House of Commons

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

Saturday 19 October 2019

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Prime Minister to make a statement, I want to make a very few brief introductory remarks.

First, I want to thank—and I am sure that colleagues across the House want to join me in thanking—all the staff of the House who have worked so hard to facilitate the sitting today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I know that many of them have had to make special arrangements to be here, as have many hon. and right hon. Members.

Secondly, I remind hon. Members of what I said in my statement at the start of the Session less than a week ago about the need to be mindful of the impact of what they say, not only upon other hon. and right hon. Members, but upon on others who follow our proceedings.

Thirdly, I can inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), in the name of Sir Oliver Letwin and others, to motion 1, and the manuscript amendment in the name of Peter Kyle and others to motion 2.

Fourthly, it may be to the convenience of the House to know that although the second motion is debatable, I think it will be convenient for the two motions to be debated together so that reference to the second motion may be made in the debate. If the second motion is moved, I will put the Question or Questions on that motion without separate debate.

Prime Minister’s Statement

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

09:36

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by echoing what you have just said and expressing my gratitude to all Members of the House for assembling on a Saturday for the first time in 37 years, and indeed to all members of our House of Commons staff who have worked to make this sitting possible. I know that it has meant people giving up their Saturday and breaking into their weekend at a time when families want to be together, and of course it means missing at least the end of England’s world cup quarter final. I apologise to the House for that; I wish I could watch it myself. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has postponed his 60th birthday party—if not his 60th birthday—to be here. The House has gone to a great deal of trouble to assemble here on a Saturday for the first time in a generation, and I do hope that in assembling for the purposes of a meaningful vote, we will indeed be allowed to have a meaningful vote this evening.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the new agreement with our European friends. The House will need no reminding that this is the second deal and the fourth vote, three and half years after the nation voted for Brexit. During those years, friendships have been strained, families divided and the attention of this House consumed by a single issue that has at times felt incapable of resolution, but I hope that this is the moment when we can finally achieve that resolution and reconcile the instincts that compete within us.

Many times in the last 30 years, I have heard our European friends remark that this country is half-hearted in its EU membership, and it is true that we in the UK have often been a backmarker—opting out of the single currency, not taking part in Schengen, very often trying to block some collective ambition. In the last three and a half years, it has been striking that Members on all sides of this House have debated Brexit in almost entirely practical terms, in an argument that has focused on the balance of economic risk and advantage. I do not think I can recall a time when I have heard a single Member stand up and call for Britain to play her full part in the political construction of a federal Europe. I do not think I have heard a single Member call for ever closer union, ever deeper integration or a federal destiny—mon pays Europe. [Interruption.] Perhaps I missed it, but I do not think I have heard much of it. There is a whole side of the debate that one hears regularly in other European capitals that is simply absent from our national conversation, and I do not think that has changed much in the last 30 years.

If we have been sceptical, if we have been anxious about the remoteness of the bureaucracy, if we have been dubious about the rhetoric of union and integration, if we have been half-hearted Europeans, it follows logically that with part of our hearts—with half our hearts—we feel something else: a sense of love and respect for European culture and civilisation, of which we are a part; a desire to co-operate with our friends and partners in everything, creatively, artistically, intellectually; a sense of our shared destiny; and a deep understanding of the eternal need, especially after the horrors of the last century, for Britain to stand as one of the guarantors of peace and democracy in our continent—and it is our continent.

It is precisely because we are capable of feeling both things at once—sceptical about the modes of EU integration, as we are, but passionate and enthusiastic about Europe—that the whole experience of the last three and a half years has been so difficult for this country and so divisive. That is why it is now so urgent for us to move on and build a new relationship with our friends in the EU on the basis of a new deal—a deal that can heal the rift in British politics and unite the warring instincts in us all. Now is the time for this great House of Commons to come together and bring the country together today, as I believe people at home are hoping and expecting, with a new way forward and a new and better deal both for Britain and our friends in the EU. That is the advantage of the agreement that we have struck with our friends in the last two days. This deal allows the UK, whole and entire, to leave the EU on 31 October in accordance with the referendum while simultaneously looking forward to a new partnership based on the closest ties of friendship and co-operation.

I pay tribute to our European friends for escaping the prison of existing positions and showing the vision to be flexible by reopening the withdrawal agreement and thereby addressing the deeply felt concerns of many in this House. One of my most important jobs is to express those concerns to our European friends. I shall continue to listen to all hon. Members throughout the debate today, to meet with anyone on any side and to welcome the scrutiny the House will bring to bear if, as I hope, we proceed to consider the withdrawal Bill next week.

Today this House has a historic opportunity to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours and the same ability and resolve to reach beyond past disagreements by getting Brexit done and moving this country forwards, as we all yearn to do. This agreement provides for a real Brexit, taking back control of our borders, laws, money, farming, fisheries and trade, amounting to the greatest single restoration of national sovereignty in parliamentary history. It removes the backstop, which would have held us against our will in the customs union and much of the single market. For the first time in almost five decades, the UK will be able to strike free trade deals with our friends across the world to benefit the whole country, including Northern Ireland.

Article 4 of the protocol states:

“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom”.

It adds

“nothing in this Protocol shall prevent”

Northern Ireland from realising the preferential market access in any free trade deals

“on the same terms as goods produced in other parts of the United Kingdom.”

Our negotiations have focused on the uniquely sensitive nature of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and we have respected those sensitivities. Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and have upheld the long-standing areas of co-operation between the UK and Ireland, including the common travel area. As I told the House on 3 October, in order to prevent a regulatory border on the island of Ireland we propose a regulatory zone covering all goods, including agrifood, eliminating any need for associated checks at the border.

But in this agreement we have gone further by also finding a solution to the vexed question of customs, which many in the House have raised. Our agreement ensures

“unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”

It ensures that there should be no tariffs on goods circulating within the UK customs territory—that is, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—unless they are at risk of entering the EU. It ensures an open border on the island of Ireland, a common objective of everyone in the House. And it ensures for those living and working alongside the border that there will be no visible or practical changes to their lives: they can carry on as before.

I believe that this is a good arrangement, reconciling the special circumstances in Northern Ireland with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences at a few points of arrival in Northern Ireland, and it is precisely to ensure that those arrangements are acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland that we have made consent a fundamental element of this new deal. So no arrangements can be imposed on Northern Ireland if they do not work for Northern Ireland. Under this agreement, the people of Northern Ireland will have the right to express or withhold their consent to these provisions by means of a majority vote in their Assembly four years after the end of the transition. If the Assembly chooses to withhold consent, these provisions “shall cease to apply” after two years, during which the Joint Committee of the UK and EU would propose a new way forward, in concert with Northern Ireland’s institutions.

As soon as this House allows the process of extracting ourselves from the EU to be completed, the exciting enterprise of building a new relationship with our friends can begin. That enterprise has been too long delayed, and the Labour party would delay it further. I do not wish this to be the project of any one Government or any one party, but rather to be the endeavour of the United Kingdom as a whole. Only this Parliament can make this new relationship the work of the nation, and so Parliament should be at the heart of decision making as we develop our approach. I acknowledge that in the past we have perhaps not always acted in that spirit.

So as we take forward our friendship with our closest neighbours and construct that new relationship, I will ensure that a broad and open process draws upon the wealth of expertise in every part of this House, including Select Committees and their Chairs. Every party and every Member who wishes to contribute will be invited to do so, and we shall start by debating the mandate for our negotiators in the next phase.

The ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised political declaration, which also provides for the House to be free to decide our own laws and regulations. I have complete faith in this House to choose regulations that are in our best tradition—our best tradition—of the highest standards of environmental protections and workers’ rights. No one, anywhere in this Chamber, believes in lowering standards. Instead—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of gesticulation. The statement by the Prime Minister must be heard, and it will be.

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful.

No one believes in lowering standards. Instead, we believe in improving them, as indeed we will be able to do, and seizing the opportunities of our new freedoms. For example, free from the common agricultural policy, we will have a far simpler system where we will reward farmers for improving our environment and animal welfare, many of whose provisions are impossible under the current arrangements, instead of just paying them for their acreage. Free from the common fisheries policy, we can ensure sustainable yields based on the latest science, not outdated methods of setting quotas.

These restored powers will be available not simply to this Government, but to every future British Government of any party to use as they see fit. That is what restoring sovereignty means. That is what is meant in practice by taking back control of our destiny. Our first decision, on which I believe there will be unanimity, is that in any future trade negotiations with any country, our national health service will not be on the table.

I am convinced that an overwhelming majority in this House, regardless of our personal views, wishes to see Brexit delivered in accordance with the referendum—a majority. In this crucial mission, there can no longer be any argument for further delay. As someone who passionately believed that we had to go back to our European friends to seek a better agreement, I must tell the House that with this new deal the scope for future negotiation—for fruitful negotiation—has run its course.

The Opposition said that we could not reopen the withdrawal agreement. They said that we could not change a comma of the withdrawal agreement. They said that we could not abolish the backstop. We have done both. But it is now my judgment that we have reached the best possible solution. So those who agree, like me, that Brexit must be delivered, and who, like me, prefer to avoid a no-deal outcome must abandon the delusion that this House can delay again, and I must tell the House in all candour that there is very little appetite among our friends in the EU for this business to be protracted by one extra day. They have had three and a half years of this debate. It has distracted them from their own projects and their own ambitions, and if there is one feeling that unites the British public with a growing number of officials in the EU, it is a burning desire to get Brexit done.

I must tell the House again, in all candour, that, whatever letters they may seek to force the Government to write, it cannot change my judgment that further delay is pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust, and people simply will not understand how politicians can say with one breath that they want delay to avoid no deal and with the next breath that they still want delay when a great deal is there to be done.

Now is the time to get this thing done, and I say to all Members, let us come together as democrats to end this debilitating feud. Let us come together as democrats to get behind this deal—the one proposition that fulfils the verdict of the majority, but which also allows us to bring together the two halves of our hearts, to bring together the two halves of our nation. Let us speak now, both for the 52 and for the 48.

Let us go for a deal that can heal this country and can allow us all to express our legitimate desires for the deepest possible friendship and partnership with our neighbours, a deal that allows us to create a new shared destiny with them, and a deal that also allows us to express our confidence in our own democratic institutions, to make our own laws, to determine our own future and to believe in ourselves once again as an open, generous, global, outward looking, free trading United Kingdom. That is the prospect that this deal offers our country. It is a great prospect and a great deal. I commend it to the House.

09:55

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking all the staff—cleaning staff, catering staff, security staff, officials and our own staff—who have come into the House this morning. They have given up a weekend to help our deliberations. I also thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement.

The Prime Minister has renegotiated the withdrawal agreement and made it even worse. He has renegotiated the political declaration and made that even worse. Today, we are having a debate on a text for which there is no economic impact assessment and no accompanying legal advice.

The Government have sought to avoid scrutiny throughout the process. Yesterday evening, they made empty promises on workers’ rights and the environment—the same Government who spent the last few weeks negotiating in secret to remove from the withdrawal agreement legally binding commitments on workers’ rights and the environment.

This Government cannot be trusted, and the Opposition will not be duped; neither will the Government’s own workers. Yesterday, the head of the civil service union Prospect met the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and, at the conclusion of that meeting, said:

“I asked for reassurances that the government would not diverge on workers’ rights after Brexit… He could not give me those assurances.”

As for the much-hyped “world-leading” Environment Bill, its legally binding targets will not be enforceable until 2037. For this Government, the climate emergency can always wait.

This deal risks people’s jobs, rights at work, our environment and our national health service. We must be honest about what it means for our manufacturing industry and people’s jobs: not only does it reduce access to the market of our biggest trading partner, but it leaves us without a customs union, which will damage industries across the country in every one of our constituencies. From Nissan in Sunderland to Heinz in Wigan, Airbus in Broughton and Jaguar Land Rover in Birmingham, thousands of British jobs depend on a strong manufacturing sector, and a strong manufacturing sector needs markets, through fluid supply chains, all across the European Union. A vote for this deal would be a vote to cut manufacturing jobs all across this country.

This deal would absolutely inevitably lead to a Trump trade deal—[Interruption]—forcing the UK to diverge from the highest standards and expose our families once again to chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. This deal—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did say that the statement by the Prime Minister must be heard. The response of the Leader of the Opposition, in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy, must also be heard, and it will.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This deal fails to enshrine the principle that we keep pace with the European Union on environmental standards and protections, putting at risk our current rules on matters ranging from air pollution standards to chemical safety—we all know the public concern about such issues—at the same time that we are facing a climate emergency.

As for workers’ rights, we simply cannot give the Government a blank cheque. Mr Speaker, you do not have to take my word for that. Listen, for example, to the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, who says—[Interruption.] She represents an organisation with 6 million affiliated members, and she says:

“This deal would be a disaster for working people. It would hammer the economy, cost jobs and sell workers’ rights down the river.”

Listen to Make UK, representing British manufacturers, which says—[Interruption.] Government Members may care to listen to its comments on the deal. Make UK says that

“commitments to the closest possible trading relationship in goods have gone. Differences in regulation between the UK and the EU will add cost and bureaucracy and our companies will face a lack of clarity inhibiting investment and planning.”

Listen also to the Green Alliance, which says that the deal amounted to a

“very sad Brexit read from a climate perspective.”

The message is clear that this deal is not good for jobs and is damaging for our industry and a threat to our environment and our natural world. It is not a good deal for our country, and future generations will feel the impact. It should be voted down by this House today.

I also totally understand the frustration and fatigue across the country and in this House, but we simply cannot vote for a deal that is even worse than the one that the House rejected three times. The Government’s own economic analysis shows that this deal would make the poorest regions even poorer and cost each person in this country over £2,000 a year. If we vote for a deal that makes our constituents poorer, we are not likely to be forgiven. The Government are claiming that if we support their deal, it will get Brexit done, and that backing them today is the only way to stop a no-deal exit. I simply say: nonsense. Supporting the Government this afternoon would merely fire the starting pistol in a race to the bottom in regulations and standards.

If anyone has any doubts about that, we only have to listen to what the Government’s own Members have been saying. Like the one yesterday who rather let the cat out of the bag by saying that Members should back this deal as it means we can leave with no deal by 2020. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] The cat is truly out of the bag. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether that is the case? If a free trade agreement has not been done, would that mean Britain falling on to World Trade Organisation terms by December next year, with only Northern Ireland having preferential access to the EU market?

No wonder, then, that the Foreign Secretary said that this represents a “cracking deal” for Northern Ireland, which would retain frictionless access to the single market. That does prompt the question: why is it that the rest of the UK cannot get a cracking deal by maintaining access to the single market?

The Taoiseach said that the deal

“allows the all-Ireland economy to continue to develop and… protects the European single market”.

Some Members of this House would welcome an all-Ireland economy, but I did not think that they included the Government and the Conservative and Unionist party. The Prime Minister declared in the summer:

“Under no circumstances… will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea”.

We cannot trust a word he says.

Voting for a deal today will not end Brexit, and it will not deliver certainty. The people should have the final say. Labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that it represents. We are not prepared to sell out their future, and we will not back this sell-out deal. This is about our communities now and about our future generations.

[The Prime Minister]

I must confess that I am disappointed by the tone the right hon. Gentleman has taken today, because I had thought that he might rise to the occasion and see what the electorate—and, I believe, his own electorate—broadly want us to do, which is to get Brexit done. I thought he would wish to reflect the will of the people who voted for Brexit in such numbers in 2016 and have waited for a very long time.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about environmental and social protection. This Government and this country will maintain the very highest standards, and we will lead in environmental protection and social protection across Europe and the world. We lead, for instance, in our commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050, and as I have told him many times, Brexit gives us the freedom and the opportunity to do things that we have not been able to do and that are deeply desired by the British people, such as banning the live export of animals—that is to say nothing of shark fins—and many other things we can do differently and better.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about business. The overwhelming view of business is that there are great opportunities from Brexit. Also, both Stuart Rose, who is a former chairman of the remain campaign, and the Governor of the Bank of England have said today that this is a good deal for the British economy. As I look ahead, the only risks I see to the British economy are the catastrophic plans of the right hon. Gentleman and his semi-Marxist party. What British business wants is the certainty and stability of getting Brexit done on 31 October, and then the opportunity to build a new future with our European partners and to do free trade deals around the world.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about Northern Ireland, which, along with the rest of the UK, will exit the EU customs union, in defiance of what the European Commission and, indeed, the Irish Government had intended.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about trust. I do not wish to be unnecessarily adversarial today, but he patently does not trust his own party—he does not trust the shadow Chancellor—and, above all, he has not been willing to trust the people of this country by granting them the right to adjudicate on him and his policies in a general election. He will not trust the people, and he does not trust the people by delivering on the result of their referendum in 2016.

I suggest to the House, in all humility and candour, that it should ignore the right hon. Gentleman’s pleadings and vote for an excellent deal that will take this country and the whole of Europe forward.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister began his statement, for which I am grateful, by saying how rare it has been for Members of this House ever to support federalism and a united states of Europe, and I entirely agree. Federalism and a belief in a European superstate are as rare in this country as they are, nowadays, in every one of the other 27 member states.

