot do exactly what we want in today’s conditions. Unless we wish to become a hermit kingdom, a large number of our laws and rules will be constrained by the realities of an increasingly interdependent and connected planet and by multiple international standards, treaty commitments and solemn agreements.
Therefore, could we perhaps give the “control” mantra a rest, at least until we are clearer as to who exactly is getting back this control? Is it our sovereign Parliament—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was urging—the devolved Administrations, the Executive or the proposed EU-UK partnership council and the arbitration bodies set up by the agreement, whose rulings on alignment and fair competition will control us, without their being subject to parliamentary scrutiny, although they will be international law? Some of these questions were rightly raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, chair of the Constitution Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member.
Secondly, the Government constantly get accused of having no coherent vision—no narrative—as we move out of the EU treaty system. Actually, our future narrative is there for the telling. The International Trade Secretary, who is doing an excellent job, was rightly calling the other day for a “Pacific mindset”, or an Indo-Pacific mindset, in repositioning the UK in an utterly changed world.
Of course, we need good and settled relations with our nearest neighbours, although a Europe of constant bargaining is what we have to look forward to regionally. However, the bigger, and much faster-growing, markets, are taking shape elsewhere; for instance, in dynamic south-east Asia and in parts of the Commonwealth network, where investment is now being sucked away from China and where most future world growth in both goods and services lies.
In a networked world and in this hyper-connected age, the whole nature of global trade has changed, the distribution of power has changed, the nature of security threats has changed, and the very texture and character of international relations have changed. So, in passing this Bill and validating this excellent agreement, please could the tone and phraseology now be updated accordingly to give people an honest and balanced assessment of where we are going and by whom we will be controlled?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Brexit agreement is accompanied by 15 declarations, none of which are about human rights. The Government’s 34-page summary of the agreement repeatedly makes the point that the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg will have “no jurisdiction”. It makes no mention of the fact that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg will remain. The summary makes no mention of human rights, save by way of lip service in paragraph 175. Human rights are being pushed to the margins.
There is a land border between part of the UK and the EU in Ireland, and there is a land border between Scotland and England. If Brexit can work despite the land border in Ireland, does this not create a precedent that will be a gift to the SNP? Is the Prime Minister’s little England not only exiting the EU but provoking exits from the United Kingdom?
On Erasmus, specifically, we have already seen a welcome move to a united Ireland in relation to university students. Will Scotland and Wales be able to continue to participate? Will only English, and perhaps Welsh, students be the losers? I urge the Government to look at this again. This is a bad deal but no deal would be worse. We must now move forward.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
In today’s debate, we have heard a lot about sovereignty. The Government have prioritised sovereignty over the benefits of frictionless trade but by “sovereignty” they have meant the sovereignty of the UK Government, not that of the nations of the UK or of individuals, and there are consequences of that approach.
First, as demand rises in Scotland for independence, this Bill represents another step towards the break-up of the UK, as many in Scotland seek their own sovereignty rather than being constrained by UK sovereignty, having voted to stay in the EU. Several speakers have recognised the dangers, but there has been a more constant assumption that sovereignty relates only to the UK level—that is a dangerous assumption.
Further, this Bill represents a clear loss of sovereignty for individual UK citizens. For example, UK citizens working in the EU will in future be able to travel visa-free within the EU only for 90 days in a six-month period. A work visa will now automatically be needed for a UK citizen selling goods or services in an EU country. Surely we need easier travel arrangements for those working. In addition, there should be visa-free cultural work passports to cover the whole of the EU in one document.
As we have heard, a UK citizen may well have professional qualifications, but those qualifications will no longer be recognised across the EU as they are now. There is hope for bilateral agreements, but they will, even if successful, take time to negotiate.
Each of those matters represents huge barriers for very many individuals, many of whom are young and just trying to earn their living. For young people, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and several others that the abolition of the Erasmus scheme is short-sighted.
What about all the broken promises over sovereignty in fishing? There were promises to regain control of British waters, but they have not been delivered. There will no longer be quota swaps, as there are now, and there will be no exclusive 12-mile limit, which used to be a red line for the Government. So there is no return of real sovereignty for our fishing industry. What about the sovereignty of Gibraltar 24 hours before the end of the transition period? I hope that the Minister is going to tell us.
From tomorrow, we begin years of continuous negotiation with the EU from the position of a supplicant trying to make an agreement work that is thin in content but heavy in regulatory structures. There will be lots of technical committees, new customs checks, rules of origin checks, customs forms, systems of arbitration and lots more red tape than we have now. I fear that the complexity will not prove attractive to potential future inward investors wanting access to the EU single market from the UK.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I start by adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness on his splendid valedictory speech.
Despite what we were repeatedly told by those experts both within and outside this House—that there was not the remotest possibility that the Government could reach an agreement with the EU before 31 December—the Prime Minister and his negotiating team have succeeded in doing just that. In the time allotted to us, I am unable to provide much comment either on the details of the agreement, which, as your Lordships know, runs to 1,200 pages, or the Bill before the House today, which runs to some 80 pages and which I saw for the first time only yesterday.
In my experience, the exact effects of agreements or contracts of this kind are very rarely possible to discern in advance, and the problems usually emerge only following implementation. I am therefore surprised, and even a little cynical, about the detailed analysis provided by those who in the old days were called remainers, who seem not only stuck in the past but have a unique ability to predict the future—but their predictions are only of doom and gloom.
From where I sit, any deal that takes us outside the single market and the customs union, that provides for trade without quotas or tariffs, that excludes us from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, that provides protections for the UK’s internal market and Northern Ireland’s place within it, and, at the same time, provides for future co-operation on law enforcement and emerging security challenges, sounds like a pretty good deal. It also sounds remarkably like the Canada-plus deal that the Prime Minister asked for last year but which Mr Barnier told us was no longer available.
What it is, undoubtedly, is an extraordinary political triumph, and I can do no more than offer my congratulations to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his negotiating team, led by my noble friend Lord Frost. Like me, the British people can now look forward with confidence to the independent future for which they voted.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree that this deal is preferable to no deal and I will support it, but with some, I hope, constructive reservations. I wish that Parliament had had longer to scrutinise a Bill of such massive importance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the undesirability of taking our legislative cue from Henry VIII. I share the concerns of my noble friends Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson of Ipswich and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, over Clause 29.
Negotiation sometimes means going back on what one has originally said, but that tends to suggest that care is needed when giving assurances. I too saw the Prime Minister’s response almost a year ago to an MP in the other place, Mr Chapman, who asked if there was a threat to the Erasmus programme. The PM said that Mr Chapman was talking out of the back of his neck. Well, clearly Mr Chapman has better foresight from his rear than the PM does from his front.
It is a tragedy that Erasmus will no longer involve UK students and UK places of study. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said, this is a disastrous and small-minded move. It will cost far more in money and time to start a new scheme. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? I concur too with worries over the lack of any useful information on the services side, in particular as it relates to the creative industries and broadcasting.
Finally, there is the ability of artists to tour, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Bull. Already hit by Covid and falling through the Government’s support net, musicians and artists are now going to suffer the third strand of a triple whammy. UK Music and the Musicians’ Union have consistently proposed reciprocal arrangements for musicians and their crew to facilitate music touring, without having to navigate the complexity of 27-plus different immigration systems in light of Brexit. This House was reassured, as I was, by Ministers in June, that the Government were looking to negotiate
“a reciprocal arrangement … so that UK musicians could work short term within the EU”.—[Official Report, 3/6/20; col. 1360.]
Yet the agreement we are debating today fails, I am afraid, to achieve this. Musicians and crew are not included on the list of workers for short-term visits without a permit, meaning that they will now face additional costs and bureaucracy when touring EU member states in future.
Can the Minister please explain why the negotiations failed in this regard and why it has been reserved under pages 695 and 733 of the agreement? Will he please take this opportunity to reassure the House that the UK Government will seek a supplementary agreement with the EU to rectify the issue of work permits for musicians, to minimise the disruption and damage that the new arrangement will cause to our much-valued music industry?
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are near the end of another long day in an interminable process. After 1,336 days of negotiation we have an outcome that is at best emaciated, even if is an advance on the anorexia of no deal. The Government, and they alone, will certainly own this poor deal. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, laboured mightily to produce a mouse.
The deal is testament above all to the Government’s narrow English nationalism and exceptionalism in a multinational world—and I do mean “English”. There is little resonance in Scotland and Wales, or among the progressives in Northern Ireland, who have been pushed outside the margins of discussion. It is true that the partial relief of a bare-bones deal gives some businesses and people a workable route ahead. The need for agreement arises, as my new colleague the noble Lord, Lord Austin, powerfully said, because few would be willing to leave the transition period with jobs less secure, environmental standards weakened or health and safety protections reduced.