Does the Prime Minister accept that, for the past 50 years, the vast majority of the Conservative party and all four Conservative Prime Ministers in whose Governments I served believed that membership of the European Union gave us a stronger voice in the world politically, as one of the three leading members of the European Union, and gave us access to a free trade market that enabled us to build a strong and competitive economy? Will he reassure me—as I assure him that I will vote for his deal once we have given legislative effect to it—that, when he goes on to negotiate the eventual long-term arrangements, he will seek a solution in which we have the same completely open access across the channel and across the Irish border to trade and investment with the European Union as we have now, in both directions, even if we have to sacrifice the political benefits we have hitherto enjoyed from membership of the Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I wish to agree with at least part of my right hon. and learned Friend’s analysis, because he says that there is scepticism across the continent about federalism and the desire to build a European Union superstate, and I think that he is right, but unfortunately that scepticism has not percolated up to the elites who run the EU and set the agenda in Brussels. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Every Member who has the Floor must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

I am making a valid point, which is that in Brussels my right hon. and learned Friend’s message has not really been perfectly understood, because they are continuing with a large number of federalist projects. At the European Council, only a couple of days ago, I heard the distinguished President of France calling for a union bancaire—a banking union, Mr Speaker; spelt b-a-n-c-a-i-r-e. There is a strong desire to intensify the process of integration—for example, by creating a defence pact—in a way that I think would meet the scepticism of not just my right hon. and learned Friend, but millions of people across the EU. I can give him an absolute reassurance that in the course of negotiations—in which we would want the entire House, or as many Members who want to be involved as possible, to take part—we will ensure that we get exactly what I think he desires: a zero-tariff, zero-quota free trade partnership so that there is maximum trade, and increasing trade, between our economies.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking all the staff who have made today’s sitting possible? I also thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.

Northern Ireland, 13: Scotland, zero—those are the number of references to Northern Ireland and to Scotland in the Prime Minister’s statement. There was not one reference to Scotland. The Prime Minister has returned from Brussels to present a deal that he knows—that we all know—is actually worse than Theresa May’s deal. It is a deal that would see Scotland shafted by this United Kingdom Government and left at an economic disadvantage, with Scotland’s views and interests totally disregarded by this Prime Minister and his Government.

The Scottish National party could not have been clearer: we would support any mandate to approach the European Union to remain in the single market and the customs union, or simply to remain in the European Union altogether. Yet the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not interested in meaningful discussions with the SNP or our Scottish Government. He and his cronies in No. 10 do not care about Scotland. This Tory Government have sold Scotland out, and once against they have let Scotland down.

While, rightfully, Northern Ireland has been allowed special arrangements to remain in the single market and the customs union, the Prime Minister will not afford Scotland the same arrangements. He did not even consider giving Scotland a fair deal. Despite the fact that the Scottish people, like the people of Northern Ireland, voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, this Prime Minister has never entertained the notion of giving Scotland the same arrangements that Northern Ireland gets in this deal.

The truth is that the Prime Minister does not care about Scotland. He and his Government have treated the Scottish Government, our Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people with nothing but contempt.

Not a single MP who cares about Scotland’s future should consider supporting the Prime Minister today. They should stand with the Scottish National party and vote this deal down. Any and all assessments of any Brexit outcome show that the United Kingdom and Scotland will be poorer, no matter how we leave the European Union. People up and down Scotland know that the Prime Minister, his Brexit fanboys and the Vote Leave campaign have ignored and shafted Scotland.

England is getting what it voted for, Wales is getting what it voted for, and Northern Ireland is getting a special deal, yet Scotland, which democratically voted to remain, is being ignored and treated as a second-class nation by this Government. How will the Prime Minister justify himself to the people of Scotland at the general election? When he cannot, and when he fails, and when the Brexit-backing fan club from all quarters fails, will he finally respect the mandate of the Scottish people and let them have their say on our future?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will want to join me in congratulating the England rugby team on their 40-16 victory over Australia—

[Ian Blackford]

indicated assent.

[The Prime Minister]

There was a lot enthusiasm in that response.

The right hon. Gentleman was a little bit churlish in his response to my statement, because after all I did not mention England and I did not mention Wales, either. Of course, the reason why Northern Ireland is a particular subject of discussion—it is a legitimate point—is that there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland at the border that deserve particular respect and sensitivity, and that is what they have received in the deal.

This is a great deal for England, a great deal for Wales, a great deal for Scotland and a great deal for Northern Ireland. The people of Scotland now have the chance, championed by wonderful Scottish Conservative MPs, to take back control of their fisheries from the end of next year. That will allow the people of Scotland at last to enjoy the benefits of their spectacular marine wealth in a way that they would be denied under the Scottish nationalist party which, as I never tire of telling you, Mr Speaker, would hand back control of Scottish fishing to Brussels.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I take issue—gently—with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? For 27 years, some of us have been warning about the federal nature of the European Union. [Interruption.] I did say gently.

I am in real agreement, as I stand here today, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Father of the House, who has said that he will back this deal today. So will I. In that spirit, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister please come to the Dispatch Box and ask my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), in recognising that we need to have a meaningful vote, to withdraw his amendment and give the British people what they are dying for, which is a decision on Brexit?

[The Prime Minister]

I am full of respect for the contributions that my right hon. Friend has made on this subject over many, many years. I did not mean in any way to exclude him or to say that he had not made important contributions on the subject of a federal Europe. What I said was that I had not often heard people speaking up in favour of the integration of this country into a federal EU.

On my right hon. Friend’s point about the amendment that I believe is being proposed, and that I think you, Mr Speaker, have accepted from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), I do think that this is a momentous occasion for our country and for our Parliament, and that it would be a great shame if the opportunity to have a meaningful vote, which is what I believe this House has been convoked to do, were to be taken away from us. I say that with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, who I think is actuated by the best possible intentions.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The Prime Minister’s deal removes protections on workers’ rights. It puts a border—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have all agreed recently on the importance of mutual respect. The leader of the Liberal Democrats is entitled to be heard and, believe me, she will not, under any circumstances, be shouted down.

[Jo Swinson]

The Prime Minister’s deal removes protections on workers’ rights. It puts a border down the Irish sea and, according to the Government’s own analysis, will damage our economy on a scale greater than the financial crash. Today, hundreds of thousands of people will be outside demanding a final say in a people’s vote. Is not it the truth that the reason why the Prime Minister refuses their calls is that he knows that, if given the option, the people will reject his bad deal and choose to remain in the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is not correct in what she says. The new deal does absolutely nothing to remove protections from workers or from the environment. On the contrary, it gives us the opportunity to strengthen such protections. She asked for the people to have a final say at the ballot box, yet she has been preventing a general election. Instead of campaigning for a general election, she has been in Brussels asking the EU not to give this country a new and better deal. The mere fact that we have a great deal before us today is a tribute to the signal lack of influence of the Liberal Democrats in Brussels.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I certainly do not anticipate that it will be possible to call everybody on the statement, and we will want to proceed with the debate on the motion. In the name of maximising participation, there is a premium upon brevity from those on the Back and Front Benches alike.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Despite the fact that those who oppose Brexit have tried to undermine his negotiating position at every turn, despite the fact that the Benn Act sought to remove his strongest negotiating lever, the Prime Minister has done what they said was impossible two weeks ago and got the European Union to reopen and change its negotiating position. Does he agree that, during the referendum, this Parliament effectively made a promise to the British people to deliver on their decision, and that today is the day to deliver on that promise?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and he is indeed correct. I do believe that this excellent deal dispels the doubts of many people about what this country could achieve and, indeed, will achieve in the future. I thank him—my fellow campaigner on this issue—for the way that he has stood up for the vision that we both share for our country as an open, global, free-trading, generous, outward-looking, but European economy, and that is what this deal allows us to be. I believe that it is a great step forward, and I hope that the House endorses it.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Weariness in this House over Brexit should not be an excuse for weakness on Brexit or weakness on the Union. This party has supported respecting the people of the United Kingdom’s referendum decision to leave the European Union. We have supported that and we continue to support that, but it must be Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom—leaving the single market and the customs union if that is what the rest of UK does, along with the rest of the UK. This deal puts Northern Ireland, yes, in the UK customs union, but applies, de facto, all the European customs union code.

[The Prime Minister]

indicated dissent.

[Nigel Dodds]

Yes, it does. Read the detail. It also puts us in the VAT regime. It also puts us in the single market regime for a large part of goods and agrifood, without any consent up front, contrary to the agreement made in December 2017, which said that regulatory difference could happen only with the consent of the Executive and the Assembly. It drives a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement by altering the cross-community consent mechanism. It was once said that no British Prime Minister could ever agree to such terms. Indeed, those who sought the leadership of the Tory party said that at the Democratic Unionist party conference. Will the Prime Minister now abide by that and please reconsider the fact that we must leave as one nation together? There may be special circumstances for Northern Ireland, but that can only be with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, Unionists and nationalists together. That is the basis on which the peace process—the political process—has advanced. He must respect that.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman in this sense: together he and I, and the rest of his group, made a case powerfully to the EU that it was necessary for Northern Ireland to come out of the customs union—which was not, by the way, a point that was accepted by the EU—and we were successful in that. The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the arrangements, but the significant point about a customs union is that it is a union that sets its own tariffs and duties at the perimeter around that customs union, and that is what the whole of the UK will do, including Northern Ireland. And let us be frank, that is not what the European Commission or our European friends thought would be the result of these negotiations. I believe that it is a great success for Northern Ireland and the whole country.

The arrangements that have made that possible, of course, are temporary and determined by consent. I do think it a pity that it is thought necessary for one side or the other in the debate in Northern Ireland to have a veto on those arrangements because, after all—and I must be very frank about this—the people of this country have taken a great decision embracing the entire four nations of this country, by a simple majority vote that went 52:48 and which we are honouring now. I think that principle should be applied elsewhere, and I see no reason why it should not be applied in Northern Ireland as well. It is fully compatible with the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Ind)]

Before I decide whether to jump on the Prime Minister’s bus, I would like to be just a little clearer about the destination; I would like to be reassured that it remains the deep and special partnership with the European Union that we promised the British people in our 2017 election manifesto. In the absence of the UK-wide backstop, which has now gone from the package, the best way to give us that reassurance is to ensure a proper role for Parliament in the process of the future negotiations. So could the Prime Minister today make a commitment to accept the Nandy-Snell amendments, which the previous Government agreed would prevail?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give that commitment.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

This agreement will maintain friction-free access to the European market for Northern Ireland. Can the Prime Minister therefore explain why he is so determined to deny that exact same benefit to the rest of the United Kingdom? If he presses on with this path, he will not heal the rift to which he referred a moment ago; he will only serve to widen it further.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, is, I think, one of those who believes that we should delay further in the EU. I do not believe that. I think we should come out as one UK, and I think there is a very important difference between Northern Ireland and the other constituent parts of the UK. That is evident in the Good Friday agreement and it is evident in the need to treat that particular land border with a great deal of sensitivity and respect. That is something that is agreed in all parts of the House and is I think appreciated by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend personally guarantee that in the withdrawal Bill there will be a guarantee to protect in practice our parliamentary sovereignty and furthermore that, in relation to the withdrawal agreement, there will be provision to protect the United Kingdom from any harmful matters relating to our vital national interests under a parliamentary system that will guarantee that this House will decide if there are any situations where we need to prevent EU laws from being harmful to those vital national interests during the course of the future arrangements that have been put in place?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has campaigned on this matter for many, many years. Indeed, there is a sense in which this occasion today is a colossal vindication of his parliamentary career, in that he has long campaigned for us to come out of the EU. He raises an important point about our ability to protect this country from injurious or vexatious legislation coming from the EU during the IP. I can certainly give him the assurance that we will have such protection.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s predecessor said in this place that no British Prime Minister could ever accept a deal that put a border down the Irish sea. The Prime Minister himself went to the DUP conference not long ago and said the same thing. He has now agreed a deal that puts a border down the Irish sea, so can he tell the House why on earth anyone in the country, let alone anyone in this place, will ever believe a reassurance that he gives ever again?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is simply wrong. There will be no border down the Irish sea. There are already checks for epidemiological purposes. There will be some customs checks, yes, but there will be no tariffs. There will be a single united customs union between all four nations of the UK, as she would expect. That is what we have delivered; and we have delivered it, by the way, in defiance of the scepticism and negativity of the Opposition, who continually said that it could not be done and that it was absolutely essential for Northern Ireland to remain in the customs union of the EU. We have solved the problem and we have taken Northern Ireland out.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

There are many of us, who do not often feature at the noisy ends of the debate, who campaigned hard for remain, but who accept the result of the referendum, because we are above all democrats. Many of us have said things like, “We will do anything to avoid no deal.” Does the Prime Minister agree that today is the day actually to make those words mean something and vote for a deal?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has done much to bring our party and, indeed, the House together on this matter. I could not agree with him more fervently. I really do think this is the day for everybody to put aside their differences and get this thing done. Our voters—the country—are looking at us. They expect us to deliver it. Let’s do it today.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The democratic consent process does not remove the border down the Irish sea; it simply moves the risk from determining the future of the border from Westminster to Stormont. So why does the Prime Minister believe that the deal will accord with the consensus built into the Good Friday agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal is in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement, and it is open to the people of Northern Ireland to vary the arrangements that I have described if they so choose.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Was not the right hon. Leader of the Opposition right on 22 February 2016, when he said:

“We welcome the fact that it is now in the hands of the people of this country to decide”—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 26.]

whether we remain in the European Union? Did the people not come to a conclusion on that? He was right then; should we not now carry out that instruction?

[The Prime Minister]

The better angels of the Leader of the Opposition’s nature may still agree with that position; my impression is that he has been in some way captured and held hostage by those who wish to convert the Labour party into the party of revoke, and of dither and delay, a second referendum, more turmoil, and more uncertainty for business for years to come.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Prime Minister asks us with passionate words to vote with our hearts for his deal, but my head cannot get round the fact that we are being asked to accept his words in trusting ignorance of their full implications, and my heart tells me that the people of Wales will never be well served by his Government; we are only ever an afterthought to this Prime Minister. He has refused to share the impact assessments, and he revealed this 535-page legal text for us to comprehend only today. How could Plaid Cymru ever support his billionaires’ Brexit?

[The Prime Minister]

It seems to me that the right hon. Lady may conceivably have made up her mind about the 535 pages that she has in her hand before she scrutinised every word of the text. I am a fan of hers, but I gently remind her that, as she and I both know, Wales voted to leave. She should respect that.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Ind)]

Twelve minutes into his statement, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of this place in future negotiations. Could he please reassure me that today will see the end of the campaign to portray what is happening as “Parliament against the people”, and that we will today accept that it is Parliament working on behalf of people?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. She is absolutely right: this is the moment for Parliament and people to yoke arms, come together, and get this thing done. That is what our country wants.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said clearly that he wants a free trade deal by the end of 2020 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister tell us clearly that when that day comes, the protocol on Northern Ireland will be automatically changed, and that Northern Ireland will then be fully part of a free trade deal, with everything there being the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, the arrangements envisaged for Northern Ireland in this deal lapse automatically, and the default position is full alignment with the UK in every respect, unless the people of Northern Ireland decide, by a majority vote, not to remain in alignment; that is always open to them, and that must be fair. The arrangements are for a very small range of policy. From the beginning, as I explained to the House, Northern Ireland will not only be able to take part in free trade deals, but will benefit from many of the advantages and attractions of Brexit, in the sense that we could, for example, regulate financial services differently and better, and have a freeport in Belfast.

[Nigel Dodds]

indicated assent.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

indicated assent.

[The Prime Minister]

I see my distinguished friends in the Democratic Unionist party accepting this good news, as is their customary way. There are many advantages to be had. On the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), yes, there is the prospect of a free trade agreement between us and the EU, under which these arrangements would eventually be superseded. We would enter into free trade, as the right hon. and learned Father of the House indicated—a zero-tariff, zero-quota arrangement—and then the current arrangements would be obviated.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Ind)]

Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment, in law if necessary, that workers’ rights in this country will never be inferior to those of the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I certainly can.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

Hon. Members are going to be promised—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are obviously going to be promised everything today by the Prime Minister; they should take it with a pinch of salt. I have to tell the Prime Minister that it speaks volumes that he and the Chancellor have refused to publish a fresh economic impact assessment of his proposal today. But I think the Chancellor has said, “Well, one was produced last year”—November 2018—by his predecessor, where, on the basis of an average free trade agreement, we would see the British economy lag by 5% of GDP. Can he at least give us the courtesy, at the Dispatch Box now, of saying that that model—that average free trade agreement: down 5%—is the expectation we could have of his plan?