The huge significance of the UK’s financial and related businesses is almost wholly neglected, despite their importance. The agreement that we will adopt tonight is 1,246 pages long. Its inadequate pages that sort of relate to financial arrangements number 31— 2.4% of the total—so 97.6% of the agreement is silent on 80% of our economy. Banks were consequently, as noble Lords can imagine, hammered in the markets in recent days. Equivalence assessments, passporting, data transfer and the practical alignment required for frictionless trade in financial services were all promised—promises now broken or with a limited shelf life.
My other example, given by many other noble Lords, is the treatment of higher education. I have asked Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord True, about this for months and I have heard evasions for months. The decision not to include Erasmus, the failure to protect mutual recognition of professional qualifications and the consequences of failure to deal with data transfer are dreadful outcomes for the universities. They harm scholars, institutions and the international research community.
This country will never again make its living by beating metal or digging things out of the ground. Our only future lies in brainpower—innovation, science and cultural production—and brainpower does not recognise border posts. It depends on great international co-operation, yet we have cut ourselves off from its main structures to build a pallid, underfunded alternative that I suspect Alan Turing would have thought derisory. That may be a rationale for a Government whose leadership disparages expertise but, for the rest of the world, it is proof of madness. In the middle of a pandemic, when international research is our greatest hope, we have decided to dismantle its scaffolding.
I will vote for this, but it is Hobson’s choice. We are 25 hours from the onset of a calamity. We will try to make it work, but we will do so without the Prime Minister’s bombast and jingoism, and without the sycophantic praise of his colleagues.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind all noble Lords of the time limit of three minutes.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, what a historic day to speak on a Bill that makes the Prime Minister’s amazing achievement of a deal into law. Perhaps now we can hear less from all his detractors, who said that he was just a blusterer who would never get us out of the EU and could never pull off a trade deal because he was no good at the details. Well, not only was he the master of the details but a master of strategy too. He knew how to combat the usual EU negotiating tactics that left the hapless Theresa May with a sell-out deal thrice rejected by the Commons. As the Times said yesterday:
“The trade deal … is an extraordinary negotiating achievement by the British and EU teams … Many doubted that the prime minister could get a deal by the end of the year. He has proved those doubters wrong.”
He succeeded where Theresa May failed because, as my noble friend Lord Moore of Etchingham wrote at the weekend, “Brexit: Boris gets it”. Theresa May thought that Brexit meant keeping as close to the EU as possible, but the Prime Minister knew that Brexit meant the ability to do what we want and diverge as much as we like, and this deal offers that.
Many noble Lords today have focused on what we cannot do now in the EU, or on the fact that EU trade is not as frictionless as before. That is irrelevant. What matters are the new freedoms that we will have, and there is no one in Europe to stop us using them now. So I want all Ministers on Friday to start purging our statute book of all EU law and regulations that are not in the UK national interest. Apart from the environment and workers’ rights, let us free up our industry to be as competitive as in the United States and ensure that the City of London has the right regulations to be the finest financial centre in the world. If we get EU equivalence on passporting then great, but the rest of the world is far more important. Then start writing the laws that we need in the UK, such as better environmental protection laws, laws to restore and protect our wildlife and endangered habitats, as well as enhanced phytosanitary measures at our ports.
Of course the Prime Minister must use the diplomatic language of “friends and partners in Europe” but, as we have seen, the EU set out to punish us and it will be ruthless in gaming the system for its benefit. Our Ministers must exploit the agreement just as ruthlessly as our European competitors will. For the first time in 40 years, our Ministers have the freedom to govern again. There is no one in Europe to stop them—no EU court with sanctions—so they should do what is in our national interest. So what if we lose at arbitration? Tariffs might be a small price to pay for the freedom to write our own laws, set our own taxes and regulate our economy. Brexit was all about the freedom to do that. We now have that freedom and I look forward to seeing it in action.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a bad deal, a bad Bill and a bad way of dealing with Parliament. The deal and the Bill do not address the major component of our national commercial life, our service industries, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. The Bill is hastily put together and contains at least one howler about IT systems, as was pointed out by the Times. There will be others buried in the detail—detail we are not allowed to scrutinise.
The Bill also contains the mother of all Henry VIII powers in Clause 29. This gives Ministers carte blanche to amend laws without going anywhere near Parliament. The time given to parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill is effectively zero. We could easily have extended the transition period to allow proper consideration. Choosing not to do this was a deliberate political decision to bypass Parliament.
The Hansard Society, of which I am a former chair, published a note on the Bill this morning. It describes Parliament’s role in scrutinising the Bill and the TCA as a “farce”. It concludes that:
“Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law.”
This matters not just because the devil is in the detail, as always; it matters because this bypassing of Parliament is directly contrary to the professed aim of Brexit to take back control of our laws—for laws to be determined by the UK Parliament.
As things stand, the Bill will receive Royal Assent today without any effective scrutiny at all. This is an exercise in executive power and not parliamentary lawmaking. It is hard to see who really gains from the Bill and agreement, apart from a faction within the Conservative Party. Certainly, the country as a whole will not gain; the economy will shrink. Our fishing industry feels betrayed. Our car makers will struggle, as cumulation becomes more difficult to work around. And our vital services industries, the engines of our prosperity, will lose out.
The Government have pointed to the tariff-free and quota-free access to EU markets as a sign of success, but that takes no account of the huge additional burden of red tape that will fall upon our businesses. Anyway, all this access is conditional. If the EU does not like our regulatory regimes, it can impose tariffs as it chooses. If sovereignty is to have any real meaning, it must mean parliamentary sovereignty and not executive fiat. If it is to mean that, Parliament must reassert its right and duty to scrutinise and amend. We need to decide how we do that.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness, not only for his excellent valedictory speech, but for his decades of service to your Lordships’ House. He will be sorely missed. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and congratulate him on his maiden speech and his fight against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
I welcome this historic agreement and the Bill before your Lordships’ House. The agreement is a considerable achievement, for which the Prime Minister and my noble friend Lord Frost deserve great credit.
In particular, I welcome the provisions in the agreement for the resolution of disputes through arbitration. This is how disputes between civilised nations should be resolved. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in his diatribe earlier, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has just spoken, implied that the European Union has a unilateral right to impose tariffs on exports from the United Kingdom, in the event of regulatory divergence. That is what the European Union wanted, but not what it got. Its right is qualified, reciprocal and subject to arbitration, which is an eminently sensible way to resolve disputes of this kind.
There are those—alas, many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—who seem determined to construct a narrative of failure. But we will fail only if we succumb to that melancholy litany. We succeed if we instead focus on the undoubted and considerable potential for success that lies before us. I offer your Lordships one fact and one forecast. The fact comes from CB Insights, which recently reported that there are more unicorns—that is private companies valued at more than £1 billion—in the UK than in France, Germany, Italy and Spain put together. The forecast comes from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which has an enviable record of accuracy. It forecasts that the UK economy will not only be one of the better performers in Europe over the next few years, but, by 2035, be 23% larger than that of France.
The key to the agreement and Bill is that, as an independent sovereign state, we are now free to set our own course to make the most of these great opportunities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, that we can look forward to the future in a spirit of optimistic anticipation. I look forward to supporting the Government in the vote later.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
I am delighted that this agreement is before us and I will vote in support of it. Like many others, I voted to remain in the referendum, but I have always respected the outcome. I had real concerns that leaving on WTO terms would result in severe consequences for many in the UK and I therefore believe the framework agreement before us is very appealing in comparison.
I live on Dartmoor and have many farming friends in the West Country. I know the anxiety they have been experiencing with the fear of no-deal Brexit. What would they do with the lambs due next spring if massive tariffs were placed on exports to the EU? This deal enables ongoing no-tariff exports—an enormous gain in comparison to no-deal. My nearest city, Plymouth, rests on engineering and fishing. Both industries gain from the deal before us. The increase in fish available to UK fishermen to catch may be smaller and take longer to achieve than initially desired, but now our fishing industry will be able to continue exporting its catch to the EU. A no-deal scenario may have enabled a bigger gain in catch, but the potential tariffs could have resulted in a false victory if we could not sell it at higher prices to the EU. I am convinced that so many fishing communities and farmers voted for Brexit because they really believed that it will benefit rural communities. The engineering opportunities in, for example shipbuilding in Devon, are expected to increase as a result of no longer being required to follow EU tendering rules for English and UK requirements.