[The Prime Minister]

No, it certainly is not.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will remember from the referendum the strength of feeling that he and I experienced in some of our most deprived communities about Brexit. Could he gently explain to the Leader of the Opposition the sense of betrayal that will be felt in those communities if we do not now deliver Brexit?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct in what he says. I think it is a feeling that is well known to Members on the other side of the House and well known on our Benches as well. The people of this country, wherever they come from, are coming together now in a desire to get Brexit done, and I hope that this House will today reflect that will.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

At present, the United Kingdom consists of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In both Northern Ireland and Scotland there is no mandate for Brexit. The deal we are being asked to vote for today gives Northern Ireland a deal that keeps it close to the single market and the customs union, subject to its consent. Can the Prime Minister explain to me and my constituents in what way it strengthens the Union of the United Kingdom for Scotland alone to have foisted upon it a Brexit it did not vote for?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid there is a complete conceptual confusion here. Scotland, Northern Ireland—the whole of the UK is coming out of the customs union. Particular arrangements are being put in place to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland, which I think is an objective that the whole House supports. As for the people of Scotland, they had a referendum, as the hon. and learned Lady knows full well, in 2014, and they voted very substantially to remain in the United Kingdom. That was the correct decision. They were told it was a once-in-a-generation decision, and I see no reason whatever to betray that promise that was made to them then.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister, I think, has said that he now wants to speak for the 52% and the 48%, but does he recognise that the rhetoric, the actions and the way that this Government have approached Brexit achieve the exact opposite of that, actually? Does he also recognise that dismissing the concerns of communities such as my own is no way to bring even England back together, and dismissing the concerns of other nations within the United Kingdom is also no way to bring the UK and Britain back together either?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly did not mean to dismiss anybody’s concerns, let alone her own. I recognise, as I think I said in my opening statement, that this is an issue that has aroused deep feeling across the country on both sides, but it is my strong belief that the way forward for this country now is to deliver Brexit, get it done and move our country forward. That is the way, I believe, that people can honestly and passionately express their pro-European views in a new deep and special partnership of the kind that my right hon. Friend—both of us—campaigned for.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Forty years ago I heard a Conservative leader speak, and although I disagreed with much of what she believed in, I believed in her loyalty, I trusted her, and she brought the nation together with a great speech. I did not hear that this morning. What I heard was a man who leads this country but who people do not trust. He keeps saying, “Trust”. Who will trust the British people? If we want the British people to trust us, does he agree that we should have a referendum so that people can judge this deal for what it is? We can then have a general election after that.

[The Prime Minister]

I think the best way to show our trust in the people is to repay their trust in us by honouring their mandate and delivering on the verdict of the people. That is what we should do today, and I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby tonight.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the fishermen in my constituency that he will put right the wrong heaped on them more than 40 years ago, and that they will get a better share of fish from UK waters?

[The Prime Minister]

They certainly shall, and I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank her for everything she does to stick up for UK fishing. Fishing has a glorious future in this country, in the west country, and in Scotland too, if only the House will do the right thing and allow us to come out on 31 October.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) thinks that nodding at me vigorously to the extent that it virtually constitutes a bow is the most efficacious means of being called. He may well have his opportunity in due course, but first I want to hear from Caroline Lucas.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

How can this House have any confidence in the Prime Minister’s claims that he does not want to lower standards, when his own deal precisely moves the so-called level playing field from the binding withdrawal agreement to the non-binding political declaration? Is not the truth that this deal takes a wrecking ball to our social and environmental standards, and the reason that he will not put it back to the British people is that he knows full well that they can see through his bluster and see that this is a profoundly bad deal?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid the hon. Lady has totally misread or misunderstood the provisions in the agreement. It is stated plainly in the political declaration that we will maintain the highest possible standards, and it is up to this House to do so. I think it is the will of this House, and this Government, to have even higher standards. This is the party and Government who have banned microbeads and are cracking down on plastics. We are leading the world in going for zero carbon by 2050. We are world leaders in environmental and animal welfare protection, and we will continue to be so outside the EU.

[Mr Speaker]

The time has come to uncork the Gauke.

[Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister said that he wanted to leave with a deal, and he has shown determination and flexibility to reach a deal, for which he deserves credit. He will be aware, however, that unless we reach a free trade agreement in the next stage of negotiations, there is a risk that Great Britain will leave the implementation period without a deal with the European Union. Can he commit today to showing the same determination and flexibility to ensure that we reach a deep and special partnership through a free trade agreement with the European Union, before we allow the implementation period to come to an end?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point—indeed, that was really the substantive point that I have been discussing with our European Union friends in the past couple of days. That is where they want to go now. They are interested in our timetable and in whether 14 months is enough, and it is absolutely right to focus on that. I think that it is enough; I think we can do it in 14 months. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asks why from a sedentary position. She may not know that we are already in perfect regulatory alignment with the European Union, and it may have escaped her that we already have zero-tariff and zero-quota arrangements with the EU. We have a fantastic opportunity to do a free trade deal. Yes, 14 months is a blistering pace, but we can get it done. I remind doubters and sceptics—[Interruption]—there they all are. They said that it was impossible to reopen the withdrawal agreement, they said we would never get rid of the backstop, and they said we would never get a deal. There is a very good deal on the table here today, and I hope they vote for it.

[Mr Speaker]

Patience rewarded. I call Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. While addressing the Democratic Unionist party conference in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no border down the Irish sea, whether customs, regulatory or any other sort. He promised the same thing to his Conservative colleagues during his pursuit of power to become the jungle king. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to formally apologise to the DUP, his Conservative colleagues and the good people of Northern Ireland for having sold them down the river and for having broken yet another promise?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say in all candour and humility that he misrepresents what I think is an excellent deal. It takes Northern Ireland out of the EU customs union and preserves it in the UK’s customs territory. It does not create a border in the Irish sea; it allows us together, as a single United Kingdom, to do free trade deals around the world. I think his constituents would want him to support this deal and get Brexit done tonight and on 31 October.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly commend my right hon. Friend for abolishing the anti-democratic backstop. On that basis, I will, having opposed the previous deal, be supporting this deal today. May I suggest this to him? Given that I and most of us in this place want a fair and good trade deal, and prefer that to no deal, does he accept that by abolishing the anti-democratic backstop we actually not only make a good and fair trade deal more likely, but we almost guarantee it given the common position we start from and our common interests with the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is spot on. He is right that both sides have a strong incentive to do a very good, best-in-class free trade deal by the end of next year. That is our ambition and that is what we are going to achieve.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)]

The Prime Minister’s Brexit Secretary was on television this morning. He confirmed that no economic analysis of the deal has been done. I ask the House to let that sink in: no economic analysis of the deal, on which we are all expected to vote today, has been done. How does the Prime Minister anticipate that Members on all sides the House can, in good faith, be expected to vote on a deal today that will impact on our country for decades to come?

[The Prime Minister]

I respectfully point out to the hon. Lady that the deal has been welcomed by a broad range of opinion, including the Governor of the Bank of England and the CBI. The choice for her today is between this deal, which I believe is very good for this country both economically and politically, and no deal. That is what she has to decide between.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Article 126 of the withdrawal agreement states that the transition period ends on 31 December 2020, but a few articles later, in article 132, it states that that can be extended for a further two years. If it was extended, we would still effectively be in the European Union six and a half years after the referendum. Will the Prime Minister say that while he is Prime Minister he will not consider extending past 31 December 2020?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, with his customary sagacity and grip on detail, is absolutely right about article 126. That article provides for the UK and the EU to decide that matter by Joint Committee. The UK would therefore have discretion or a veto in that matter. I can tell him now that I certainly would not want to extend beyond the end of next year, nor do I see any reason for delay—as indeed nor do I see any reason or excuse for delay beyond 31 October.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

There is a philosophical problem at the core of the Prime Minister’s argument today: he is promising his colleagues—particularly his most ardent Brexit-supporting colleagues—that the proposals before us offer a pathway to the deregulated future of which they have always dreamed, and at the same time, he is saying to Labour colleagues that he now has a new-found love for all the European workers’ rights that he built a journalistic career slagging off in the strongest terms. Both of these things cannot be true, so which one is?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right in what he says, but, of course, the first few things he said were wholly incorrect. There will be a high standard maintained—the very highest standards maintained —for workers’ rights and environmental protection. If he is not content with that, it is open to him as a Member of this House, as I have said, to take part in the setting of the mandate for the future partnership and to engage, as all parliamentarians are invited to, in drawing up the terms of our future partnership, and I hope he takes up that offer.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

As I understand it, the £39 billion for an FTA is based on EU alignment. Will my right hon. Friend confirm and reassure me that that will not affect or restrict UK tax, foreign or defence policies?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister will be well aware of the considerable anxiety, and indeed anger, caused to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland since the publication of his Brexit deal. I would like him to take this opportunity, since he has not bothered until now, to reach out and reassure the Unionist community. I would like him to take this opportunity publicly to reassure the people in Northern Ireland that there is nothing in his deal that undermines the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, as guaranteed by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the consent principle. I pay tribute to the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, who has given a very solemn explanation about his commitment to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, but as a Unionist, I need to hear a British Prime Minister making that commitment to the Unionist community.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I wish to reassure her that I make an absolute commitment to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, which is inviolable and intact. It may be that she has not seen the statement from Lord Trimble, who said of the change in the agreement that we have secured:

“Whilst, previously, the people of Northern Ireland were to have an agreement imposed on them, now we have a mechanism for the consent of the people of Northern Ireland”—

and that is

“fully in accordance with…the Good Friday Agreement.”

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)]

My right hon. Friend is right to characterise the political participation of the UK in the EU as too often uncertain, and it is one of the great regrets of my time here that what he says is true. We will never know, in a way, what the EU might have looked like if the United Kingdom had been a full partner, but if a new relationship with us outside the EU, for which I will be voting today, is to be a success, not only for the trade negotiations but for the diplomatic links, does he agree—as they read our newspapers and know what we say—that the relentless, persistent and too often 1940s anti-EU rhetoric must come to an end, no ifs and no buts?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is time that this country moved on. I may say that the best way in which he could show his support tonight for this deal would be gently to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that he remove the amendment standing in his name, which I am afraid is an impediment to such a verdict tonight.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

In my constituency, 71% voted to remain. The world-class researchers who are doing world-class and life-saving research at universities in Glasgow are not half-hearted Europeans. The children at Pollokshields Primary in Erasmus Plus programmes are not half-hearted Europeans. Those citizens who are completing projects in Glasgow funded by the European social fund are not half-hearted Europeans either. Does the Prime Minister agree that the only way for the people in my constituency to be full members of the European Union and retain that citizenship is for Scotland to be an independent country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is making a very important point. People feel very strongly about this matter, and they also feel very differently about it. What we have today is an opportunity to take the country forward with a new relationship that allows people who feel wholeheartedly passionate about Europe to express those feelings. Yes, students, professors, academics, artists and creators of all kinds will be able to share their enthusiasms with their friends across the EU under this deal; that is vital, and it is part of our ambition for the UK and for Europe.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I support my right hon. Friend in securing this deal, but he will acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed in relation to Northern Ireland. In addition to the commitments that he has given, especially over the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, please will he reaffirm his commitment to a new deal for Northern Ireland, investing in its infrastructure, investing in its prosperity and investing in its future as a proud part of our precious United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for everything that he has done for Northern Ireland. I think he would agree that the one thing that would really make a difference now to all those policy fields in Northern Ireland, and take Northern Ireland furthest forward the fastest, would be if we could get the Stormont Assembly up and running again and if the parties came together for government in Northern Ireland once more.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

At any point in the past three years, the Government could have agreed to internationally binding legal commitments to maintain existing workers’ rights and environmental protections and ensure that rights keep pace in the future. At every stage, they have refused to do so. Can the Prime Minister explain why people across this country should believe his empty promises now? If he is so confident that the British public will not see through his hollow rhetoric, why is he so afraid of giving them a final say?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady will know that the provisions on workers’ rights and environmental protections in the political decision are very ambitious. We want to maintain the highest possible standards. She should understand that whenever the EU introduces a new provision on workers’ rights, even if it is in some way inferior to our own by then, Parliament will have an opportunity to consider that new provision from the EU and put it into UK law.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said at the outset of his statement that the debate about our membership of the European Union has not just paralysed our politics but profoundly divided our society. The longer we have that debate, the more difficult it will be to reunite our country. Is it not incumbent on all of us in this place today to act in a way that seeks to settle that debate, not perpetuate it—and not to reject a good deal in the fruitless and impractical pursuit of a perfect deal?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. I think that this deal is about as perfect as you could get under the circumstances, if I say so myself, but yes, of course there are difficulties with it. I accept that people have objections to the current arrangements; all I can say is that those arrangements are there expressly by consent and are time-limited. We will go forward with a new deep and special partnership with our European friends that will supersede those arrangements. I think we should be very proud of the deal that we have today. Let us knock it through, if we possibly can, tonight.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Would the Prime Minister agree to pass an Act making it unlawful for us to leave at the end of the transition phase without a deal?

[The Prime Minister]

If I may say so respectfully, I do not believe that such Acts have necessarily been conducive to a stable negotiating position. By the way, I have not done enough in this statement to thank my team and those in the Foreign Office, the Department for Exiting the European Union and all the Departments of State, as well as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, David Frost and the many others who have worked to make this deal happen. I want to thank them very much for what they have done. I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think their position has been made easier by measures passed in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Not a good idea!

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Top Cat Davies.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

The people of Wales voted to leave, but many had concerns about a no-deal Brexit. Can I thank the Prime Minister for coming forward with a deal that respects the result in Wales and delivers on the concerns of those who did not want a hard Brexit? As the Welsh would say: mae’n hi’n bryd. Diolch yn fawr.

[The Prime Minister]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks for Wales, as ever. It is a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can now cheer up, because he is going to be heard.

[Pete Wishart]

I have a cheery disposition, Mr Speaker, but Scotland says we reject this—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I could not do so. I want to hear his dulcet tones. Blurt it out, man.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Scotland says today that we reject this rotten deal. We will be taken out of the European Union, which we value and cherish, against our national collective will, be deprived of the customs union and single market and be left at a competitive disadvantage to our friends in Northern Ireland. Is it not the case that Scotland can retain its EU membership only by becoming a normal independent nation?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is sadly in error if he thinks that Northern Ireland is part of the EU customs union. It is simply not; it is part of the UK customs union, as indeed is Scotland, which is greatly to the benefit of the people of Scotland.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Ribble Valley voted 57% to leave. Every constituency in Lancashire, whether held by a Labour or Conservative MP, voted to leave the EU in 2016. What message would my right hon. Friend send to Members representing leave constituencies? How should they vote tonight?

[The Prime Minister]

I remember vividly campaigning with my hon. Friend at cattle markets and elsewhere where he attracted strong support for his views. He is right. I hope very much that people in the House tonight will respect the views of their constituents—not just their belief that Brexit needs to be done, but their passionate desire to move on to our dynamic domestic agenda of expanding our health service, improving our healthcare, investing in education, putting more police officers on the street and taking this country forward. The Labour party offers nothing but dither, division, doubt and delay. It is completely mistaken.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister used the phrase “European friends” over and over again in his statement, and we in this House know that he likes to treat his friends with great generosity. Bearing that in mind, will he distance himself from the comments last week of the Security Minister, who said that our European friends in this country could face deportation if they did not get settled status by next year?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady has raised a very important point. Perhaps I should have said more about it in my opening remarks, because I think that this is one of the things that the Government have done well over the last few years. Perhaps we should have been faster, but we are finally giving the 3.4 million the assurances that they need, and the EU settled status scheme is now working extremely well. It is vital that everybody—all the EU citizens living in our country—has the reassurances that they need.

I might add that it is also vital—this is a point that I made to our colleagues in Brussels—that there should be symmetry. At the moment there is not perfect symmetry, and it is important that as we come out and give our EU nationals the treatment they deserve, that is reciprocated on the other side of the channel. By and large it is, but there is some progress to be made.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm what business has been telling us for many months now—that there is enormous pent-up investment waiting to be released into the UK economy when the fog and lack of clarity of this stage of Brexit has been lifted? Will he also confirm that very last thing that business wants to see from today’s proceedings in this House of Commons is further delay, fogginess and confusion?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. I do think that the whole business world has been, as it were, holding its breath and waiting for us to get this thing done. There is massive confidence and excitement about this country and its future. Businesses want to invest: let us give them an opportunity to do so in the course of the next few weeks and months.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). Does the Prime Minister not agree that one of the confusions that we face, in the House but more so in the country, is that some—not all—of those who wish to remain often appear in Brexit clothing? Does he agree that today there is a motion on the Order Paper for those of us who want to deliver on the promise in the referendum, and that only one vote is necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken with his customary honesty and insight. I think it would be a good thing if the House were able to have what I think was promised to it and to the country, namely a meaningful vote tonight, but my fear is that the vote that we have will not prove to be meaningful, and I think that, given the solemnity of this occasion, that would be a great pity.

[Mr Speaker]

In the name of breadth and equality, having called Mr Stephen Crabb, I now call Mr Marcus Fysh. [Laughter.]