As a previous deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Plymouth, I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to withdraw from the Erasmus scheme. I will say no more, as so many people have explained the reasons for this.
Finally, I ask the Minister how the Government plan to ensure that there are sufficient health and care staff to provide high-quality care, given that the agreement does not include mutual recognition of professional qualifications and care workers’ salaries do not meet the salaries set for those wishing to come from abroad? Will consideration be given to adding care work to the shortage occupation lists in relation to immigration?
I join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his team on negotiating the agreement and the Prime Minster on his tenacity in the final stages of its development. The newspapers report that his multilingual ability was of particular value at this point. I hope that we can ensure that the next generation get the opportunity to gain experience and linguistic abilities through Erasmus or the Turing scheme if we can design it in a similar way.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]
My Lords, the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness emphasises how the House will be poorer without him. In 1975, I voted against Great Britain remaining in the European Economic Community because the ultimate authority for our laws had moved from Westminster to outside these shores. The brilliance of my noble friend Lord Frost, ably assisted by Oliver Lewis, has reversed this and returned the sovereignty of Great Britain to Westminster.
However talented our negotiators, they could not have reached agreement without the support, strength and determination of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It took great courage for him to stand steadfast and firm against the never-ending cries of “Surrender!” from the fainthearted and those wishing to remain subservient to bureaucrats in Brussels.
There are very many to whom we must give heartfelt thanks for what they have done to make this agreement possible, not least the British people. There are two whose contributions deserve a special mention today. Sir James Goldsmith’s creation of the Referendum Party resulted in both main parties promising a referendum before joining the single currency. Without that commitment, we would probably have joined the euro, which would have made our exit from the European Union considerably more difficult, if not impossible. It is sad that he is not still with us to see the result to which he contributed so much. The other is Nigel Farage, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Hamilton. Nigel Farage’s ceaseless campaigning, hard work and devotion to restoring Great Britain’s sovereignty led to his party’s success in the 2014 European election. This triggered the referendum. The Brexit Party’s 2019 electoral success caused Theresa May to resign, and so Britain got, in Boris Johnson, a Prime Minister strong enough and brave enough to overcome all difficulties and achieve the final divorce from the European Union without making unacceptable compromises. I salute the British people and all those who fought so hard to once again make Great Britain an independent nation.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will vote to pass this appalling Bill only because the alternative of no deal is even worse. Let me expand on one of the many inadequacies of the trade and co-operation agreement in the Bill: the provisions for environmental protection and climate change. One of the great achievements of the EU for the UK, apart from helping to secure peace in Europe, was the major improvement in environmental protection that were secured for citizens right across the UK and Europe as we worked together with European partners in the collaborative way that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, described so well. The quality of our air and water, our biodiversity and climate change impacts all span national boundaries. We can choose to leave the European Union, but we cannot choose to leave the European bioregion.
The Prime Minister’s letter of 24 December asserted that the agreement
“delivers on our commitment to maintaining … environmental and climate standards”.
Surprise, surprise, the PM got that one wrong as well. The agreement certainly contains reciprocal commitments to high-level principles on environmental and climate change and on energy but alas, neither the agreement nor the Bill delivers adequate provisions for enforcing these commitments. Regression from European environmental standards will trigger any dispute mechanism only in situations where there is demonstrable impact on trade or an investment between the parties. We all know that previous trade agreements have shown how difficult that is to prove. Even if regression from standards sufficient to jeopardise trade was provable, an independent panel of experts would then be appointed to report on the alleged regressions. However, at his briefing yesterday, the Minister already confirmed that the findings of such expert panels would not be binding and the environmental principles in the agreement are “not an obligation”. I am sure that the Minister will say that the agreement requires each party to ensure competent domestic enforcement authorities and effective administrative and judicial procedures to ensure environmental standards. However, the debates on the new office for environmental protection in the other place raise major doubts about its powers, resources and independence.
Yet again, the Prime Minister has given expansive assurances about what the agreement and this Bill deliver for environmental protection and climate change, but they have been revealed to be baseless in a very few days. Can the Minister tell us how the fine assurances on high-level environmental principles and non-regression will be assured? Will he let the Prime Minister know, or is this just another collective EU achievement that we will have needlessly thrown away?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I respect those who have devoted their lives to integrating Britain into the European project. Their evident sadness today is the one downside to the joy I feel but, as good parliamentarians, I hope that they—like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, at the beginning of this debate—will see some upside in the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty.
I served on the committee scrutinising the transfer of European law into British law. There were tens of thousands of pages of regulations, accumulated over four decades, few of which have ever been debated, and none voted on. Indeed, had every parliamentarian voted against them, they would still have become the law of the land. Tomorrow, that changes. We will be free to amend, repeal or enhance any of these measures, but it is a mistake to believe that the only choice is between high standards and lower ones. There are many ways in which rules and regulations can be improved without affecting the level of environmental, social or other protection, none of which anyone wishes to reduce, despite what the noble Baroness just implied.
When negotiating in the Council of Ministers, I—and, I gather, my Labour successors—brought a different regulatory philosophy to that of our European friends. We focus on outcomes; they focus on process. We set principles; they try to legislate for every conceivable eventuality. We allow everything that is not forbidden; they tend to forbid anything that is not specifically allowed. Our priority is to protect consumers; theirs is protecting producers. The result is that our approach encourages innovation, stimulates competition, facilitates new entrants to a market and minimises the burden of compliance without reducing standards. As a result, it creates a more dynamic and enterprising marketplace while maintaining high standards.
The clearest example of this different approach is the complete trust between British common law and continental Roman law. It is no coincidence that the world’s four leading financial centres—London, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore—are all based on common law, whereas the EU’s biggest financial centre, Frankfurt, ranks only 15th in the world. However, in the EU, detailed prescriptive laws such as MiFID, with its 2 million paragraphs, have steadily overwritten common law. That is why the Bank of England said that the overriding priority for the UK was to become a rule maker, not a rule taker.
We can make a success of Brexit if we bring that same spirit of rule-making, not just in financial services or common law but to the whole acquis communautaire, to make Britain’s economy more innovative, competitive, dynamic and prosperous. Your Lordships’ House will play a key part in this.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this is a wretched arrangement for so many. I say “arrangement” rather than “deal” since there is much that the EU offered as part of the deal but which we rejected. My hope for the future is that, over time, we will repair and restore what has been lost.
It is a wretched arrangement for education. It is hugely disappointing that we have lost Erasmus—except in Northern Ireland, where the scheme is to be funded through Dublin. In making that announcement, Ireland’s Minister for Higher Education said that Ireland does not see this
“as a cost but as an investment”—
and rightly so. The principle of cultural exchange, so bound into the ethos of the EU, is intrinsic to that scheme. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, the new, less ambitious Turing scheme will not be reciprocal. Like others, I want to see Erasmus back.
It is a wretched arrangement for services. There is no mobility framework, even though this is essential for effective trade in services with the rest of Europe. In respect of the creative industries, particularly the performing arts, will the Minister clarify what arrangements will be made for short-term work for artists? Can he confirm that musicians and other artists will operate under mode 4 and will be included in the list of exempted independent professionals? Moreover, artists urgently require a long-term visa-free permit valid across the EU that also obviates the necessity for carnets for touring equipment. Will the Government negotiate this? Will the Minister look at the arrangements for independent professionals as they affect IT work, which will be damaging if agencies are excluded from the provision of work, as specified in the agreement, since the majority of such work abroad comes through agencies?
Ultimately, I cannot support an arrangement that does so much damage to British jobs and other opportunities, particularly for young people. To those who believe that it is either this deal or no deal, I say that that is a false dichotomy: one that has been purposely engineered by this Government to an artificial deadline. Far from putting Brexit behind us, Brexit and the different relationship we will have with Europe will help to define the country we live in. I will vote against the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we are nearly there. Just one more sleep until we finally take back control of everything that we promised to the British people—control of our borders, money, laws, trade and fishing. This is indeed a deal and a Bill to celebrate.
I am appalled, though perhaps not surprised, at the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If we wanted examples of futile gestures that are out of touch with the will of the people we would need to look no further. Each catalogue of woe is expressed differently, but they are both drawn from the same well of distaste for what the people decided in 2016 and reiterated in last year’s decisive general election. If either of the amendments is approved, your Lordships’ House will simply confirm that it is living in the past and does not share the broad aspirations of the British people. The Government are delivering on those aspirations: a UK whose future is as a free-standing sovereign nation, taking its place in the global community and no longer yoked to an EU set upon ever-closer union.
We face a crisis in this House. This is nothing to do with the increased number of Peers, which some noble Lords got excited about last week, though I welcome more noble Lords with a commitment to our future outside the EU. The real crisis is that the House has lost touch with our nation. We often represent not much more than a metropolitan bubble, and we all know what happens to bubbles.
I had hoped that the whole House, including the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, would be singing the praises of my noble friend Lord Frost and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for their relentless pursuit of a good deal for the UK. They inherited a botched job and have succeeded beyond all reasonable expectations. We owe them and their teams a great debt of gratitude that we go into 2021 with great trade prospects and, importantly, our head held high in the world. If the Benches opposite think that they could have done better and magicked away their shopping lists of complaints about the deal, I say that that is simply proof positive that they are still suffering from Brexit derangement syndrome.
This historic day is tinged with sadness at the departure of my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness, whose uplifting valedictory speech we heard earlier. He has been a steadfast supporter of all matters Brexit. We shall miss him.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as an avowed remainer, I hoped I would never be faced with this evening’s decision, but we are where we are, and I have got to. What has struck me about the process we are going through is how constitutionally smooth and seamless it has been, despite the political noise and turmoil.
Legal sovereignty is about taking decisions and implementing them, and how that is done. Brexit has been politically complicated, but it has been a relatively straightforward exercise of our sovereignty, which was not inherently affected by EU membership. Not for the first time, we have changed the way we do things and we may and are entitled to do so again in the future. This appears to contrast with the inevitable economic consequences of change, which, together with Covid, in the short and medium term are going to be very economically damaging. I do not see any alternative in the circumstances other than to do a deal, which does what I might call a “Dunkirk” for some, but not all, our businesses and commerce. We must not forget that regulatory rules are becoming the new tariff wars in the 21st century.
I am a northerner, I chair a northern local enterprise partnership and I eagerly look forward to levelling up. Hitherto, in my experience it is London that has always been the problem, not the EU. The economic implications of no deal are horrifying, and you cannot level up if you haven’t got any money.
In another sector, compared to no deal, our fellow citizens’ rights and freedoms are less extensively expropriated and our wider security is better. Individual and collective freedoms matter. Historically, geographically and culturally we are everywhere—and everyone agrees—part of Europe. We shall have to work closely together. To reject the deal now would be a supreme act of bad faith which would destroy our negotiating bona fides for the future.
Finally, after the political events in this country of recent years, Parliament and the country as a whole must reflect carefully on what has been going on. The other place, at least to me, appears to be evolving into an electoral college which defines the executive. Once done, the executive then controls it via the whips’ office and patronage; this has nothing to do with party. It looks as if we are edging towards a unicameral parliament controlled by the executive, which, quite apart from everything else, tend to be bullies.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, commented earlier in this debate, and as was echoed by others, it is Parliament that legislates under our constitution, and is the body to which the executive is answerable. It is one of our constitution’s core principles. Another one is that the arrangements incorporate checks and balances and we must not inadvertently lose them, and carelessly do so, by allowing them to disappear by default.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Cavendish on his excellent valedictory speech. I would also like to wish my noble friend Lord Hamilton a happy birthday and pick up on something he said. He should remember a fellow called Nick Clegg calling for a real referendum and for an in/out referendum on Europe; I am not sure but I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was subsequently Nick Clegg’s Chief Whip in the Lords. There you go; times change.
Brexit has driven people quite literally mad, on both sides of the argument. It would be invidious to name names—I could—but we have had five years of argument and division. I was surprised when David Cameron called the referendum. While I was happy to vote to leave, I thought the referendum was a bad idea. I was not surprised by the result, and we are finally honouring that today; we are finally honouring what we promised the British people we would do. I know some are still very unhappy, as we have heard in several of the speeches today, and indeed there are letters in the Times in the same vein. I hope all will be reconciled, will accept the new dispensation and will work in the best interests of our country: a country that is again able to control its own destiny and its own laws, determined by a sovereign Parliament and not by the ECJ, the European Commission or—here I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Judge—an overbearing executive.
I congratulate the Government on this deal, especially the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, and my noble friend Lord Frost and his negotiating team. They have done very well. This is a much better deal than no deal. It is not perfect: I worry about Northern Ireland, fishing and financial services, among other concerns. But negotiators have to make compromises, and there will be bumps along the road, as there would have been if we had stayed in the EU.
I believe we can look forward to a better future now—one that we control. I have been distressed by those, over the last years, who have so often backed the position of the EU negotiators vis-à-vis those working on the British side in the best interests of our country, often against EU intransigence.
Some said we would be brought to heel. Monsieur Barnier said we needed educating, which I translate as being taught a lesson. Mr Tusk sneered at us—remember the cake with no cherry? Many wanted to see the UK humiliated and punished. Well, that has not happened. I wish our friends on the continent well. I am, unusually, a Francophile, and I have lived in Germany and like the Germans. Our prosperity and security are closely linked to those on the continent. I am very optimistic that both we and they can flourish under our new and different relationship in the future.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of the Bill and I congratulate the Government on producing a very good agreement. I decided quite late to vote for Brexit, and at every opportunity in this House have voted to support the Government in delivering on the outcome of the 2016 referendum. That referendum was voted for by both Houses of Parliament, and so leaving the EU had a double mandate: the mandate of the people and the mandate of Parliament which confirmed the outcome of the referendum.
At times, the debates here have left me—and, I believe, the country—very frustrated. If one were to be reminded of various moments of conflict, it highlights that ascending levels of disagreement are marked by signal behavioural changes. One verbal symptom is that one side says of the other, “You would say that, wouldn’t you?” The participants doubt not only what is said but also the motives for saying it. I have often needed to check myself when listening to the contributions of others, and the country did notice this disingenuous behaviour at times, on both sides of the argument. I genuinely believe that it is time to look forward and to try our best to put that behind us and be confident in the future.
I shall concentrate mainly on our future security as described in the agreement. I believe the Government have achieved a good outcome for working together on criminal investigation and general safety. People have criticised our lack of future access to the SIS or Schengen database, used more than 600 million times a year. This is an automatic check running in the background of any UK police national database search, which accounts for the high numbers. There are three types of check, broadly: one on arrest; one while somebody is detained after arrest; and during long-term investigations. The gap is mainly for street checks, where time is tight before the suspect walks away. However, we should not exaggerate the frequency of this event or the seriousness of the outcome, and there are mitigations. I suggest that the Government and the EU, working together, could fill that gap and do far more in the future.
However, I want to highlight the achievements of this agreement. There will still be an extradition process similar to the European arrest warrant—in fact, the Government have strengthened the power to arrest. The UK will still be allowed access to Europol and Eurojust, and we will have as many people there post 1 January as we did before—interestingly, second in number only to the USA. We will continue to have access to Prüm, sharing DNA and fingerprint databases. Ironically, various Governments delayed our access to it until 2016, yet now people are saying that we always needed it for our safety. We will still have access to the convictions of criminals; we will still be able to make mutual assistance agreements on cross-border investigations; and we will have access to passenger name records for travellers.
Finally, on counterterrorism, we will continue to share national security on a bilateral basis, as we always have. There is no European database where the French tell the Germans all the information that each of their security services hold. In short, our mutual security interests in the UK and Europe mean that we have to co-operate on one another’s terms, and we will. There is no benefit to France in allowing UK murderers to wander their country, or to the UK in allowing Dutch rapists to remain at large here. So I support this agreement and commend the work that the Government have put into achieving it. I will support it in the vote tonight.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I associate myself with the immense chorus of colleagues who have paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Cavendish. His good humour, balance and wonderful contribution to this House are a very great loss, and I am personally sad to see him go.
On Brexit, your Lordships’ House has not covered itself in glory. In the battle of Peers versus people, today the people triumph and we are within hours of becoming an independent country again. All those endless debates aimed at overturning the result of the referendum have been for naught. Four years of Question Time being hijacked by Project Fear have ended without the predicted planes that could not fly to Europe, the expat pensions that would not be paid, the impossibility of getting a free trade deal and, most sinister of all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Robathan have pointed out, the claim that Brussels would soon bring Britain to heel.
Before the general election, I warned the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, not to underestimate my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, and that he was a winner. Today, with the passing of this Bill, he has his triumph. His courage and determination have restored our sovereignty and freed Britain from rule by a foreign court, with its determination to advance the acquis. He and all of us owe a great debt to my noble friend Lord Frost and to Oliver Lewis for their determined, gruelling and successful conduct of the negotiations.