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

The Union is of massive importance to many in this House. Will my right hon. Friend commit himself to mitigating, subsidising and defraying the costs of any new arrangements for customs within Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Not only that, but if my hon. Friend studies the agreement, he will see that it is open to the UK authorities to give support of any kind that is necessary to alleviate any impacts that may result from the arrangements that we will put in place, whatever the implications may be for state aids.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister understand the worries of manufacturers about new rules of origin checks and other red tape that his deal would impose on them, and the fears of Make UK that reassurances in the deal negotiated by his predecessor have been dropped from his deal?

[The Prime Minister]

The reason I am not worried about that is that there are no new rules of origin checks. This is a deal that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get behind and support, because it represents stability and certainty for business.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

I think it important that other voices from Scotland are asking Scottish MPs to vote for this deal, such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scotch Whisky Association. They all believe that it is best for industry, the economy and jobs. Scottish Conservatives will vote for this deal, and Scottish nationalists will once again vote for a no-deal Brexit.

[The Prime Minister]

There speaks the true voice of Scotland! My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in what she says, and I venture to say that the constituents of SNP Members overwhelmingly tonight want that party —even that party—to get Brexit done and move this country on. I bet they do, Mr Speaker!

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister has said there will be no border down the Irish sea, yet every good imported from GB to Northern Ireland will be subject to a customs declaration, a physical movement subject to checks, and tariffs have to be paid until it can be proved where the goods are going to. Will he accept that while he may have avoided a regulatory border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, he has put a legal, customs and economic border between the country to which we belong and the economy on which we depend? Rather than a great deal, this will do a great deal of damage to the Union.

[The Prime Minister]

On the contrary. What this does is protect Northern Ireland by extracting Northern Ireland whole and entire from the EU customs union and allowing Northern Ireland to join the whole UK in setting our own tariffs. In so far as there may be checks at a few places in Northern Ireland, physical checks would involve only 1% of the goods coming in. If that is too much of a burden, it is open to the people of Northern Ireland, by a majority, to decide that they no longer wish to participate in those arrangements. It is being done by consent. It is a very, very ingenious scheme that gets Northern Ireland out of the customs union and allows the whole UK to do free trade together, with minimum bureaucracy.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The British people are watching this place very carefully and history is recording what we say. The clear majority message from my constituents is that they want the Brexit they voted for delivered, and this deal does that. Can I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that we will not only maintain, but enhance, our environmental and animal welfare standards?

[The Prime Minister]

I can indeed give that assurance, and I can tell my hon. Friend, who campaigned to leave the EU for those reasons among others, we will indeed have higher standards of protection for animal welfare, the environment and other matters.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

North Wales is a major artery to Northern Ireland by road and by boat, and to the Irish Republic by road and by boat, but also to the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland by road and by boat. Given what the Prime Minister has said today—there will be no tariffs on goods “unless they are at risk of entering the EU”; that is in his statement—where and when will the border checks be, and where and when will there be tariffs, because people will face them under his proposals?

[The Prime Minister]

There are not any tariffs on goods, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, going GB-NI or NI-GB.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

We all know that the people of our country are desperate to end this uncertainty, but we often forget that the people of the other 27 countries are also desperate to end this uncertainty, and our Prime Minister has needed to get consent from all 27 countries. Does he agree that if this House fails to back this deal today, or seeks to kick the can down the road again, we will create more uncertainty, not less?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and the choice is very clear today for this House and for the country: it is really this deal or a no-deal Brexit. I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, it can be right for the UK to delay beyond 31 October when that is expensive, pointless and a waste of spirit and an expense of shame that would achieve absolutely nothing whatever.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)]

Evidence matters, Prime Minister. How can he possibly assure our constituents that this is a good deal if he has not carried out an economic impact assessment of what it will cost them? If he has carried that out, why on earth are we not able to see it as we debate this today?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I direct her to the answers I have already given on that point. Many business groups have already come out in support of the deal because it gives certainty and stability and allows the country to move on. I think it will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) just said, unleash a great deal of investment in the UK.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the tone in which he has delivered it. He and I have had some robust conversations in the last six weeks, and he has done what he promised me he would do: sought a Brexit deal and brought it back to this House. I was pleased to hear him mention the 48%. There are a lot of people for whom we need the losers’ consent to deliver Brexit safely. Does he agree that the way to do that is with the deal he has proposed, which is well worthy of all our support?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend’s support means a great deal to me. He and I did have long conversations about this, and I did my best to convince him that I was in earnest in seeking a deal. I truly was, and I am very pleased with the result that we have secured. I am delighted that he feels able to support it tonight. To get back to the key point, the deal gives people who love Europe, in the broadest possible way, a real chance to move forward and work with us to develop a new partnership with our European friends. That is the opportunity. Everything else is stasis and division. This is the way forward.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said:

“I am doing my best to persuade colleagues…who, like me, voted three times against Theresa May’s deal, to look at this in a favourable light…provided we can get that clear assurance, and I have been given it so far by people like Michael Gove and Dominic Raab…that…if those trade talks fail up to December 2020, we will be leaving on no-deal terms.”

Have members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet given those assurances? If, indeed, no deal is therefore not ruled out by supporting the Prime Minister today, why will he not tell the country the truth?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) made it clear in the House just now—perhaps the hon. Lady was listening—that he wants and will work for a great new free trade agreement. That is indeed what we will do. I respectfully say to the hon. Lady, as I say to all hon. Friends and Members, that if they wish to avoid a no-deal outcome, the single best thing we can all do is vote for the deal tonight.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I strongly support the deal. Is it not the case that, whatever the Government, we in this Parliament will be able to strengthen workers’ rights without recourse to an external authority? Is it also not the case that we will be able to spend the billions of pounds we save from leaving the European Union on public services and cutting the cost of living for ordinary folk across our country?

[The Prime Minister]

That voice of Harlow is completely right. By the way, we will be able to get on with investing in hospitals in my right hon. Friend’s area. Yes, of course, it is open to this House and this country to strengthen workers’ rights beyond the standards in the EU. As I said, every new regulation or directive that comes from Brussels on this matter will, of course, be capable of being scrutinised by this House, which will be able to decide whether it is right to implement it in UK law. It seems to me that we cannot say fairer than that. We can go further than the EU, but we can also track it if we choose.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

Following the earlier question from the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), the Prime Minister will know that there is a great deal of anxiety in the business community that it faces a cliff edge at the end of next year. Will he reiterate what seemed to be his assurance that the transition will be extended until his free trade agreement has been concluded?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about a cliff edge—I, frankly, am not as worried as he is, because I think we will do a great free trade deal by then—the best thing he can do is vote for this deal tonight. I am looking at him carefully to see whether he might have that in his heart; I hope he does. He says that he is opposed to a no-deal Brexit and that is the way to avoid it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint the remaining right hon. and hon. Members but, having called no fewer than 55 Back Benchers, I judge that it is time to proceed to the debate on the motions.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Secretary of State of State for Exiting the European Union to move motion 1, I remind the House that I have selected amendment (a) in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).

11:25

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)]

I beg to move,

That, in light of the new deal agreed with the European Union, which enables the United Kingdom to respect the result of the referendum on its membership of the European Union and to leave the European Union on 31 October with a deal, and for the purposes of section 1(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 and section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this House approves the negotiated withdrawal agreement titled Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and the framework for the future relationship titled Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom has concluded with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, as well as a Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the Democratic consent in Northern Ireland provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, copies of these three documents which were laid before this House on Saturday 19 October.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss motion 2:

That this House approves the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union on exit day, without a withdrawal agreement as defined in section 20(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

[Stephen Barclay]

Today is the time for this House to come together and move forward. Someone who previously did that, and whom many Members of the House will still remember, was the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mo Mowlam. Her biography was called “Momentum” before that was a faction forcing out its own colleagues—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that passions are inflamed, but I appeal to colleagues to weigh their words and to try to preserve the principle of political difference, personal amiability.

[Stephen Barclay]

That spirit of bringing people together was what I was seeking to pay tribute to. After 1,213 days and frequent debates in this Chamber, now is the time for this House to move forward. Another pivotal figure in bringing different views together was Lord Trimble, who won the Nobel peace prize for his contribution to the Good Friday agreement. He has made clear his support for this deal, confirming that it is fully in accordance with the spirit of that agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland will be granted consent over their future as a result of the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated. This deal also delivers on the referendum in a way that protects all parts of our Union against those who would seek to use division and delay to break it up, particularly those on the SNP Benches. As such, it is a deal that honours not one but two referendums by protecting both our democratic vote but also our United Kingdom.

This House called for a meaningful vote. Yet some who championed that now suggest that we should delay longer still. I respect the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) who, indeed, has supported a deal three times and has indicated his support today. However, his amendment would render today’s vote meaningless. It would cause further delay when our constituents and our businesses want an end to uncertainty and are calling for us to get this done. The public will be appalled by pointless further delay. We need to get Brexit done by 31 October so that the country can move forward and, in that spirit, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State pointed out that some hon. Members have voted against a Brexit deal since the referendum, including the Prime Minister, who did so twice. Why do the Government not have the courage, therefore, to allow the same privilege to the people of this country by allowing them to make their judgment on this deal?

[Stephen Barclay]

If the hon. Gentleman really thought that, he would have supported an election to let the people have their say on this issue, but he declined to do so. It is important that politicians do not pick and choose which votes they adhere to and that we respect the biggest vote in our country’s history.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has just said the public do not want a delay. I was in Rainham yesterday, and 100% of the people I met said that they want Brexit delivered and that this Prime Minister’s deal delivers on Brexit. I applaud the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for getting this done.

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks not just for his constituents but for people and, indeed, businesses up and down the country who want to see Brexit done.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who now call for a second referendum have denied the result of the first referendum? How, then, could the British people ever trust us to follow through on a second referendum?

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, some of those voices distrust not only one referendum but two referendums, and now they want a third referendum on which to campaign.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that many of us have long campaigned to leave the European Union. Will he tell me now why this agreement does not give an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to opt in and consent to what has been decided? That would have made a crucial difference to people on the pro-Union side in Northern Ireland who, like me, genuinely feel that, somehow, the United Kingdom Government are letting them down and giving in to others.

[Stephen Barclay]

As the hon. Lady should know, the unilateral declaration published with the documentation on both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration does, indeed, allow for a consent mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the Prime Minister set out in his statement, it is right when we make a decision based on a majority across the United Kingdom that the Assembly reach a decision on that basis without one community having the power of veto over the other.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State has followed the example of the Prime Minister in quoting David Trimble. I pay tribute to David Trimble as a great leader of the Ulster Unionist party; he now sits as a Tory Member of the other place. I asked the Prime Minister and am now asking the Secretary of State for a clear guarantee that there is nothing in this new Brexit deal that undermines or weakens the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, as guaranteed in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the consent principle. Do not quote Lord Trimble to me. Give me a clear commitment.

[Stephen Barclay]

I refer the hon. Lady to the letter that the Prime Minister sent to President Juncker on 2 October. The first commitment within that letter was the absolute commitment of this Prime Minister and this Government to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We share that commitment not just within the United Kingdom but with our friends in the Irish Government. That is why we have shown flexibility in the arrangements, some of which have caused difficulty to some colleagues in the House, to address the concerns, particularly in the nationalist community, about the possible impact on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) mentioned the opt-in, which was in the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Jean-Claude Juncker two weeks ago—that is where it came from—but it has since been abandoned. The Prime Minister and others seem a bit bemused, but that was an opt-in.

Secondly, the Secretary of State now talks about it having to be agreed by majority vote. Can we now take it that the Government’s policy is to do away with vetoes on, for instance, getting the Assembly up and running? Four of the five parties in Northern Ireland want the Assembly up and running—the Assembly will meet on Monday, which is good news—so does that veto no longer apply? [Interruption.] I see the Prime Minister nodding, for which I am grateful. That is a very big breakthrough in Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Barclay]

It is also worth clarifying—this speaks very much to the unilateral declaration and the concerns on how it operates—that this is about a reserved matter that applies to our international agreements as a United Kingdom and not the powers that sit with the Assembly, within the Good Friday agreement. That is why there was not a willingness to give one community a power of veto over the other.

[Nigel Dodds]

It is simply not true to say that agriculture and manufactured goods, and so on, are reserved matters. These are matters devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Secretary of State is just not correct. Please do not use that argument. This was recognised by the Prime Minister in the letter he sent to Jean-Claude Juncker only a few weeks ago.

[Stephen Barclay]

The difficulty with that argument, with great respect—I do very much respect the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns—is that Stormont is not sitting at present. That is why we have the mechanism set out further in the unilateral declaration on how that declaration on how that will be addressed if Stormont is not sitting.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)]

When, a few weeks ago, I voted for the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019—distressingly, it is often referred to as the Benn Act, rather than given its full title: the Benn-Burt Act—it was with the clear intention of ensuring that maximum effort was committed to the negotiations in order to secure a deal and prevent the risk of no deal. I am grateful to the Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having succeeded in an objective that did not at the time seem to gather favour. Now that they have succeeded in that, I want a vote on it tonight. Having referred to the good intentions of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in moving his amendment today, which I will be voting against, could the Secretary of State give some reassurance to the House as to why he believes it is not necessary if we are to fulfil the terms of the deal and the efforts that have been made in the past few weeks?

[Stephen Barclay]

I will come to that precise point shortly, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support—perhaps the legislation should now be called the Burt-Benn Act, rather than the Benn-Burt Act.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Barclay]

I will make a little more progress before taking further interventions.

This is a deal that the Prime Minister was told was impossible. We were told that the withdrawal agreement could not be changed. Indeed, the shadow Brexit Secretary used to hold up the text of the agreement and say that not a word had been changed. We were told that the backstop could not be removed; it was the all-weather, all-life insurance on which the European Union relied. We were told that there was insufficient time for a new deal, and indeed that the negotiations were a sham—and sometimes that was just from the voices on our own side.

The real significance of the Prime Minister’s achievement is that the people of Northern Ireland will have a vote that will give them consent over their future arrangements, and there will no longer be any European veto over what those future arrangements will be. Just as importantly, the deal changes the dynamics of the future negotiations. Before, many Members of the House were concerned that the backstop would be used as leverage, with the EU holding the prospect of our being permanently stuck in its orbit against us. Indeed, many Members spoke about it being easier to leave the EU than to leave the backstop. With this new deal, because of the need for Northern Ireland’s consent over its future, the dynamics of the future relationship will change, because the EU’s interests will be aligned with ours in reaching a future relationship that benefits both sides.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

In my constituency, 52% of people voted to leave and 48% voted to remain. When we come to the sheer weight of legislation that will be needed to put into force the referendum result, might we not only keep faith with the 52% by leaving, but remember, as we have experienced today in the House, that 48% did not wish to leave?

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much respect that point. The right hon. Gentleman has always reached out to build consensus across the House, which is important. The commitment that the Prime Minister gave in his statement, on how the House will be consulted on the new phase of negotiations, is intended in part to address the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman and other Members across the House have raised, in order to have a balanced approach to the future relationship.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I listened intently to the Prime Minister’s statement and the debate that followed, and it seemed that assurances were given to Europhiles that the intention in phase 2 would be to follow close regulatory alignment with the EU, yet a carrot was offered to Eurosceptics in the form of there being unalignment, and even the suggestion that no deal would not be off the table in phase 2. Both cannot be true, so which is it?

[Stephen Barclay]

Paragraph 77 sets out our commitment to high international standards and to their being reciprocal, as befits the relationship that we reach with the European Union. The hon. Gentleman really should have more confidence that we in this House will set regulation that is world leading and best in class, that reflects the Queen’s Speech, with its world-leading regulation on the environment, and that reflects the commitments that many in the House have sought on workers’ rights. We should also be mindful that, of course, it is this House that went ahead of the EU on paternity rights and parental leave. We can go further than the EU in protecting people’s rights, rather than simply match the EU.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is my assessment that the deal struck by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accords with the Good Friday agreement. I think it presages a new golden age for relationships north and south of the border, which is to be welcomed. I congratulate the Government on adopting the stance of consent rather than veto—that reflects modern island-of-Ireland politics today.

[Stephen Barclay]

As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this issue. I know that he in particular will have recognised the importance of the fact that the whole of the United Kingdom will benefit from our future trade deals around the world, with every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, leaving, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, whole and entire.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is right that we examine the detail in this place, and the Secretary of State is doing a great job in answering the questions, but may I suggest to him that we, as a collective body, need a slightly more optimistic note? It is my firm belief that now we have got rid of the backstop, we will achieve a fair and good trade deal by December 2020. We should be focused on that, rather than on all the minor detail. It is a bright future, if we decide to take it today.

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right to talk of the opportunity for trade deals that Brexit unlocks. We start from a position of great understanding of the respective economies—a big part of a trade deal is usually negotiating that understanding at the start—and we can seize the opportunities of those trade deals around the world. That is exactly why we need to move forward.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Should the House divide later on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the amendment will have my support. I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a way through that brings the consensus he talks about: we support the amendment and the Government table the legislation next week so that we can scrutinise the detail. We can then make meaningful decisions on Second and Third Reading, but, crucially, those of us who have some reservations about the Government’s trustworthiness can see the commitments that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made from the Dispatch Box, which I welcome, written on the face of the Bill before we make that final, crucial decision on how we continue the process.