Can it be true that, as we say goodbye to the old year, the new year will mean zero tariffs, no quotas, freedom of Parliament to legislate as it pleases, MPs accountable to the electorate for our laws, an end to huge net annual payments to the Brussels bureaucracy and control of our borders and waters as a sovereign coastal state? Surely there must be a catch—something in the small print, perhaps. No. There are things I do not like, such as the arrangements for Northern Ireland, and there will undoubtedly be difficulties in transition, but the fundamental point is that our country is free again to make whatever arrangements it sees fit for our country, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, pointed out.
Lenin once said that liberty is
“so precious that it must be rationed”.
The President of the European Commission—and, it seems, some Members of this House—seems to believe the same is true of sovereignty. Today we take back our sovereignty. Now the challenge for the Government is to use it well in rebooting our United Kingdom and delivering the conditions necessary to enable our people to create new jobs and prosperity. The Prime Minister has been given the tools; now he must finish the job.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Since the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Krebs, have withdrawn, I call the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]
My Lords, by this time everything that could be said has been said, but not by everybody, so perhaps I can be forgiven if I repeat two things: first, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cavendish on his valedictory speech and say how much he will be missed—I view his departure with great sadness; secondly, to repeat the congratulations to the Prime Minister, Oliver Lewis, my noble friend Lord Frost and the negotiating team. It has been an amazing achievement. We were told by five former Prime Ministers no less that there could not be an agreement in the time available, but now we have an agreement that goes further than that of Canada. We now have the Common Market many of us originally voted for in the 1970s. Credit also belongs to the EU. It is welcome that the talks were concluded amicably. While I never thought no deal was unthinkable, it would undoubtedly have produced some lasting acrimony.
Historians may conclude that British membership of the EU was always doomed from the start because the British view of the political destination of Europe was always different—although our establishment always tried to conceal this from the British public, particularly in the 1975 referendum. Nevertheless, the story of our membership has been one of endless arguments about further integration. From now on, there will be no more British vetoes, opt-outs or triple locks. Now we can have a more harmonious relationship between two sovereign equals. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we do not want to forget about Europe; we want people such as him to help us build on that relationship.
For years to come, historians will argue about the outcome of the referendum. But despite the Herculean efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, we will never be able to prove definitively whether Project Fear was all hallucination or only partially so. But let us leave it to the historians. Politics will be sterile indeed if every event over the next 10 years has to be judged against some measure of whether it would have been better or worse outside Brexit, or if every time there is a minor stumble it is greeted by past Brexit opponents with glee as evidence of its folly. Those who pursue that tactic, of running down their own country, will find that it does not go down any better with ordinary voters than it did during the referendum.
It is far better to put the effort into addressing the international challenges that face us and the domestic issues that caused so many of our fellow citizens to feel alienated and disillusioned, which is why they voted for Brexit at all. It is time to let the grass grow over the Brexit battlefield. Let us all work to make this new partnership the success it ought to be.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we bid adieu to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, as we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley. I wish them both well.
The wisest comment on the Johnson deal came from his Conservative Party colleague—if not friend—the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, somewhat puncturing the bluster and self-congratulation. He said:
“We must welcome the news that Brexit does not end in the chaos of no deal, but only with the sense of relief of a condemned man informed that his execution has been commuted to a life sentence.”
What was promised in 2016 was “the exact same benefits” as EU membership and “frictionless” trade. That was a cruel deception then and it is a very bad joke now. No wonder Mrs Thatcher was so keen to promote the single market; this threadbare Tory deal betrays her legacy, and it is not—I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—membership of the Common Market.
The lack of an impact assessment of this sorry deal, pointed out by my noble friend Lord Purvis, speaks volumes, as does a new YouGov poll showing that only 17% of the public think that this deal is good for the country. As my noble friend Lord Fox and others have fully explained, the Government’s exclusion of British businesses from the EU single market and customs union means that they face an avalanche of laborious form-filling, a huge £7 billion cost, slower deliveries and duplication of certification, inevitably leading to higher prices. Our farmers face tougher export barriers than New Zealand farmers do in exporting to the EU, and as for the ban on exporting sausages, at least in “Yes Minister” the Euro-sausage could be traded.
I will not repeat our present Prime Minister’s expletive-deleted dismissal of business concerns, but he has delivered on his infamous curse. The claim of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that dealing with all this red tape will be good for British exporters, by making them “match fit” for global trade, has rightly met with derision. Meanwhile, it was reported that the Prime Minister’s extraordinary and, I have to say, ignorant claim of there being no non-tariff barriers in the deal
“had business leaders falling off their chairs.”
There will be a plethora of committees overseeing this deal under the umbrella of the partnership council, plus those under the withdrawal agreement—32 in all, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted—with no transparency and no democratic oversight, unlike the EU institutions so reviled by the Brexiters.
There is almost nothing in this deal, as my noble friend Lady Kramer and others pointed out, for the 80% of our economy represented by the services industries. There is no equivalence regime for financial services, itself a very second-rate replacement for passporting that can be withdrawn at any time. There is, as yet, no data adequacy regime for transfers vital to much of business, especially the tech industry.
Given that that 80% of our economy was sacrificed for fish quotas, there is no little irony in the fact that fishermen are up in arms, too, while the noble Lord, Lord Green, remains unhappy about the smoke and mirrors on immigration. The lack of mobility for performers and broadcasters is a body blow given the huge economic as well as cultural contribution of our creative industries, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Bakewell, articulated.
Speaking of cultural exchanges, the mean-mindedness of the Government in refusing to continue participation in the Erasmus scheme, rightly highlighted by many noble Lords, demonstrates that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Tory MPs have been tweeting demeaning claims that only middle-class kids benefited from it, which is not true. As my noble friend Lord Newby noted, it is interesting that the Irish Government will pick up the tab for students in Northern Ireland.
There are so many ways in which British citizens and consumers are losers, chief among them the loss of freedom of movement to live, work, study or retire, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Shipley. I acknowledge that I am an Irish citizen, but that is by birth and not by scheming. There are plenty of Brexiters who hypocritically have made sure to acquire an EU passport so that they are not subject to the same constraints as those inflicted on most Brits. Other losses include the loss of protection from mobile roaming charges and the loss of pet passports. There will be new VAT and customs hassles in sending and receiving parcels to and from the continent—it is reported that the Post Office is already refusing to accept parcels—so it is bye-bye to ease of online shopping and eBaying.
As for policing and law enforcement, our citizens will be less safe, as my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lord Marks and others pointed out. We will no longer be a member of Europol, where we were a leading member. In both Europol and Eurojust, our status is reduced to having to wait to be invited to operational meetings. Our police and Border Force are locked out of the crucial Schengen Information System database, which, as many have said, was consulted 600 million times last year. The extradition scheme is not as smooth or as speedy as the European arrest warrant, but it is better than the 1957 Council of Europe convention. My noble friend Lord Marks also rightly deplored the backward step on civil law co-operation.
As my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire pointed out, there is a complete void where co-operation with the EU on foreign, external security and defence policy should be, a sector in which Britain led. This is not a case of the EU locking us out; incredibly, such co-operation is to cease at the request of the UK Government.
This Government are quick to grab the union jack and to politicise it, but what have they done for the loyal British territory of Gibraltar? The answer is nothing. Indeed, they have broken assurances to the Government of Gibraltar that a deal with the EU would not be agreed unless and until a deal was found also for Gibraltar. What guarantee can the Minister give that that gap will be remedied soon?
“Get Brexit Done” was the slogan. This deal disabuses us of any such notion. A Times cartoon tellingly shows Mr Johnson jumping from the EU frying pan into the post-Brexit fire. Cans have been kicked down the road. The gaps in coverage that need to be filled, the level playing field “rebalancing” provisions, the dispute resolution arrangements and the myriad committees all mean that we will be locked into negotiations for years to come, as my noble friend Lady Randerson pointed out.
There is no certainty. The constant spectre of reimposition of tariffs or withdrawal of financial services equivalence or data adequacy mean anything but a stable, sustainable relationship; investors will be deterred. The Prime Minister’s and Chancellor’s celebration of the prospect of divergence seems reckless to anyone who cares about national wealth and jobs.
It is a travesty that the Government are sealing the breach from the EU when opinion polls in the past year have consistently shown that more people think leaving the EU is wrong than think it is right. We are a very divided country. Appeals to rally round this inadequate deal do not cut it.
Brexit is the culmination of decades of the failure of the UK to become a modern country at ease with itself and its place in the world. Our highly centralised state, with Governments holding 100% of power on a share of the vote that consistently falls short of a majority—Boris Johnson got 43%, and that was of people who voted—means that many citizens feel alienated and voiceless.
The Bill amply demonstrates that these extraordinary powers—Henry VIII on steroids in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—mean that taking back control means even more executive power, not parliamentary lawmaking, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey warned. Westminster gets 12 hours on this deal; the demonised European Parliament not only gets two months but is key to ratification, as this House is not.
As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, the Government have released a dynamic that will make it difficult to hold all the United Kingdom together. In relation to Scotland, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie urged that only if we can learn and find a more constructive way of engaging with each other may we begin to see the glimmerings of a brighter future within this union.
There will certainly be a process of getting closer and closer to the EU and, as a Liberal Democrat, I hope—I am indeed convinced—that this will culminate in renewed EU membership in my lifetime; and I intend to live quite a while. In the meantime, my group cannot support this sad, sorry, inadequate deal. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Newby indicated, we will vote against it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the staff of the House of Lords for making this important debate possible. I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for his engagement since the agreement was announced. Since the Bill was published, he has been truly helpful to all noble Lords in trying to understand it and making this debate meaningful.
I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley. He is a friend and a courageous politician who stood out against anti-Semitism when many others did not. He made a very moving maiden speech today. This House will discover what I know about him, which is that he improves and shakes every organisation of which he is a member. I very much hope that I will be able to call him my noble friend fairly soon.
I also say a sad farewell to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness. Everyone who know him knows that he is an absolutely lovely human being, whose care, decency and straightforwardness have served this House very well for many years. He will be much missed.
We should not lose sight of the pandemic, which has claimed over 900 lives today, with 50,000 new infections. I associate myself specifically with the remarks of my noble friends Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Judd. We live in an interdependent world; if we want to fight the pandemic effectively, it has to be done by co-operating right across the world.
There have been many insightful and worthwhile interventions in this debate. It has been a good debate, but it has been an absolute travesty of parliamentary scrutiny. It did not have to be like this. The deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the European Union involved provisional ratification. Both sides agreed, in Article 10 of the final provisions of the agreement, that ratification did not have to take place until February 2021. In the meantime, a process of provisional enablement would take place. We have chosen not to do that.
Instead, the Prime Minister has produced the 1,250-page agreement and an 80-page Bill which he has put to this House in one day. That 80-page Bill will not only be the framework of our relationship with the European Union but will deal with, for example, extradition, criminal records and social security. It is all being done without any parliamentary scrutiny at all, as is recognised by the fact that both Houses have, in effect, agreed that there will be no Committee stage for the Bill in either House. Why has it been done like that? Could the noble and co-operative Lord, Lord True, explain why the Government chose to have only an executive process in relation to this, instead of a parliamentary one?
I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Taylor, who chaired the committee that produced an excellent report highlighting that it was provisional ratification only that the parties envisaged, when she said this represents a new level of executive abuse. This is a new low in the Prime Minister’s sidelining of Parliament. He did not need to put Parliament in this position.
The ideological ERG, without a trace of irony, convened what they called a “star chamber” not to decide what whether the agreement was good for this country but whether it satisfied their self-important lawyer’s view of sovereignty. Many noble Lords will remember that Parliament abolished the Star Chamber in 1641 because Charles I used it as a means of gaining support for his policies without having to go to Parliament. The Star Chamber allowed Charles I to get away with a series of disastrous policies. As you probably know, it ended rather badly, both for King Charles and for the Star Chamber. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said Parliament is going to regain control over the process. That remains to be seen. There has been a bad start with this Bill and this agreement.
The debates about whether to Brexit at all, and whether we should leave the single market or the customs union, are over. The country—remainers and leavers—has little stomach for them anymore. As long as they continue, we cannot move on as a country, and we must move on. I agree with all those who said we should put past divisions behind us. I agree that this deal is, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the best of a bad job. I agree with noble Lords who say, like my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, they will vote for it with a heavy heart.
I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, cannot bring themselves to support this, but I believe we should support this Bill and this deal. We have been urging the Government to get a deal. The chaos we would face if we broke from the EU without a deal is acknowledged on all sides. We accept the deal because it is better than no deal and avoids massive friction with the European Union for years.
For our country, it is the future that matters. The country needs transforming investment and new economic policies to address the grinding inequalities and lack of opportunity and hope that so drove Brexit. The Prime Minister’s incantation of the phrase “levelling up” has to be exposed for its total emptiness. We need to make the economy work for the many; that is our task now.
This is not a good deal. The Government understand that. It is a Christmas sack of broken promises from the Prime Minister, who deals with the problem by misleading the country about the deal he has done. The Prime Minister, on Christmas Eve, said
“there will be no non-tariff barriers to trade.”
Rules of origin, customs, VAT, plant and animal health: the list is endless. As so many noble Lords said, an ocean of new paperwork is on the way.
The Prime Minister said, on Christmas Eve,
“we will be an independent coastal state with full control of our waters”,
and in the Commons, this morning, he said:
“in five and a half years’ time, we will be able to fish every single fish in our waters.”
No, the agreement will reduce the rights of EU fishermen to fish in our waters, but the deal is a haggle about percentages, not a fundamental change in our relationship on fishing. It goes on, in perpetuity, after those five and a half years. The Prime Minister is wrong to pretend otherwise.
The Prime Minister, on Christmas Eve, also said:
“We will be able to decide how and where we are going to stimulate new jobs”.
Again, this is wrong. The agreement provides that if the European Union thinks a UK state aid subsidy causes, or risks causing, a significant negative effect on trade or investment with the EU, the EU can unilaterally impose tariffs. There is no need, in that case, to await any arbitration. That is only related to labour, climate and environment regulations. So do not mislead us on what this agreement says.
The Prime Minister also said on Christmas Eve that
“it means certainty for business from financial services to our world-leading manufacturers, our car industry, certainty for those working in high skilled jobs in firms and factories across the whole country.”
Wrong again. This agreement is, explicitly, the beginning of long years of negotiation. On access for financial services, as this House knows, the deal offers nothing, and the Government’s own summary of the financial services deal is as follows:
“The Parties will discuss how we move forward on specific equivalence determinations. The Parties will codify the framework for regulatory cooperation in a Memorandum of Understanding.”
That is not certainty. Listen to my noble friend Lady Donaghy, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: it is a bad deal on financial services.
There is a whole annexe to the agreement that sets up a structure to try to promote agreement on regulations for the car industry. This agreement does not provide certainty; it provides only the certainty of an endless haggle, with constant end-of-negotiation-cycle cliff edges like what we have just gone through.
I will quote one last misleading comment on this agreement made by the Prime Minister on Christmas Eve:
“It means certainty for the police and the border forces and the security services and all those that we rely on across Europe to keep us safe.”
He has done well on DNA, fingerprint and car registration databases, but we now know that he has done incredibly badly on the SIS database. When a wanted person is travelling around Europe, it will not be providing the information—as it does now—about where that wanted person is going. The list of misstatements is endless, and we have heard so much about them: Gibraltar, Erasmus, museums and, what is more, musicians, who, for example, cannot now tour Europe without first getting a range of visas.
What happens to our relationship with the EU in the future is the key. This depends on how our country implements this agreement. If the UK Government want to plunge to the regulatory bottom, determined to make the UK the cheapest place to do business through deteriorating labour, climate and environment protection relative to the EU, this agreement allows that—and diverge they want to. Within an hour and a half of this deal being announced, the Prime Minister was keen to stress to Mr Harry Yorke of the Sunday Telegraph that the UK will now be free to diverge from EU standards. Mr Johnson told Mr Yorke that he has achieved what his critics said was impossible:
“That you could do free trade with the EU without being drawn into their regulatory or legislative orbit.”
He failed to draw attention to the terms of the agreement, which do precisely that.
The question for the UK is whether we should recognise and embrace the need for alignment, using it to ensure that our standards are at least as high as the EU’s and then to promote our trade with the EU and the rest of the world. I have no doubt that we should. Or should we constantly lower our standards to levels at or beyond the point where the EU can retaliate under the many provisions that allow that under this agreement, or so that we are constantly in dispute with the EU on just how low we can go? We would make a different choice from this Government, choosing high standards, not low-regulation profiteering. We accept Brexit and must now deliver the economic reform that the public expect.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, when you have been sitting for seven hours in the same place, you begin to learn how old you are. I thank the noble Lord opposite for his kind remarks at the start and I appreciate his engagement. I also appreciated the preamble to his speech about looking to the future. Unfortunately, most of the rest of his speech seemed a lament that we still do not have more Europe than the public have voted for. As for the Liberal Democrats, I must say that, at a time of national gloom, their unremitting pessimism throughout the debate represents a clear and present danger to the national weal.