[Stephen Barclay]

I respect the care with which the hon. Gentleman has looked at these issues, but his constituents, like many throughout the country, now want the country to move forward and for us to get this deal done. There is of course a distinction between the meaningful vote today and the further opportunities there will be on Second and Third Reading of the withdrawal agreement Bill for assurance to be provided for in line with the statements that the Prime Minister has made from the Dispatch Box today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Barclay]

I shall give way once more and then I must make some progress.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Surely the crucial point of this new deal is that it offers Great Britain a fairly hard Brexit in order to facilitate trade agreements with countries for which European standards are incompatible. An economy cannot be a European-style economy and a US-style economy at the same time. The Secretary of State is not giving us an economic assessment to tell us what jobs and industries will grow on the back of this deal and what goods and services will be cheaper to compensate for loss of aerospace, automotive, financial services and so much more. He cannot tell us that today.

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman really should listen to business leaders like Sir Stuart Rose who says that we should get this deal done; to the Bank of England Governor, who says that this will be a boost to our economy; and to the many business leaders who want an end to this uncertainty. We cannot simply keep debating the same issues in a House that has said no to everything and refused to say yes to anything.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This debate should be about restoring the independence of our country in accordance with the votes of the referendum. Given that in the implementation period the EU will have massive powers over us, is there something that the Government can build into the draft legislation to give us reassurance that the EU will not abuse those very excessive powers?

[Stephen Barclay]

Yes, I am happy to give that reassurance to my right hon. Friend. That is something that we can commit to do as we move forward.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about there not being pointless delay, and I actually agree with him about that. This matter has to be brought to a conclusion, but he must be aware that quite apart from approving it in its generality, we also have a duty as a House to look at the detail of this deal in primary legislation. In the course of that, the House is entitled to pass amendments which, provided they do not undermine the treaty itself, are wholly legitimate. The difficulty is that, by insisting that the Benn Act be effectively subverted and removed, the impression the Government are giving is that they have other intentions—of taking us out at such a gallop that that proper scrutiny cannot take place. I wish the Government would just listen a little bit, because I think that they would find there is much more common ground on this than they have ever been prepared to acknowledge, instead of which they continue to give the impression that they just want to drive a coach and horses through the rights of this House to carry out proper scrutiny.

[Stephen Barclay]

I have always had great respect for the legal acumen and the seriousness of my right hon. and learned Friend, but there is an inconsistency in his case when he talks about wanting to look at legislation in more detail, having supported the Benn-Burt legislation that was passed in haste, and having supported the Cooper legislation, which needed to be corrected by Lord Pannick and others in the House of Lords, because it would have had the effect of doing the opposite of what it intended as it would have forced a Prime Minister to come back to this House after the EU Council had finished, thereby making a no deal more likely rather than less. That Cooper legislation is a very good example of where my right hon. and learned Friend did not look at legislation in detail, and, indeed, where it would have had a perverse consequence at odds with his arguments for supporting it at the time. Indeed, there is a further inconsistency: he championed section 13, but when the Prime Minister secured a new deal, which my right hon. and learned Friend said that he could not achieve, he then denies the House a right to vote in a meaningful way as required by his own section 13 because he no longer wants it to apply on the same rules as it did when he passed it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. This deal has hardly lacked scrutiny, given the number of times it has been voted on and debated in this House, although we now have an altered deal. May I just point out that the implementing legislation is simply that: it does not alter the substance of the agreement but merely implements the agreement in domestic law. We can do that very quickly and amend that Bill after ratification of the agreement if necessary, because it is only a piece of domestic implementing legislation. There is no case for delaying that legislation, and I am going to vote for the deal today, if I get the chance.

[Stephen Barclay]

First, I welcome the support of my hon. Friend. One issue that the shadow Secretary of State and I agree on is that, on these issues, there has not been a lack of scrutiny, given the frequency with which we seem to debate them in the House.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of what the motion is addressing today. The motion is addressing the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The mechanism to implement that—the withdrawal agreement Bill—has still to be debated. Indeed, even that pertains only to the winding-down arrangements and not, as is often referenced in this House, to the future trade deal that we want to get on and debate. It is therefore rather odd that the main issue—our relationship with Europe—is being thwarted because of a circular, endless debate on the same issue, when we need to support the deal today in order to unlock the withdrawal agreement Bill that we need to debate.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Is not the simple fact of the matter that all the people who cry out for a deal have to support the deal that has been brought forward by the Prime Minister? It is a first step on the way to many other opportunities that this House will have to discuss this particular issue, but we really have to move forward now and respect the result of the referendum three and a half years ago.

[Stephen Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the first step, not the final one. The House will have further opportunities to debate these issues.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that amendment (a) is a panic measure by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others, because they had no idea or confidence that a deal would be before us today that would allow those of us in this House who want to secure a deal to move on and leave the European Union by 31 October? As a result, if the House votes for amendment (a) today, we will be forced—even if a deal is approved—to seek an extension until 31 January, underlining that the sponsors of Benn Act had only one motivation: to delay Brexit and stop it.

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much agree with the right hon. Lady’s points, as well as with the principle and consistency that she has shown throughout the debate. It is indeed an interesting snippet within the point that she raises that some of the voices in the media this morning were complaining that there had been insufficient time between the deal on 17 October and the debate in the House today, 19 October. And yet, this is the timescale that the Benn legislation itself required of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when it came to bringing issues before the House.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for very kindly giving way. He has used the word “scrutiny” on a number of occasions in his contribution so far, yet he was on BBC News this morning confirming that no economic analysis has been done on the deal presented to the House today. [Interruption.] Government Members may shake their heads, but how can this House be expected to vote on something so fundamental to the future of our country without that analysis?

[Stephen Barclay]

I suspect that a point on which the hon. Lady and I could agree is that there is probably no level of analysis that is going to change her vote and her mind. As a former Treasury Minister, I am always aware —as I am sure the Chancellor himself would recognise—that it is indeed difficult to model a deal that was only done on Thursday, which cannot anticipate what changes the new EU Commission under new leadership will make, which does not set out what changes the UK will make in response to that, and which cannot second-guess what changes will happen in the wider world economy that will clearly have an impact on such an economic model.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State represents North East Cambridgeshire and is a member of the Conservative and Unionist party. I am a member of the Democratic Unionist party. A Unionist in Strangford at this moment in time is a second-class citizen by comparison with a Unionist in North East Cambridgeshire. Can the Secretary of State tell me why the Unionist people in Northern Ireland—my children, my grandchildren and their birthright—will be secondary to Unionists anywhere else across the United Kingdom? Does he not understand the angst, fear and annoyance of Unionists in Northern Ireland? We have been treated as second-class citizens in this deal and, as I see it, our opinion means nothing.

[Stephen Barclay]

Members from across the House who have seen the assiduous nature of hon. Gentleman, particularly in Adjournment debates, will know that his constituents never get a second-class service from him. In the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated, he has tried to operate in the same spirit that I know the hon. Gentleman does by ensuring that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom customs union and leaves whole and entire. As a consequence, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine in North East Cambridgeshire, will benefit from the great trade deals that I know the Secretary of State for International Trade intends to negotiate.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The aim of amendment (a) is clear. The emperor has no clothes; it is to stop us leaving the European Union at any cost. The European Research Group met this morning. Normally, our meetings are private, but in the circumstances, there were three things that I thought I could share with the House. First, the officers overwhelmingly recommended backing the Prime Minister’s deal. Secondly, the ERG overwhelmingly recommended the same and no member of the ERG spoke against it. Thirdly, and most importantly, we agreed that those who vote for the deal vote for the Bill. If the deal is passed today, we will faithfully vote the Bill through to the end, so that we can leave the European Union. You have our word.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, which, coming from someone who opposed the previous deal, is a reflection of the fact that this is a deal for everyone—a deal for the 52 and for the 48; a deal for Northern Ireland and for Cambridgeshire. This is a deal that benefits the United Kingdom—in particular, by enabling us to move forward and, above all, take back control of our fisheries.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

rose—

[Stephen Barclay]

On which point I am sure the hon. Gentleman is about to intervene.

[Alan Brown]

Obviously, Northern Ireland is getting preferential treatment. Although it has not brought the DUP on board, Northern Ireland is getting special access to the single market and the Government have promised more money to Northern Ireland, yet Scotland is being left high and dry. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Scottish Tory Members did not ask for any concessions for Scotland—that they got no concessions and are just Lobby fodder?

[Stephen Barclay]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman very clearly what the Scottish Conservative MPs secured, which is control of our fishing policy—something that he and other Members would give back to Brussels.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Barclay]

Let me make some progress, then I will take further interventions.

By contrast with the efforts of the Prime Minister—who was told that a deal was impossible and that neither the backstop nor one word of the withdrawal agreement could be amended—the Leader of the Opposition appears to have rejected the deal before he has even read it. This is an Opposition who cannot see further than opposition for opposition’s sake.

The shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), will always, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, have read the detail. He has been in post throughout the three years, but during that time has used a wide range of arguments to support his case. He said in July 2018:

“We respect the result of the…referendum”,

and he recognised that we are leaving the European Union, but he now says that

“any outcome…must be subject to a referendum and we would campaign for remain”.

He said that Labour’s concerns were never about the withdrawal agreement or the backstop;

“They were about the Political Declaration”.

That is what he put on Twitter on 17 October this year, yet he used to stand in this Chamber and object to the withdrawal agreement because it had not changed. At the time of the third meaningful vote, which was purely on the withdrawal agreement and not the political declaration, he still objected to the withdrawal agreement. In 2018, he said that Labour could not support a withdrawal agreement without

“a mechanism for universal exit”,

which is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured through the vote of consent for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the shadow Secretary of State now says that the issue is no longer about the withdrawal agreement; it is instead about the political declaration.

For much of this debate, Labour has been for being a participant in the EU customs union, yet we have heard from a senior member of the Labour party that its real position is 100% remain. As one media report alleged this week, during the cross-party talks, Labour even rejected a copy-and-paste of its own proposal, describing it as “unacceptable”.

Some in government have cautioned against listening to experts during this debate, but it is clear from business experts and the Bank of England’s Governor—

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and I were in the same room at the time; he knows very well that that is not true—the idea that I would not know our own proposal. He knows that; he was there. Withdraw it!

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw!

[Stephen Barclay]

If hon. Members will give me a moment, the shadow Secretary of State and I have always conducted our debates in the House with great courtesy, so in that spirit, of course I withdraw that. That is a good illustration of what today’s debate is really about. We could get into the detail of whether we are presenting something aligned to what he has previously said and whether the sense is the same, but today is about this House and the country coming together and moving on from these debates and the talks, although the real issue in the talks was some people’s desire for a second referendum, rather than a desire to get into the detail of how we could resolve the issues.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

This is at least the seventh opportunity the House has had to avoid a harmful no deal. There were three occasions relating to the former Prime Minister’s deal; there was the European Free Trade Association; there was Norway; and there was the customs union. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be folly to let this final opportunity to avoid a damaging crash-out slip through our fingers?

[Stephen Barclay]

I know that my hon. Friend speaks for his constituents, and for businesses across the country, who recognise that now is the time to support this deal and for the House to move on.

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Ind)]

rose—

[Stephen Barclay]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]

[Mr Vaizey]

We will find out if the Secretary of State made the right decision in giving way. I have a genuine question.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

For once.

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes. I am asking for a friend. If the Letwin amendment is passed and the Bill comes in next week and is agreed to before 31 October, we will leave on 31 October, but if the Letwin amendment is not passed and the Bill comes forward next week but is not agreed to by 31 October, we will leave with no deal—yes or no?

[Stephen Barclay]

I say yes to this: to proceed, we need to comply with section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is the argument that the right hon. Gentleman and many others have repeatedly made. If we are to deliver that and avoid any further delay, it is important that we defeat amendment (a).

[Rehman Chishti]

The Secretary of State says that the deal is about moving on. One of the real obstacles that prevented us from moving on was the backstop. I resigned from the Government and a party position in November over the backstop. Can he confirm that what we have now completely gets rid of the backstop and is about moving on?

[Stephen Barclay]

I can very much confirm that. The Prime Minister was told that the backstop could not be removed, but its removal is exactly what he has achieved. He was told that was impossible, but he has delivered.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to the debate about the timing. Is it not clear that if the Letwin amendment is defeated and we make a decision today that is actually complying with—not subverting, but complying with—the Benn-Burt Act by bringing forward a deal and winning that vote, yes, we will have to get the legislation through this House quickly, and that will probably mean sitting for long days and probably long nights, but we can get it done? However, if the amendment passes and there is an extension, my guess is that that legislation will go on and on, and we will never leave. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is absolutely right: if we want to get this done, vote against the Letwin amendment, for the motion today and get the legislation through by the end of October—and get Brexit done.

[Stephen Barclay]

As a former Government Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right on the process that applies. The other issue that is sometimes forgotten is that our friends and colleagues in Europe do not want any further delay and do not want to see any extension, but want to see us get on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Barclay]

I will give way one further time, and then I will move on.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Ind)]

My right hon. Friend does not want to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), so I will. If the Letwin amendment passes, and the Government bring forward the Bill at the start of next week and that Bill passes before 31 October, we will leave on 31 October without a delay. If the Letwin amendment fails, and the Government bring forward the Bill and some people in the ERG, such as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), suddenly discover that they prefer the idea of a no-deal Brexit and the Bill fails, we will leave on 31 October with no deal.

[Stephen Barclay]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that it is at odds with the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who says that we need to pass this amendment to have more scrutiny and delay and to take much longer, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we need the amendment to be able to leave on —[Interruption.]

[Mr Baron]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Grieve]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I call Mr John Baron.

[Mr Baron]

I do not usually do this, but given that there was a very factual error in the comment just made by an Opposition Member, may I say, just for the record, that I have never been a member of the ERG and I am not a member of the ERG?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter of extraordinary interest in the House and possibly across the nation—I say that to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest spirit—but it is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman has advertised his non-membership of the ERG, and I hope he feels better for it.

[Mr Grieve]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely mistaken and cannot have been listening to what I said when I intervened on him. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who asked him the question, because that must be the position. The intention behind the Letwin amendment is to secure that insurance policy—nothing more, nothing less.

[Mr Speaker]

I say, mainly for the benefit of those observing our proceedings who are not Members of the House, that in common with the overwhelming majority of purported points of order, that was not a point of order. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put his point on the record, and he, too, will doubtless go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step as a consequence.

[Stephen Barclay]

The problem with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument is that it is at odds with what he says about section 13. Each time it is a different argument, but the purpose is always the same, and that is to delay any resolution, to stop this House moving forward and to stop us getting Brexit done.

There are many in this House who have said repeatedly in debates that their principal concern is avoiding a no-deal exit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), on the Prime Minister’s statement, made that point. Today is the opportunity for all Members of this House to demonstrate that they want to avoid a no-deal exit, to support this deal and to get Brexit done. This is a deal that takes back control of our money, borders and laws. It gives the people of Northern Ireland the freedom to choose their future. It allows the whole United Kingdom to benefit from our trade deals, and it ensures that we move forward as one complete Union of the United Kingdom.

In securing the new deal, the Prime Minister observed with his EU colleagues that a failure by them to listen to this Parliament, and in particular its decision on the backstop, would indeed be a failure of statecraft. They have listened; they have acted; and they have reached a new deal with the Prime Minister. It would now be a failure of this Parliament not to approve this deal and to fail to respond to that flexibility from EU leaders as required.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I will hear a point of order from the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. I was shocked to hear the Secretary of State mention the name of Mo Mowlam in his introductory remarks. Mo Mowlam said that the EU contributed to the Northern Ireland peace process and that it was crucial in underpinning dialogue and cross-community contacts. She emphasised the precariousness of the process and the need for continued “substantial” support from the European Union. May I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how we can seek to defend her legacy when it is abused in such a way?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Lady knows, I recognise the sincerity with which she speaks, and the constituency basis, of which I hope colleagues are conscious, that motivates her to defend the legacy of Mo Mowlam. As she also knows, she has successfully found her own salvation through that bogus, but sincere, point of order. Her point is on the record, and it can be studied by colleagues in the House and by people outside.

12:11

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Today, we meet on a Saturday for the first time in 37 years, with huge decisions before us this afternoon. Those decisions are not just about whether this deal gets over the line, and getting Brexit done, but about what it means for our country. There has been a lot of attention on how the deal operates in Northern Ireland, and rightly so, but that should not be allowed to mask the political project that is driving this deal. That is why Labour has focused on the political declaration, and any examination of the detail of that political declaration reveals its true purpose and the intent of the deal.

No customs union—that strikes at the heart of our manufacturing sector. Once in the doldrums, decimated by Prime Minister Thatcher—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, my dad was a toolmaker. He worked in a factory all his life in manufacturing, and we lived through those doldrums. That is why when I go to a factory or plant I am proud, for myself and for my father, when I see manufacturing through the just-in-time process and the revival that has gone on in parts of manufacturing. Go to any of those manufacturing plants, and the management and unions speak with one voice: “Do not take us out of the customs union.” This deal does just that, and it will do huge damage to manufacturing.