In opening, I declare my interest, as ever, as a long-term resident of Italy. As a European, I affirm the abiding genius of the diverse nations and cultures of Europe, inside the EU and out: Proust and Dostoevsky, Goethe and Ibsen, Dante and Shakespeare—all part of a glorious common European culture that we must cherish and never allow, in this age of political correctness, to be washed out of our minds. There was good news this morning, and we celebrate the achievements and genius of scientists born in Hungary, Britain and Germany —again, part of our great European scientific tradition.
I agree with those who say that we will always be European, but the genius of Europe and the United Kingdom did not spring from any international institution. However sad some are at leaving that institution—we heard a lot about it today—will that genius be dimmed after we leave the EU? I believe a great future lies before this country, as some noble Lords who spoke today told us with confidence and pride.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today—125 of them. I counted them all in and counted them all out with, I regret, the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to whom I apologise. It is quite difficult to bolt down a plate of fish and chips in 10 minutes, but I am sorry I missed his speech. There were exceptions. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, was scarcely rapturous in his reaction, but I welcomed the overall tone set at the start by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and many other noble Lords said, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at the end, that it was time to move on. Many of those who had set themselves against Brexit recognised that but, none the less, there was clear opposition and anger from the Liberal Democrat Benches and a deep undertone of hostility from Labour.
As we close the book on our membership of the EU, 57 years after de Gaulle’s first veto—which I remember watching on black and white television—we can truly say that this was a historic debate. I know that more wish to have taken part, to have spoken for longer or to have had more time to scrutinise the agreement. I recognise that abiding theme of the debate. On a night like this, the House should have been full and the air ringing with challenge and counterchallenge, with conflict across the House, which forges common parliamentary wisdom. We all long for that day to return.
That the Lords of Magna Carta look down on a House so empty is not the Government’s choice, nor is the timing of this debate and Bill on the day before the end of the transition. It was not the United Kingdom’s choice that the negotiations ran so long and late, but who is to say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was wrong to go so long and aim so high, when the prize is so great: a historic Canada-style deal with the EU, worth over £650 billion to the United Kingdom, containing zero tariffs and quotas—the first such trade deal that the EU has ever entered into with an independent country?
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Frost and his team for their brilliance in the negotiation. As almost all said—with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—they were outstanding in ways that many said were impossible. They broke through barriers in the talks with a sonic boom that scattered the naysayers and doubters. There are some, including the Front Bench opposite, who say that it was not necessary to act today. We could have dithered and dallied; we could have acted provisionally. “Never now” and “not yet”, they say, but who is to say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was wrong to act so decisively, when the prize that he has won is ending the transition period with a deal implementing our future relationship, providing that much-needed certainty to citizens and businesses across the United Kingdom, for which your Lordships have rightly asked for so long? The deal agreed with the EU means that we have achieved what the British people twice demanded.
This deal is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals, centred on free trade and shared values: a new partnership that builds on our common bonds of friendship and co-operation—but, as I say, as sovereign equals, with a clear, independent voice for Britain to speak and act in the world on the things that matter to us. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we are not entering a deal to terminate it; termination clauses are standard in trade agreements. The Bill ensures that our goods and services can continue to flow to the European Union, but also that our businesses can prosper mightily outside the EU by enabling them to trade freely, widely and ever more widely across the world and in the fastest-growing corners of the world.
Many questions have quite properly been raised in the debate. As your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has said, the pace of passage will no doubt call for considerable ongoing scrutiny—as, frankly, what EU treaty ever signed might not have? The Government will co-operate with that and we are carefully considering what scrutiny processes should be put in place to assist it. I give an assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the Government will work with his committee. I share the tribute paid by the Leader of the House to the work of the noble Earl and the European committees of this House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that it was not necessary to act. But the UK and the EU need to exchange notification of completion of procedures for provisional application early on 31 December. This exchange cannot be done until the Bill has received Royal Assent, as the passing of legislation is a necessary procedure for provisional application.
I was asked about security. The EU was never ready to allow us access to SIS II. That was not a matter of ECJ jurisdiction. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, reminded us, we have reached a far-reaching agreement to protect the British public in areas including evidence, extradition and the sharing of passenger and criminal records data. Control of our borders will enhance our security, allowing the UK to remain safe and secure. The Bill gives us the tools to achieve this.
I was asked about Northern Ireland. I acknowledge that the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol mean that the position of Northern Ireland is not as the rest of our kingdom. But we will guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods. This deal means that there will be no tariffs on UK goods destined for Northern Ireland. Ulster and its businesses will be able to benefit from the free trade deals that we strike across the world, and the long-term future of the protocol rests on the democratic consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I was asked about impact assessments. The Government’s number one priority must be to pass this implementing legislation before the end of the transition period, to ensure certainty and clarity for businesses and citizens alike. Of course the Government recognise the value of conducting impact assessments in normal circumstances but, in light of the tight turnaround time to introduce and pass the Bill following the agreement on Christmas Eve, we did not consider it feasible to produce an impact assessment this week in advance of the Bill being introduced. The Government will of course continue to produce impact assessments for relevant future secondary legislation in the usual way.
I was asked about financial services. This agreement provides a stable foundation for us to develop our future relationship with the EU and facilitate new arrangements to promote international financial services trade. In addition to the trade negotiations, both sides are carrying out equivalence assessments. Equivalence is an autonomous mechanism by which one jurisdiction can recognise relevant standards in another.
Leaving the EU means that the Government now have full control over the UK’s legal and regulatory regime and, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard noted, it can make the best decisions about what is right for the United Kingdom and for one of its most productive and innovative sectors. We have agreed a joint declaration on regulatory co-operation that sets out our intention to address shared challenges by discussion, information exchange and wider co-operation.
I was asked about Gibraltar and the overseas territories. Although an agreement has not yet been reached on Gibraltar’s future relationship with the EU in line with the conclusion of the UK-EU deal, we are fully committed to continuing to work together with the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain to reach a political agreement as soon as practicable. Continuing to work together with Spain and the EU to mitigate the effects of the end of the transition period on Gibraltar and ensure the well-being and prosperity of people in the region is an absolute priority for the Government. This includes ensuring border fluidity, which is in all parties’ best interests. The UK has always been, and will remain, steadfast in our support for Gibraltar.
I was asked about data adequacy. The UK will regain full autonomy over its data protection rules from 1 January. Regrettably, the EU left too little time to ratify data adequacy decisions by the end of the year. We have therefore agreed a bridging mechanism for no more than six months. It will allow personal data to flow as it does now while EU adequacy decisions are adopted. We are confident of the outcome and do not expect the bridging mechanism to be in place for more than four months.
I was asked about Erasmus. I recognise the attachment of many to this programme, and I can confirm that we will stay in EU programmes such as Horizon Europe and Copernicus. But we consistently said that we would join Erasmus only if it was in line with UK interests and if we could agree fair terms for participation. Ultimately, the EU could not meet those objectives, and we do not consider participation to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. As has been announced, we will therefore proceed with our own UK-wide programme. This will be a scheme that is global in outlook—not limited to the EU—and focuses on UK priorities, such as supporting social mobility. The Turing scheme will be backed by over £100 million, providing funding for around 35,000 students in universities, colleges and schools to go on placements and exchanges overseas, starting in September 2021. Under the withdrawal agreement, the UK will continue to participate fully in the current Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes.
I was asked about fishing. As a descendant of fisher folk, I share the attachment of so many to this harsh and often heroic calling. The deal that we have, backed by £100 million of investment to rebuild our industry, might not be as swift as some would wish, although it is much swifter than the EU wanted, but it points the way to growth after years of foreign control and ends the injustice of the CFP. From day one, the UK will again be an independent coastal state and manager of our own waters.
I was asked about the so-called level playing field. There is no dynamic alignment, no role for the ECJ and no block on our divergence from the acquis, although we freely aim for the highest standards on the environment and in the workplace. I, for one, look forward to an end to the cruel export of live animals, which has been protected by Brussels for far too long.
I was asked about the devolved institutions. The UK Government respect the devolution settlements and we are committed to working with the devolved Administrations on implementation of the agreements. I must report that we were disappointed to hear today that the Scottish Parliament voted against granting legislative consent and that the Northern Ireland Assembly carried a Motion amendment that called, among other things, for the Assembly to decline legislative consent. The Welsh Parliament today voted to note the introduction of the Bill, regretting that it is not in a position to determine legislative consent. We regret the results of those votes. However, the timing is challenging and the Bill must proceed so that the UK can meet its international obligations to implement the agreements by 31 December and ensure that all parts of the UK can benefit from their excellent terms.
I was asked about musicians. The UK pushed for a more ambitious agreement with the European Union on the temporary movement of business travellers that would have covered musicians and others, but our proposals were rejected by the European Union. However, I have obviously heard the remarks made by many noble Lords in the debate.
We will have a further full debate next Friday, when I understand that the House of Commons will be somewhere else, to engage again with these and other detailed questions. I have no doubts that there will be many other occasions. I will welcome that scrutiny, as I know my ministerial colleagues will. But I plead with your Lordships in your wisdom not to impede the Bill, which will answer the expectations of the majority of our countrymen and countrywomen, as is our duty.
I was surprised to read in the name of the Official Opposition not the simple word “yes” that the British people voted for in last December’s election, but 151 words of mudge and fudge, grumble and mumble. The noble Baroness opposite, as always, spoke with great grace and from a personal position that I deeply respect and understand, but I am afraid that her Motion is not one of a party that sees opportunity for our country. How ironic it is that a European debate that began in 1975 with a referendum aimed to paper over the cracks in a disunited Labour Party should end with this rambling Motion from a disunited Labour Party that is fearful of the future, lacking, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, said, any confidence in the genius of the British people. You cannot lead a nation forward if you have no faith in the path it has chosen.
We are told that this is a “thin” deal at 1,250 pages —too heavy for me to lift up. The Labour Motion condemns bureaucracy and regulation. How many more pages of the bureaucracy and regulation that this Bill enables us to escape form would we need before a deal would be thick enough for the Labour Party? A thicker deal must logically be a closer deal; a thicker deal means more institutional ties, not fewer. Are we to hear a promise next election from Sir Keir Starmer, as some have called for today, to renegotiate us back closer to Brussels? “Get Brexit undone”: is this to be the Labour cry?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is ready to lead the charge. He has always been honest on that. I do not normally give advice to my opponents, but I do not think that that particular trumpet call will bring the blue wall tumbling down in some new miracle of Jericho.
I think that the Labour Party finds itself in a strange position, going one way in a couple of minutes to divide against the deal on Second Reading and then sidling the other way a few minutes later to vote for it on Third Reading. They become more like the Liberal Democrats every day, except that my Liberal Democrat friends have always remained honourably committed to their eccentric belief that Britain’s destiny is as a province of a European super state—although having heard the noble Lord, Lord Newby, say that he will vote for no deal later tonight, I confess I remain a little confused.
I agree with those who say that we should close the book, not keep it open as some noble Lords have said today, on 47 tempestuous years in which the European question bedevilled British politics and confined our horizons—years in which the common market those of us who voted for in 1975 thought we were joining morphed into an ever more constricting would-be single state without the British people ever being asked to give their assent. The British people never agreed to that and when asked in 2016 and in 2019 they said “no”.
The noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, in a remarkable maiden speech—how much I look forward to hearing more from him—recalled something that all too many who have spoken in a negative tone today still seem to have forgotten. Many people—17.4 million and more—brought us to this place tonight. In reclaiming our borders, our laws and our destiny, the true movers are the common man and woman—the extraordinary people of these islands. They were told that they must not break with the EU, but they determined, “Yes, we must.” They were told in Project Fear that they could not break with the EU, that house prices would crash, pensions would be slashed and jobs destroyed. But in that quiet, British way, with 17.4 million pieces of paper pushed purposefully into ballot boxes in village, church and school halls across the land, they said, “Yes, we could.” They were even told after they had voted that in fact they had not known what they were doing, they had not understood what they were doing, and even—the memory of this should shame us all—that they were too stupid to understand. But last December they said again, firmly, “Yes, we had.” I ask your Lordships not to doubt or divide against that firmly expressed wish tonight.
I will not list all those who worked for this outcome, as it is time to draw to a close, but they were not always so many in your Lordships’ House. One of them was my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness, whose valedictory speech, so typical in its classical clarity and humanity, we sadly heard tonight. Who will ever forget, however, the rolling of so many eyes, the shaking of heads, the audible sniggers and groans when a few in this House ventured to speak over the last four years of the will of the people? Now let the people’s will finally be done. In saying that, I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Callanan, who led so much enabling legislation through this House, for all he bore and forbore.
But above all, the credit for vindicating the will of the people goes to the grit, guile and negotiating skill of one who has so often been unfairly vilified in this House, and who was vilified again tonight—the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend, right on this great issue of our time, honourable in keeping his promise to get Brexit done, and those of us on this side are proud to call him our friend. With tens of millions of our fellow citizens, we say, “Thank you, Boris. You done good.”
The nature of any compromise is that not everyone gets what they wish for. We have heard this from both sides of the debate. My right honourable friend stuck at it, but he also compromised, and I too pay tribute to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who played a distinguished role in writing the final chapter of the skilled and dedicated Mr Barnier’s seemingly never-ending roman fleuve. This outcome is good for the UK and it is good for Europe, so let this agreement end the jabbing and parrying that have gone on for too long in Parliament and outside. Let us vote now. I urge all noble Lords to vote positively for the future, for a vote against this Bill, as the Liberal Democrats propose, is a vote for no-deal and for nihilism. A vote for the Labour Motion is a vote to prolong uncertainty—a vote for doubt over hope.
Every lesson of history is that freedom and free trade are the greatest engines of human happiness and prosperity. To turn our backs on the opportunity in the wider world before us would be an act of folly. To embrace it will redeem your Lordships and bring prizes yet untold. This is a Bill for freedom and free trade, for opportunity and control of our country’s own great destiny. Those are ideals which should appeal across all parties and unite all of us, after all the old divides. I have no hesitation in commending it, and commending the future, to this House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I regret the tone of much of that response, which I think does not become the Minister and does not respond fairly to the debate he has heard tonight. I do not know what his history was of “47 tempestuous years” within the European Union, but I seem to recall that we started rather as a basket case economically and it was through the European Union that we grew. However, I am not going to rehearse that argument. I think he accused me of denying the referendum. He knows, not only because I gave him my European history today, that I am Welsh, and he knows how the Welsh voted. He knows jolly well, because he has heard all this, that I have never questioned the referendum and I never called for a second one. I think he knows that he was perhaps a little unwise in some of his words.
Our amendment is not as described by the Minister. My regret amendment goes along with giving this Bill a Second Reading, which we are going to vote for. It does four things, none of which—despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asserts—undermines the decision to take us out of the European Union. First, it starts by welcoming the deal as it has avoided a no-deal exit. That is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, called “worse than chaos.” Secondly, it regrets that it leaves much to be desired, as was reflected in many of the speeches today. Thirdly, it asks the Government to work with Parliament—this is not delaying anything—to ensure the sort of transparency and accountability outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and by my noble friend Lady Taylor, and with regard to secondary legislation, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and to answer the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I say that asking for accountability is not delaying anything. Fourthly, the amendment asks the Government to work speedily to set up the agreed parliamentary partnership assembly—an assembly agreed by the Prime Minister. We are asking for progress on that. This does not in any way deny that we should, as we will want to do, give the Bill a Second Reading. It simply asks the Government to work with Parliament on how we see the next stage. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, many words have been said. It is agreed on all sides, I think, that this should not be the occasion for a renewed debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, wishes to press a Division against the passage of the Bill, so the only thing I want to say is to join noble Lords in thanking and paying tribute to the staff and clerks of the House and all those who have made it possible for us to return and have this Sitting.
It may seem odd to do so when a Bill has been with us for such a short time but I must thank the Bill team because, in fact, this Bill has been tracking the negotiations for a long time and people have been engaged in the very difficult task of getting a Bill together in a short time. They deserve our thanks.
With those short thanks, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Newby
Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to allow the Bill to pass because it fails to meet the undertakings given to the people of the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister and other members of Her Majesty’s Government as it (1) implements the first free trade deal in history to put up new barriers to trade that will harm businesses and impose additional costs on consumers in the United Kingdom, (2) ends the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, (3) deprives the United Kingdom’s financial services sector of passporting rights, (4) deprives police in the United Kingdom of direct, real-time access to European Union law enforcement databases, (5) ends the United Kingdom’s participation in the Erasmus+ student exchange programme, (6) does not provide a grace period for businesses to prepare for and adapt to the new rules, and (7) will result in lower economic growth and less revenue for key public services; and because Her Majesty’s Government has failed to provide sufficient opportunity for Parliament or the public to scrutinise it properly.”
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading and in the light of the arguments I advanced then, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper and wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The original Question was that this Bill do now pass since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now have to put is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord be agreed to. The Question will be decided by a remote Division; I instruct the clerk to start it.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 30th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 December 2020 - (30 Dec 2020)
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, may I take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House of Lords—the staff, the clerks and everyone who has been fantastic in having us here today—a very happy new year? On that note, I beg to adjourn.