What of services? Nothing in this deal is different from that of the previous Prime Minister—the weakest of weak deals for services, which make up 80% of our economy. What the deal does is clear: it rips up our close trading relationship with the EU, and the price will be paid in damage to our economy and in job losses. Anyone doubting that should look at the words that have been stripped out of the deal put forward by the previous Prime Minister. Put the text side by side and ask some difficult questions.

Paragraph 20 used to read:

“The Parties envisage having a trading relationship on goods that is as close as possible, with a view to facilitating the ease of legitimate trade.”

The words “as close as possible” have been stripped out. Why?

Now it is said that we want “as close as possible”. Now it is said that there are all sorts of assurances, but between the text as it was under the previous Prime Minister and the text before us today, the words

“a trading relationship on goods that is as close as possible”

have been taken out and that is not an accident.

[James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

At the heart of this is the question of destination: not an abstract of moving on today, but the impact of a deal on everyday life in towns like mine. The Government should stop selling this sell-out deal to us as if this is the decision today. For all the talk of a deal of Norway plus and Canada plus plus, the Government are presenting us with Britain minus: minus protections, minus opportunities, minus prospects. If the Government are confident in the deal, they should put it to a final say. Now the deal is through the gate and people know more than they did, they should have a say on whether this is what they want. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a final say is the only way through this mess?

[Keir Starmer]

I do agree, but I really want to press this point. As I say, this is not just about getting a deal over the line. That is not the end of it. It is what we are getting over the line and what it means for our country. I invite the Secretary of State to intervene on me. Why were the words “as close as possible” taken out of the text? If the Government’s aspiration is to be as close as possible, why take the words out? [Interruption.] Nothing.

Let us again go through the exercise of laying the two texts alongside each other. The words about alignment are all but gone. A deliberate decision has been taken to take out the aspiration of a trading relationship that is as close as possible and a deliberate decision has been taken to take out all the words about alignment. That is not an accident. That is not a typo. That is a deeply political decision that tells us everything about the direction of travel under this deal.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does that not go precisely to the heart of why those of us on the Labour Benches will not be able to vote for this deal? We are hearing from our colleagues in the trade union movement, who represent millions of workers including those who work in manufacturing, that this deal will be damaging for the future of jobs and livelihoods. How can we trust the Tories on workers’ rights when, throughout the whole time I was a trade union officer and throughout the whole time I have been a Member of Parliament, this Government have reduced working people’s rights?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make one more point and then I will give way. I just want to reinforce my point and then I will pause.

Not only have the aspiration for “as close as possible” and the references to alignment been taken out, but the new text removes the backstop as the basis of the future relationship—not the backstop in its own right, but as the basis for the future relationship. That is very important because it means that the starting point for the next stage is a baseline FTA with no safety net for workplace rights, consumer rights and environmental standards. They have gone from the binding legal withdrawal agreement altogether. They are found—I will come back to them—in the political declaration. They have gone out of the binding agreement and into the political declaration.

[Simon Hoare]

While we listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s confession entitled, “Why I wish I voted for the previous deal,” could he actually share with the House his honest assessment? Unless a deal says, “We will remain in the European Union and there will be no changes,” he will find false tests and artificially high hurdles that preclude him from voting for anything that does not ignore the referendum result.

[Keir Starmer]

That is just utter nonsense. Let me answer that directly: I have stood at this Dispatch Box and pressed amendments on the customs union time and again, and Government Members have voted against them. We have put forward the basis for a deal and we voted for it on the Opposition side of the House, so that intervention is just nonsense.

It is obvious where this ends: either with an FTA that significantly weakens rights, standards and protections, or in no deal and WTO terms at the end of the transition.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for focusing attention on manufacturing. Is it his assessment that this deal would lead to new rules of origin checks and other red tape on UK manufacturers exporting to the EU?

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, and anybody who has read the text knows it, because it is absolutely clear that there will have to be those checks.

Let me make one broader point that was made to me by manufacturers—this is not me speaking; it is what they have said to me. I will not name the company, but people from one of our major motor manufacturers said to me, “We don’t think that we would ever be able to take advantage of any new trade agreements, because we could never prove that 50% of our components come from the UK, and that is one of the rules.” That was their concern—[Interruption.] I will make this point, because it is really powerful and if people have not grasped this, they do not know what they are voting for. They said to me, “Our components come from across the EU and at the moment, we can show that 50% of them satisfy the rule to take advantage of the trade agreements that the EU has struck.” Their position is that they could never satisfy that requirement if the area is shrunk to the UK and therefore, their point to me was not that they are against new trade agreements—businesses are not—but that they will not be able to take advantage of them. That is what they said to me.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

The thing that puzzles me is this: I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman setting out strong objections to the strategy that this Government have pursued, yet, had the Labour party agreed to hold a general election when it was first mooted, that election would be over by now, and if Labour had persuaded the country, there would be a Labour Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. What is it about the Labour party’s position that it is not willing to put to the country?

[Keir Starmer]

I think I said this in the debate last week, but I will say it again: I am not going to vote for a general election until I know that no deal is off the table and we have an extension. It is as simple as that.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I have really agonised this week over whether to support this deal, and it has been profoundly difficult. Does the shadow Secretary of State share my concern with regard to Northern Ireland that by disturbing the careful balance within the Good Friday agreement between the two communities, we run the risk of inflaming Unionist opinion in potentially a very dangerous way, just, in a sense, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made clear in his intervention?

[Keir Starmer]

I am concerned about the position in Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State quoted me on this earlier. It is true that I and the Labour party had reservations about the backstop—I am not sure that there were many people who did not have reservations about it—but on analysis, we thought that it was right for Northern Ireland and therefore, we focused our attention on the political declaration. I criticised it; I said what I thought was wrong with it. I was critical, for example, of the fact that it did not hardwire dynamic alignment of workplace rights, but ultimately, we thought that upholding the Good Friday agreement was more important and more significant.

I will also say this, because again, it is very important to read the small print: while it is true that the current deal says that Northern Ireland remains, as it were, in the UK’s customs territory, it goes on to explain that for goods going into Northern Ireland, the only ones that escape going effectively into the EU’s customs union are those that are at no risk of going beyond Northern Ireland and are not going into manufacturing, so the volume of goods that cross the border that truly are treated as if Northern Ireland is in the customs union is only that small category. The burden of proving that is on the person who is exporting. Can the Secretary of State, or anybody, explain how that can operate without very careful and extensive checks?

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He makes a good point about the backstop, because it was indeed a backstop: it was there in the last event, as it were. Does he agree that this is a new agreement, especially in relation to Northern Ireland? This is not a backstop; this is their future, and essentially it is in perpetuity. He is providing careful analysis to the House— I can see right hon. and hon. Members understanding and listening—but frankly the danger is that we will be bounced into a decision today with terrible consequences for our Union and our country.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree. I will develop that point in a moment, but I will take a further intervention first.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The former Prime Minister used to say that no deal was better than a bad deal. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern that the current Prime Minister has just let it slip that this deal, heroically, manages to be both? It is a bad deal with a back door to no deal if no extension to the transition is agreed at the end of next year.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree, and that is a point that I will develop. In recognition of the previous Prime Minister, although she said that, I always felt that she had a profound sense of public duty, that she properly recognised the real risks of no deal, and that ultimately she would not have taken us there. I do not have that trust in the current Prime Minister.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend explore further the customs checks issue? If a lorry leaves Dumfries or north Wales for Northern Ireland, and its ultimate destination is the Republic of Ireland, where and when will the customs checks take place?

[Keir Starmer]

There have to be checks, and they have to be done at the border with England, Scotland and Wales, or Northern Ireland—there is no getting away from that. The argument that the Prime Minister tried to deploy earlier that he is not putting a border in the Irish sea is just wrong—it is absolutely wrong. Any goods that do not fall within the restricted category of goods proven not to be going any further than Northern Ireland and not to be going into manufacturing will be subject to checks, because that is the test written into the deal.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Ultimately, the bottom line is the future of people’s livelihoods. Never mind our emotional passions about being or not being in the European Union; what are the implications for workers and their jobs? Ford is leaving Bridgend, where it has 1,700 jobs—with 12,000 jobs across the south Wales economy—because it was worried about a no-deal Brexit. I have looked at this text, and there is a real risk that this is the end of just-in-time manufacturing in the whole UK. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree?

[Keir Starmer]

I do, and I am deeply concerned, because I am proud of our manufacturing base and the revival that it has gone through.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I have taken a lot of interventions and will take more later, but first I will make some progress.

It is important that we work through not just the technicalities of the deal, but where it leads us politically, because this is about the direction of travel for our country. If we go to a bare FTA, which is what it would mean, the Government’s own estimates show that there will be a loss of approximately 6.7% to growth in GDP over 15 years, and every region and nation will be poorer for it. The Prime Minister’s letter of 19 August to Donald Tusk made it clear that from the Government’s point of view and his own, the point of our exit is to allow the UK to diverge from the rights and standards of the EU. Let’s nail this one: you do not need that if you want to go up and have better standards. We do not have to break the rule to bring in better standards—we can do that under the existing rule—so anybody who wants to change the rule is not doing it to have the freedom to bring in better standards, because they do not need to change the rule for that; the only reason to diverge is to go down. That is why, on this question of divergence, it is very important to focus on the level playing field protections. As I say, those have been taken out of what is legally binding and put into the political declaration, and they apply in full only until the end of the transition period in 2020.

It is obvious where the Government are going. They want a licence to deregulate and diverge. I know they will disavow that, I know they want the deal through, and I know they will say, “Never. Of course not”, but it is obvious where it leads. Once we have diverged and moved out of alignment with the EU, trade will become more difficult. The EU will no longer be seen as our priority in trade and the gaze will go elsewhere to make up for it. Once we move out of alignment, we will not move back, and the further we move out, the harder it will be to trade with the EU27, and once that happens, we will have broken the economic model we have been operating under for decades, and we will start to look elsewhere—across to the United States.

Our gaze will shift to the United States, and that is a different economic model. It is not just another country; it is a different economic model, a deregulated model. In the US, the holiday entitlement is 10 days. Many contracts at work are called contracts “at will”. Hugely powerful corporate bodies have far more power than the workforce. This is not a technical decision about the EU but a political direction of travel that takes us to a different economic mode—one of deregulation and low standards, where the balance between the workforce and corporate bodies is far worse.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a project and ideology for the right by the hard right? It does not get Brexit done. We should be thinking about our children’s future. We need to put this back to the people. We need to listen to all those people, to the hundreds and thousands marching out there today, to those young people, and give them a say in their future.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with the tenor of that comment.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about workers’ rights. The EU entitlement for holiday pay is four weeks. In the UK, it is 5.6 weeks. If we wanted to reduce that entitlement and to reduce standards, why would we not have done that already?

[Keir Starmer]

Because the Labour party and other Opposition parties would never countenance it, and I do not think the Government would either. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Hughes, you are a most eccentric denizen of the House. The shadow Secretary of State for Brexit is not conducting a private conversation with you. Calm yourself!

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Conservatives have luxuriated in telling us that the Benn Act undermined their negotiations by forcing them into preventing no deal from being on the table if we left on 31 October, but the Prime Minister has said that he has negotiated a “great deal” with that restriction in place, so what possible argument can they have for not agreeing that we cannot leave at the end of the next phase of negotiations with no deal, at the end of 2020? Why would they not accept that restriction, given that they negotiated what the Prime Minister calls a great deal?

[Keir Starmer]

I have never accepted the proposition that insuring the country against no deal undermines the negotiations. I remind Members that at no point in the two years of the negotiating window that closed on 29 March did the House take no deal off the table. The entire negotiations were carried out with the risk of no deal. The previous Prime Minister brought back a deal, and half her own side would not vote for it.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. May I take him up on the very philosophical and logical argument that he is now trying to make? The argument from the Opposition Dispatch Box seems to be that the Opposition must have the European Union to protect them on workers’ rights because there is almost likely to be a permanent Conservative Government that will threaten those workers’ rights. Why do Labour Members not have the courage to say that they would fight an election, would make the case for stronger workers’ rights and would win that election, which would be democracy in action rather than someone else protecting them?

[Keir Starmer]

Of course we would, but the point is this, and it has not been answered by any of these interventions. Since the current rule allows you to have higher standards, why do you write into the deal that you want to diverge?

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

When Labour was in government, we legislated to go beyond European minimums many times, which included granting 6 million workers an extra eight days’ paid leave. For much of the time we were doing that, it was being vociferously opposed by the Conservative Opposition, and particularly by the present Prime Minister, who built his journalistic career on attacking measures of that kind.

The point that my right hon. and learned Friend is making is correct. This is not just about the legislation that we pass here; it is about the common rule book that gives us market access across the European Union. The Prime Minister cannot promise a deregulatory future to the European Research Group and a regulatory future to the Labour party.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has made the point very carefully and ably.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I have given way many, many times. I am going to make some progress, and then I will give way again.

Of the two possible outcomes, one is this deregulated free trade agreement which in the end, whatever people say, will drive us away from the European economic model towards a different economic model. We will look back on this as a turning point in our history of much greater significance than whether this deal technically gets over the line tonight. The other possible outcome, which has been put to me in interventions, is that there is no deal at the end of the transition period, and that has to be significantly addressed. I know that some colleagues are tempted to vote for the deal because they believe that it prevents or removes the possibility of crashing out on World Trade Organisation terms. It does not. Under the previous deal, if the future relationship was not ready by the end of the transition, the backstop kicked in, which prevented WTO terms. That has gone. This is a trapdoor to no deal.

Let me quote the words of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I hope that I do so accurately, but if I do not, he will correct me. What I understood him to say was this:

“The reason I am inclined to vote for this one”

—this deal—

“is very simple… if the trade talks are not successful…then we could leave on no-deal terms.”

[Mr Baron]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I said that I would.

[Mr Baron]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right with the quote, but he has been very selective and taken it out of context, because I continued to make the point that it is a commercial reality that leaving no deal on the table in any negotiations makes a good and fair trade deal more likely. That is something I, and the vast majority of colleagues in this place, actually want. We want a free trade agreement agreed with the EU by December 2020, and my firm belief—I am not alone here—is that by scrapping the previous backstop, we stand more chance of achieving it.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to put his full quote in the Library for the delectation of colleagues.

[Keir Starmer]

I am genuinely grateful for that intervention, which I wanted to take, but the fact remains that the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that if the trade deals

“are not successful… then we could leave on no-deal terms.”

Before we rush into the Lobbies, let us explore what that means.

The decision on extending transition, under this deal, needs to be taken by the end of July next year. That is eight months away. It is very hard to see how any Government could negotiate a completed future relationship within such a short timeframe, particularly a Government who want to diverge. The Prime Minister brushed this away earlier by saying, “Well, we’re aligned.” That is true, and if he wanted to stay aligned he could probably do a trade deal a lot more quickly, but this Prime Minister and this Government want to diverge. So, the idea that this does not lead to a no-deal Brexit is wrong, and nobody should vote for this deal on the basis that it is the way to ensure that we do not leave at the end of 2020 on WTO terms.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make a little more progress, then I will give way.

Today, the Prime Minister dangles prospects of workers’ rights and indicates amendments he might be inclined to take down the line—promises, promises. I know these are really important issues for—

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make this point and then I will give way.

I know how important these issues are to many Members on the Opposition Benches, particularly the question of workplace rights, environmental rights and consumer standards. I remind all Members of this House that not a single trade union supports this deal. I urge everyone in the House to reflect on the likelihood of this Prime Minister keeping his promises.

This point has been made, but I am going to make it again. Last November, the Prime Minister told the DUP conference, in terms, that

“regulatory checks and even customs controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

would be

“damaging”

to the

“fabric of the Union”.

He went on to say that

“no British Conservative government could or should sign up to any such arrangement”.

His words.

What does this deal do? It puts checks and controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It creates a customs border in the Irish sea. It does precisely what the Prime Minister told the DUP last November he would not do—typical of this Prime Minister. So, those who are considering today putting their trust in this Prime Minister need to reflect on how he has treated his supply and confidence partners—promise, then burn. I ask how anybody could trust any promise he is now making.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

This deal not only rules out the customs union; it rules out a single market relationship, which affects service sector jobs, alongside the manufacturing jobs. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is going to be a bonfire of labour standards and environmental standards. Does he agree that this is a Trojan horse for a no-deal Brexit? That is why our colleagues on this side of the House must vote it down, as must others who believe in the national interest.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree completely.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Ind)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard the Prime Minister make a commitment to me and this House that he would legislate, if necessary, to ensure that workers’ rights in this country could not be inferior to those in the European Union. On the question of trust and confidence, if such legislation were pursued in parallel with the withdrawal agreement Bill, or in that Bill, so that they could be decided together, surely that would give him the confidence he requires.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. The point is this: the Prime Minister said that no British Conservative Government could or should sign up to any such arrangement, but now it is said that he could sign up to it. That is exactly why we should not trust that. It is why we should support amendment (a). [Interruption.] It is an important intervention, and I take it seriously. That is why amendment (a) is so important, because it gives the House an opportunity to know precisely what the commitment is and what words will go into the legislation.

I am not prepared, I am afraid—nor are the vast majority on the Opposition Benches—to take the Prime Minister’s word. There is more than enough evidence that his word does not mean anything and cannot be trusted.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I was one of those who worked in industry in Coventry during the period of the Thatcher Government when, as my right hon. and learned Friend, like his father, will know, every week we saw thousands of jobs lost in the motor car industry. Big companies such as Jaguar Land Rover are very worried about the industry’s future, bearing in mind that they will have certain things to prove and that if they cannot, they will have to pay tariffs, which could affect jobs and so on. If anyone wants to know why the Opposition are suspicious of any Government in relation to trade union rights, they have only to look at the Government’s Trade Union Act 2016, under a previous Prime Minister. They will see exactly what the Government have in mind.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, which reinforces the point. Manufacturing, which had been on its knees, has now revived, at least in part. Why would anybody, whichever way they voted, want to take an axe to it? I will never understand that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress and then give way again. [Interruption.] I have given way so much. I will give way again. I do need to make some progress so that others can get in.

I turn briefly to amendment (a) in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I thank him and colleagues across the House for the cross-party work they have done in recent months. The amendment, which is genuinely cross-party, is in that spirit. It makes it clear that this House will not be bounced into supporting what is a very bad deal without a proper chance to scrutinise it. It would allow the House to ensure that the legal text is acceptable and provide time to seek changes in the passage of implementing legislation. It would ensure that the Benn Act can be applied.

May I say this? The amendment does not cause delay, because that exercise will have to be gone through anyway. It is not a vote to delay; it is a vote to get on with looking at the next stage, which will have to be looked at. What it does provide is an insurance policy against signing up to a deal that is not what it seems, with the risk of a no-deal Brexit to boot.

The deal before the House is a thoroughly bad deal. It is a bad deal for jobs, rights and living standards. It is a bad deal for the future direction of the country. It will put us on a path to an entirely different economy and society: one of deregulation and divergence. It will end in either a bare bones free trade agreement or no deal in eight months. It stands against everything that the labour and trade movement stands for—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not need people, in a rather juvenile fashion, calling out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will give way if and when he wants to give way, as was true of the Secretary of State. Notwithstanding the notably generous-spirited instincts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), I am not aware of the shadow Brexit Secretary having asked him to be his mentor.

[Keir Starmer]

If we pass this deal today, it will be a long way back for the communities we represent. I urge all Members to reject it.

12:49

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Ind)]

I beg to move amendment (a), in motion 1, leave out from “with a deal,” to end and add

“this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.”

Amendment (a) has been tabled in my name and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members, and I do not need to detain the House for long. The purpose of the amendment, as has been said in several interventions and speeches, is to keep in place the insurance policy provided by the Benn Act that prevents us from automatically crashing out if no deal is in place by 31 October.

When the Prime Minister brings his implementing legislation to this House next week, I will vote for it, but we all know that the votes on that legislation, throughout its passage, will be tight. The Prime Minister has a strategy—I fully accept that, and I accept that it is rational in its own terms—and it is that he wants to be able to say to any waverers, “It is my deal or no deal. Vote for the implementing legislation, or we crash out.” I understand that strategy, but we cannot be sure that such a threat would work.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will not, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me, because I am going to be so brief that I will not take interventions.

Despite my support for the Prime Minister’s deal, I do not believe that it is responsible to put the nation at risk by making that threat. I am moving this amendment to ensure that whichever way any future votes may go—today, next week or the week after—we can be secure in the knowledge that the UK will have requested an extension tonight which, if granted, can be used if and to the extent necessary, and only to the extent necessary, to prevent a no-deal exit.

12:51

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a considerable pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and I commend him for his amendment and for his contribution this afternoon.

We heard, “An equal partner within the Union, and a nation within the European Union,” but the broken promises of 2014 from this Government and the Better Together campaign could not be starker than they are today. Scotland has been totally and utterly shafted by this Prime Minister and this Tory Government. Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where democratic rights are not being respected. England voted leave, Wales voted leave, and Northern Ireland gets to remain in the EU single market and customs union—a special arrangement to protect its interests and people. Scotland, however, has been ignored. Scotland is being dragged out of the European Union against its will.

Sixty-two per cent. of Scotland voted to remain, yet this Tory Government and this Brexit fanatic Prime Minister have ignored Scotland’s wishes and interests by bringing forward a deal that will weaken our economy. The Scottish National party categorically rejects this appalling Brexit deal, and we will vote it down today. Not only would it be devastating for Scotland, dragging us out of the European Union, the single market and the customs union against our will, but it is clear that the right-wing Brexiteers have been assured by senior Tory Ministers that backing this deal could lead to a no-deal crash out if trade talks fail next year.

Anyone tempted to vote for this deal today needs to be warned that it is a blank cheque for the Vote Leave campaign that is now running the Tory Government to crash us out of the European Union on a no-deal basis at the end of the transition next year. The Prime Minister’s deal is not a deal at all. It is the gateway to a no-deal Brexit, taking us off the cliff edge not at the end of October, but at the end of 2020. Let me be clear that any Brexit would have disastrous implications for Scotland’s economy.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although I agree with amendment (a) and the idea that it will stop a no deal, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in this deal, we have no guarantee from the Prime Minister that he will avoid crashing out after the transition period? Any trade deal will take longer than a year to put together, as we know, so is this not really a death row deal? We will be crashing out in a year, which is why it is our duty to vote against it.

[Ian Blackford]

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were both given the opportunity to rule that out, and neither did. Colleagues right across the House who are tempted to vote for this deal today should take note, because there is a very real risk of a no-deal Brexit by the back door.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Blackford]

I will make some progress, as I know many colleagues wish to speak.

The viability of our economic future will be brought into question because of the damage the deal would do to investment, to population growth and to our key exports. All Brexit assessments show that the United Kingdom and Scotland will be poorer, no matter how we leave the European Union. If the Government disagree, why have they not done an economic impact assessment on their deal?

How are Members of Parliament supposed to debate and decide on the details of this deal when the Government have not provided a detailed analysis? It beggars belief that, on something so fundamental to all our citizens’ futures, there is no economic impact assessment.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he and I come to this from very different perspectives. However, I believe we should be united on this issue today. This is not a good deal for Northern Ireland, and I plead with him not to suggest that what would be a bad deal for Northern Ireland should be a good deal for the people of Scotland. If this had applied to the people of Scotland, I would be voting against it for his sake and for his people’s sake. That is why I encourage him to vote against it for our sake.

[Ian Blackford]

We will certainly vote against it, because I do not believe this is a good deal—period.

How did the Prime Minister even sign up to a deal without understanding the impact on the economy? What a dereliction of duty. The truth is that the Prime Minister is not concerned about the economy and is not concerned about the facts. The Brexiteers did not care about facts during the referendum campaign, and it looks as if they are doing the same now.

The truth must hurt, because the truth is this: every version of Brexit will leave us worse off. It will continue to damage our relationship with the European Union, but it will not grant as much scope to develop relations with other countries. It is also clear that the heightened economic uncertainty has been forecast to reduce business investment by £1 billion in 2019, damaging our economy and leaving Scotland poorer.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I am mindful of these words:

“What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1921; Vol. 48, c. 44.]

Although the DUP may be choking on the words of Carson, I am sure that my right hon. Friend, as a member and a leader of our political party, will remind the Government that Scotland will not be duped a second time.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is correct. I say to the Conservatives and to those Conservative Members who are here, for now, from Scotland that if this deal goes through, and if it has the impact on Scotland of creating a competitive disadvantage, it is increasingly clear—we see it from the messages that are coming to us, even today—that people who voted no in our referendum in 2014 want Scotland’s right to choose. I make this guarantee: Scotland will become an independent nation, and in short order.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

The House is faced with an impossible choice. This is like being asked to buy a house based on the estate agent’s details, which are designed to sell it, with no chance of looking inside or seeing any sort of contract. We spend about two months a year debating and scrutinising the Finance Bill, and that is for a one-year Budget for Britain. Is it not absolutely ridiculous that we cannot see even the Bill, let alone the economic impact assessment, before being allowed to make a decision?

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. Heaven knows what the term of the mortgage might be. Let me make it clear that I certainly will not be buying any house from this Prime Minister.

Brexit in any form will damage the branding, reputation and standing of Scottish produce, our civil society, our regulatory alignment to key markets, our commercial and political relationships abroad, and even recognition of skills and qualifications. Scotland relies on the skills and labour that the EU offers for its economic growth. Brexit will serve only to weaken our access to a vital labour market. Considering that Scotland’s native population is declining, we need more migration to our country, not less.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. What he is not telling the House is that every major business group in Scotland is encouraging us to support the deal today. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation are all pleading with us to bring the uncertainty to an end by voting for this deal. Do not listen to SNP Members; they are not Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I remind the House that interventions must be brief. We need to expedite progress—subtle hint.

[Ian Blackford]

It is illuminating to hear such voices in the House, because I am afraid that the harsh reality is that many business and industry organisations in Scotland see the impact, and not just in Scotland but throughout the UK. The British Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers Union, the food and beverage association and the Timber Trade Federation have all talked about the negative impact of the deal, but we never get the truth from the Scottish Conservatives.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Blackford]

I am going to make some progress, because I am aware that other colleagues wish to speak.

It did not have to be like this. If the Prime Minister had any interest in the people of Scotland, he would have engaged with our Scottish Government. From the very beginning the Scottish Government sought to compromise. We did that by offering up “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, with a compromise position for all the United Kingdom, and for Scotland, to remain in the single market and the customs union. I have to tell the House that we had no engagement with the UK Government over those papers, but I can say that Michel Barnier, when I went to see him, had read every page. That is the difference between the attitude of our friends and colleagues in Europe and the disdain that our Scottish Government have been shown by Westminster. Our plan was dismissed out of hand, and then followed by years of the UK Government ignoring Scotland and ignoring our Parliament.

With Northern Ireland getting access to the single market and the customs union, it is clear that the Prime Minister is willing to put trust in the people of Northern Ireland to manage its relationship, so it is inexplicable that he will not trust the people of Scotland, who also voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, to do the same. This offer gives Northern Ireland a competitive advantage over Scotland.

While we respect and understand the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland—I want to be clear that everyone in the SNP wants to see the continuation of peace and stability—the proposal in this deal is, in effect, to keep it in the single market and the customs union. That was our compromise position, and the UK Government completely ignored us—they ignored Scotland.

The Prime Minister has shown the people of Scotland total contempt. This is a Prime Minister who has no mandate from Scotland, yet he seeks to impose his Brexit against our democratically expressed will, silencing the wishes of our people and weakening our economy. This Prime Minister, and his Brexit fan club in No. 10, do not care about Scotland. They are obsessed with only one thing: winning and delivering their Brexit fantasy at any cost.

The dishonesty and lies of the—[Interruption.] I hear Ministers shouting from the Front Bench, “Not true!” Where was the engagement with the Scottish Government on our place in Europe? It simply did not happen. That is absolutely and completely true.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)]

indicated dissent.

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Gentleman can shake his head, because he does not like the reality.

[Michael Gove]

rose—

[Ian Blackford]

The dishonesty and lies of Vote Leave brought the country to vote for Brexit in the first place —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Resume your seat, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. As far as I am aware, the right hon. Gentleman is not currently giving way—[Interruption.] Order. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should not stand there portentously, as though he has an absolute right to intervene. It might be courteous to allow him to do so, but such an allowance has not yet been made.

[Ian Blackford]

Today, the House will be listening to our voices, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might catch your eye later on.

The dishonesty and lies of Vote Leave brought this country to vote for Brexit in the first place. The Prime Minister and many in his Cabinet should be ashamed of that. They have torn their country, their Parliament and their own party apart. This is the beginning of the end of their precious Union and their distorted Etonian vision for society. Scotland will not be ignored any more. The deal must be stopped and binned today.

Whether or not the deal passes today, the Government need an extension. The deal is devastating for Scotland. We will not vote for it, and we call for the extension period to be used for an election, so that we can get rid of this rotten Tory Government out of Downing Street. Scottish National party MPs are here to do our job—to stand stronger for Scotland. Those from all parties who ever want to lay claim to representing the voices and interests of the people of Scotland cannot support this deal. They cannot inflict economic and social harm on our society.

We have heard myth after myth from the Prime Minister and his cronies, but the facts are clear. The European Union accounts for 56% of the UK’s exports and 65% of imports, either through the EU directly or through other countries with which the EU has trade arrangements. The direct value of EU trade is more than triple the value of US trade. The Brexit Secretary even said that the EU was the UK’s most important partner.

There are 100,000 jobs in Scotland at risk. Our fishermen, farmers and crofters will all be disadvantaged by this deal. As the Scottish Seafood Association put it, this could “switch the lights off” for a small exporter:

“Five separate certificates all have to be done on October 31. For a small exporter that is possibly trying to sell 30 kilos of top quality langoustines to a restaurant in Paris, switch the lights off, that restaurant owner is going to go and buy his lovely langoustines somewhere else.”

Those are not my words; that is from the Scottish Seafood Association. I hope that people in Scotland can see that those on the Government Front Bench are laughing. People’s livelihoods are at risk and the Government Front Benchers think it is funny. They should be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves.

The Scottish National party will not stand by and let this Government rip apart our economy and our country’s future. We are Europeans and Scotland is a European nation. Members from all parties should unite with the SNP and bring this Government down. A general election is now the best way to stop this Prime Minister and stop this dangerous Brexit.

Let me say that anyone, any single Member here, who backs the Tory Prime Minister and his cheating Vote Leave campaign this afternoon by shafting Scotland will never, not ever, be forgiven by the people of Scotland. Overnight, we saw the reports, the rumours and the whispers. Will the Labour party really allow its Members of Parliament to vote for this catastrophic Brexit deal? Let me remind the Labour party what the TUC said:

“This deal would be a disaster for working people. It would hammer the economy, cost jobs and sell workers’ rights down the river. Boris Johnson has negotiated an even worse deal than Theresa May. All MPs should vote against it.”

Those are the words of the TUC. Let me ask this: why has the Leader of the Opposition not yet guaranteed that all Labour MPs will vote with the Scottish National party this afternoon against this deal? It is a deal that would be devastating for Scotland, ripping us out of the EU against our will, terminating our rights of freedom of movement, and threatening jobs, living standards, our public services and the economy. Is the leader of the Labour party really willing to allow any members of his party to write a blank cheque for this Tory Prime Minister to deliver Brexit? Not a single member of the Labour party should be voting for a deal that delivers a race to the bottom on workers’ rights and on environmental standards and that paves the way for dismantling our precious NHS. It would be absolutely staggering that, with a no-deal threat on the table, any Labour MP could even think about voting for this toxic deal. Labour must not be the handmaidens of a Tory Brexit, which we know will cost thousands of jobs and harm people’s livelihoods.

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wondered whether he had taken sections of his speech from Jon Lansman.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to workers’ rights, the EU is not God? The fact is that local authorities up and down the UK have to outsource contracts to the European Union to the detriment of workers in their local communities. We have seen a rise in zero-hours contracts and poor conditions, partly because of that outsourcing. Does he agree with me?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the right hon. Lady. We were colleagues together in Committee, and, as she knows, I am fond of her—[Interruption].

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to face the House, so that we can all hear him.

[Ian Blackford]

I simply say to the right hon. Lady that I would trust the European Union with workers’ rights before I would trust this Conservative Government.

The Opposition must stop the excuses and finally act by backing the SNP tonight to reject this damaging deal, secure an extension and call an election, so that we can bring this Tory Government down and stop Brexit.

Meanwhile, Scottish Tory MPs are prepared to vote for a deal that they previously pledged they would not back. That is simple irresponsibility and moral cowardice. I say to the Scottish Tories: you are serving the death knell on the Union by voting for this deal. Independence is coming, and we will take our place as a proud European nation. What a shift in time, Mr Speaker, from what Ruth Davidson said in 2014, which was:

“No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

The people of Scotland now know more than ever that they can never, not ever, trust a Tory. We already know that, despite promise after promise—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We wish to expedite the debate. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard as, I think, he approaches his peroration.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Perhaps if Members settled down, we could get through this and their voices might be heard.

Despite promise after promise made by the Scottish Tories to protect our fishermen, we already know that the backstop loophole in the deal threatens to be devastating for the Scottish fishing sector. Under the proposed deal—[Interruption.] It might help if the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) listened, rather than trying to shout from the Bar of the House. This is about fishermen’s livelihoods, which the Scottish Tories falsely claim to protect. Under the proposed deal, Scottish fish exports to the European Union face being hit by damaging tariffs. Any move that could see Scottish vessels registered in Northern Ireland land their catch there and then have it moved to the Republic of Ireland for processing to escape those duties would pose a huge danger to Scotland’s fishing ports and wider processing industry. That is the reality of what the Tories are threatening to do to our fishing industry. This would directly threaten thousands of jobs, and could make the sector among the hardest hit by Brexit in the whole of Scotland—Scottish fishing sold out by the Conservatives yet again. That is the stark reality, as opposed to the bluster of a UK Tory Government who once again treat Scotland as an afterthought. Well, we in the SNP will not stand for it.

I warn Members who march through the Lobby with the Government this afternoon that selling Scotland out by backing this deal will be the final nail in the coffin for the Union. While the UK drags Scotland out of the EU against our will, and this Tory Government downgrade our devolution settlement and destroy our rights, in Scotland the SNP are looking proudly at our record. We are ambitious for our nation, and not this Prime Minister, not the Leader of the Opposition and not any leader of the Liberal Democrats—not anyone—will stand in our way. The Scottish people are sovereign and they should have the choice to determine their own future.

This year, Scotland is marking the 20th anniversary of devolution—the establishment of our Scottish Parliament. The first speech that was made in the new Scottish Parliament in May 1999 was by my good friend Winifred Ewing. At the time she made that speech, she was of course also the Mother of the European Parliament, having served there since 1979. Winnie expressed the hope that the Scottish Parliament would try to follow the more consensual style of the European Parliament and other European Parliaments, rather than the more confrontational approach that we have witnessed again here today in Westminster. In our actions today, we are trying to stay true to that advice.

Although there remains uncertainty over whether the proposed deal will pass, what is absolutely clear is that it would take us out of the European Union, out of the single market and out of the customs union against the overwhelming democratic will of the people of Scotland. Scotland did not vote for Brexit in any form and, unlike others, the SNP will not vote for Brexit in any form. Scotland has been shafted, sidelined, silenced and ignored by this UK Government, and it cannot be ignored today. I urge Members not to stand by and allow this Prime Minister to drag us into an economic abyss, because I warn the House that it is clearer than ever that the best future for Scotland is one as an equal, independent, European nation. That is a choice that the SNP is determined to ensure is given to the people of Scotland, and those who vote against Scotland’s interests this afternoon should be aware that they are ending the Union. Scotland is not for leaving Europe. We will become an independent nation. My message to Europe is: leave a light on for Scotland.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will have to apply with immediate effect, although I do not anticipate that that limit will last very long.

13:18

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

When I arrived at the House of Commons this morning, I saw the message, “Good day for May”. I thought that perhaps consensus had come across the whole House and that it had already been decided that this deal would be supported by the House tonight. Unfortunately, my view on that was premature—although I think only premature—because, happily for England, it was a reference to Jonny May having scored the first two tries in our victory against Australia.

I hope the whole House will forgive me if I say that, standing here, I have a distinct sense of déjà vu. But today’s vote is an important one—

[Simon Hoare]

Rebel!

[Mrs May]

I intend to rebel against all those who do not want to vote to deliver Brexit.

Today’s vote is important. The eyes of the country—no, the eyes of the wider world—are upon us today. Every Member in this House has a responsibility in the decision that they will take to determine whether or not they are going to put the national interest first—not just an ideological, single-issue or party political interest, but the full, wider interests of our constituents.

As we look at this issue, the decision we take tonight will determine not just the future of our country and the future lives of our constituents, but I believe the very future of our politics, because we have today to take a key decision, and it is simple. Do we want to deliver Brexit? Do we want to deliver on the result of the referendum in 2016? [Interruption.] We know the views of Scottish National party Members: they reject results of referendums, including the referendum to stay in the UK.

When this House voted overwhelmingly to give the choice of our membership of the EU to the British people, did we really mean it? When we voted to trigger article 50, did we really mean it? When the two main parties represented in this House stood on manifestos in the 2017 general election to deliver Brexit, did we really mean it? I think there can be only one answer to that: yes, we did mean it; yes, we keep faith with the British people; yes, we want to deliver Brexit.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady will just wait for a minute.

If this Parliament did not mean it, it is guilty of the most egregious con trick on the British people.

There have been many views across this House. I want simply to say something to some of the groups involved. To those who believe that there should be a second referendum—some believe passionately and have for some time; others have come to this more lately—I say simply this: you cannot have a second referendum simply because some people do not agree with the result of the first. I do not like—

[Ms Eagle]

rose—

[Mrs May]

There are many people who want to speak, so I am going to carry on. I have taken many interventions and questions from across the House on this issue over time.

I do not like referendums, but I think that if we have one, we should abide by the result that people have given us.

Then there is the Labour Front Bench. I have heard much from those on the Labour Front Bench over the last three years about the importance of protecting jobs, manufacturing and people’s livelihoods. If they really meant that, they would have voted for the deal earlier this year. Now is their chance to show whether they really care about people by voting for this deal tonight—this afternoon, I hope, Mr Speaker—in the House.

Then let me say something to all those across the House who say they do not want no deal. I have said it before; I have said it many times; I hope this is the last time I have to say it: if you do not want no deal, you have to vote for a deal. Businesses are crying out for certainty, people want certainty in their lives, and our investors want to be able to invest and want the uncertainty to be got rid of. They want to know that this country is moving forward. If you want to deliver Brexit, if you want to keep faith with the British people, if you want this country to move forward, then vote for the deal today.

13:24

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I say with all respect and humility to the former Prime Minister that a lot of people watching who have listened to her words will feel strongly that the only con trick was a Prime Minister making a solemn promise to the public that under no circumstances would there be a border down the Irish sea, and then traipsing through the Lobby to vote for precisely that. I would have expected a little more humility from her.

All of us who participated in the referendum debate noticed one thing: in the prospectus for Brexit, it was very poorly defined. It was difficult to gauge precisely what Brexit would mean for our country. However, when the former Prime Minister signed the article 50 treaty, she had the legal right to define Brexit. She came to the House with her deal, which had over 500 pages defining Brexit. For almost a year, she and the Government said that the deal respected the will of the people.

Now we have a separate deal, brought back by a separate Government, who say that this fundamentally different deal, with different customs arrangements, different regulatory systems, and a different order for the United Kingdom, represents the will of the people. Both deals cannot represent the will of the people. I say this with all humility: if we want to know what the will of the people is—what they were voting for—we can ask them. Their response will be based not on promises, but on facts, because we have the facts now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and I have been working on a compromise—and it is a compromise, because it means we could become the remainers who open the door to Brexit. Fundamentally, it is about breaking the gridlock in Parliament. It is based around a deal.

[Mr Gyimah]

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. Does he agree that though the referendum settled the question of leaving, it did not settle where we were going? That is why the House has, over the last three and a half years, debated different ways of leaving the EU. Some people believe in the May deal; some want a May deal minus backstop; some want a Northern Ireland backstop; some want a customs union; some want no deal; and some want a managed no deal. Does he agree that that is why any deal that the Government put before us should be put to the people for a final say?

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for a thoughtful intervention. Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I speak as someone who has voted for three separate versions of Brexit. I have not opposed it; I have voted for Brexit in this place more often than most members of the ERG. The key question is: how do we break the gridlock? How do we get past this impasse? The idea of a referendum based on a deal is that it would be a confirmatory referendum. We would put the prospectus to the people and ask, “Is this good enough for you?”, in exactly the same way we did in Northern Ireland with the Good Friday peace agreement.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, back in February 2016, before the referendum, that suggestion was put to the then Prime Minister, who said at the Dispatch Box that the very idea was absolutely ridiculous. Nobody in the House disputed that then. Where was the hon. Gentleman?

[Peter Kyle]

I was here in the House, working constructively with Members from across the House. I voted for three separate versions of Brexit; I have done my bit to try to get it across the line, but because the prospectus for Brexit was defined not at the start, but only at the end, of the process, many people in this House have a different version of it, and that is why we are irreconcilably divided.

We propose a compromise whereby we allow the deal to pass through Parliament in return for inviting the public to have the definitive, final say on whether the deal should pass. The public can decide whether the deal is good enough for them, their family, their community, their job and our country. If they decide that it is, we can leave directly on those terms, without any need to return to the matter in this place. If they do not, we can remain with the deal we have. Those are two propositions, based in international treaty and law, that are implementable straight away.

We gained growing support for this across the House when we pushed it last time. People repeatedly said to us that, if the deal of the Prime Minister at the time was defeated, they would want to come and consider this, but they would not want to consider it before any defeat. The problem was that we did not get the opportunity to press for a vote straight afterwards, but now we do have such an opportunity. Because the Government are pushing two motions tonight—one on their deal, one on no deal—we will have an opportunity to vote after the House has spoken on the main deal.

To all the people who want to support the deal, I say this: focus on the deal and support the deal, but accept one thing. If the deal does not succeed in the first vote tonight, we have to make a choice, and there is a choice on the table that keeps the deal alive and keeps the deal intact. It is the only way, in those circumstances, that the deal can proceed. In those circumstances, I hope that people from across the House will decide that the country needs resolution, and an option remains standing that will break the gridlock, that will get Brexit out of Westminster and back into our communities for one definitive final say, and we can bring this nightmare to an end.

13:30

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)]

I hoped I would never be driven, in these long debates on Brexit, finally to deciding what my opinion is on the choice between a no deal and a bad deal. I regret to say that when my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister put forward the proposition before, I had considerable doubts about her belief that no deal was better than a bad deal. Those doubts have increased, because what we have before us now is undoubtedly a bad deal. I think it is a very bad deal. It is wholly inferior to the deal that was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, for which I, too, voted three times, like the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). We cannot be accused of taking part in this debate seeking to block Brexit and repudiate the wishes of the British public, and all the rubbish that the more fanatic Brexiteers and their followers frequently hail at us. But now the choice is very real.

This is a very bad deal, for reasons that I will not dilate on, but others have. I actually have considerable sympathy with the Members from Northern Ireland: the independent Unionist, with whom I almost always agree, and the Democratic Unionists. This is a most peculiar constitutional position that they are being put in as members of the United Kingdom. I would very much rather that we did not have this situation of a border down the Irish sea, because there is absolutely no doubt that there is quite a clear customs and regulatory border being envisaged down the Irish sea.

It has to be said that the effect is to save the all-Irish economy from the near calamity that a total no deal would have resulted in. I have no idea how anybody would have operated a no-deal situation across the border, and I thought these weird propositions of a customs border somewhere in Northern Ireland but not on the border had little or no chance of working. Although the Irish at least have the economic consolation that they will sail on through the transition period as they are now, I am extremely worried that the purpose of going to negotiate this convoluted arrangement over Ireland was so that the economy of Britain could be taken out of the customs union and the single market straightaway. If that holds after the transition period, I think it will have the most damaging effects on our economic future, for all the reasons that other people have given in the earlier and lengthy speeches we have heard.

Therefore, it is all to be played for in the transition period. I actually do not believe that a good free trade agreement, a good agreement on security and fighting international crime, and agreements on the licensing of medicines and the possible arrangements with the European Medicines Agency—all the things spelled out—are likely to be achieved by the end of next year. The Canada deal, which a lot of Brexiteers like to hold up as a model, took about nine years to put in place, and I wish that we were prepared to contemplate a more realistic timescale.

Meanwhile, the votes today, and the process of the next week or two, must get us through the necessary steps to put in place a withdrawal agreement, so that we have a transition period in which to hold full negotiations about our ultimate destination. All my votes in this House have been to ensure that the calamity of leaving with no deal on 31 October, or whenever, was never allowed to happen. For that reason, we should support this deal, but I cannot understand the Government’s resistance to saying that we should legislate before we abandon the protection of the Benn Act and decide that we do not need an extension.

The Government say that we can take for granted the details and getting the votes, but none of us are sure whether there is a majority for this Government and the present deal at all. If the Government can maintain a majority throughout all the legislation I shall be very reassured, but I would like to wait to see that they can—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extraordinarily grateful, more grateful than ever before, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The five-minute limit still applies, but the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will be the last Member to benefit from it.

13:36

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Democratic Unionist party has been supportive throughout the process of delivering on the result of the referendum of the British people, and we have defied and opposed the procedural chicanery and political machinations that have gone on in this place to try to undermine that result. The irony is that today, which should be a day of rejoicing for us because the Prime Minister has come back with a deal, we find that Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland alone, will be left within the clutches of the European Union, by being a de facto member of a customs union and tied to European regulations.

The Government have put forward two defences for their position. The first is that there will be no border down the Irish sea—there is no border down the Irish sea. But let us look at the facts. As a result of the customs arrangements, every good that is exported from GB to Northern Ireland will be subject to a customs declaration. Movements will be subject to checks. Unless it can be proved that the goods are not going outside Northern Ireland, duty will be paid. Only once it has been proved that the goods are not leaving Northern Ireland will that duty be paid back. On top of that, all the regulations of the European Union will be imposed on Northern Ireland. If anybody tells me that that does not represent an economic customs legal border—a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom—I do not know what a hard border looks like.

During debates in this House, I have heard it said that if an extra camera were to be placed on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, or if one additional piece of paper had to be signed, that would be a break in the Good Friday agreement because it would represent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. On the one hand we can have all those checks between Northern Ireland and GB, and that does not count as a hard border, yet on the other, one camera on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic does count as a hard border. That shows how false the argument put forward by the Government is that they have not accepted a hard border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What are the implications of that? First, it means that we are cut off from the country to which we belong and, secondly, that our economic relationship with our biggest market will be damaged.

The second argument put forward by the Minister today is that we can get out of this—we can vote against it. But in Northern Ireland there is a mechanism for dealing with sensitive issues. It is enshrined in an internationally binding agreement. That mechanism, because of the sensitive nature of politics in Northern Ireland, states that any controversial issue has to be decided by a cross-community vote. That part of the Belfast agreement, which is so sacrosanct in this House and to those who negotiated it, has now been torn out.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument, which we have heard. In the limited time available, may I ask him to turn his attention to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)? If he is concerned about a hard border, he must recognise that the door may be opening for a hard border and a no-deal Brexit to emerge.

[Sammy Wilson]

First of all, the hard border is there. I have made the argument. I defy anybody to tell me that if we have to fill in a customs declaration, we have to search lorries and vans coming into Northern Ireland at the ports and we have to pay taxes on goods that come from Great Britain, that is not already a hard border.

Let me return to the issue of consent, because it is important. The Minister dismisses Unionist fears by saying, “You can vote your way out of it.” The mechanism for voting our way out of it is led by an international treaty. Why is it not going to be adhered to? Because the Government, the EU and the Irish Government know that that would be an effective way of Northern Ireland doing the very thing that the Minister said we would be able to do. Remove that and you remove the ability of Northern Ireland to take itself out of this arrangement. And of course we only get the chance after four years! We are put into it without any consent at all.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Northern Ireland, at the moment and for the past 1,000 days when we have had no Government, there has been a majority—not just a simple majority, but a significant majority—of parties and people who want to get back to work? We are being held and blackmailed by a minority party, Sinn Féin, yet this Government have defended that minority veto for over 1,000 days, meaning that there is no Government in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the irony. We have to avoid having an Assembly because the voting mechanism of the Belfast agreement must be adhered to, but when it comes to getting out of this arrangement, which has severe consequences for Northern Ireland, the Belfast agreement mechanism does not have to be adhered to. Either we avoid a hard border or we have a hard border. Either we adhere to the Belfast agreement or we do not adhere to the Belfast agreement. The agreement the Government have signed turns all those things on their head, and that is why we will oppose it.

I am sure hon. Members across the House who have defended their constituency interests, whether the fishing industry in Scotland and Cornwall or the rights of workers in their own constituencies, will understand why we will not give in to this agreement. We believe it will cause damage to our part of the United Kingdom and lead the focus of attention away from London towards Dublin. Let us not forget that we will be tied in to an arrangement where the laws for Northern Ireland will be made in Brussels. The British Government will have no input. The Stormont Government will have no input. So where will the focus of attention be for industry, lobby groups and politicians in Northern Ireland? Dublin. We will move towards a united Ireland.

I was asked what the DUP would do in relation to the Letwin amendment. All I can say is this: we would be failing in our duty if we do not use every strategy available to try to get guarantees, changes and alterations that will safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom, the interests of our constituents and the interests that we represent.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

A three-minute limit now applies.

13:44

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I was planning to be brief anyway, Mr Speaker. I campaigned to leave, but at every stage of the campaign, I argued that we should leave on good terms with our friends and neighbours and leave with a deal. I supported the previous Prime Minister in what she sought to achieve, and I pay tribute to this Prime Minister for what he has done in bringing forward a deal. After a year of turbulence in this place, when we have not really come near to finding anything a majority in this House can agree on, it is absolutely clear today that we are much closer than we have been to something that this Parliament is willing to give its support to. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for achieving that and strongly urge the House to unite behind this agreement.

I want to talk specifically about the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and I want everyone on both sides of the House to think about this. I know him well—he has his reasons for tabling it—but the consequence of it is that this House, at a moment when the nation is watching us to see what decision we will take about the deal that has been brought back from Brussels, may decline to form an opinion. That is the consequence of passing the amendment—that we will not decide today whether we support the deal.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and I are Brexiteers of long standing—in my case, going back to my boyhood—but the truth is that the public are saying to us, “Enough is enough. Get on, get out, so we can get ahead.” It is as simple as that.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. To my mind, that is the crux of the issue with this amendment. Are we really going to say to the public today, “We are not going to make up our minds. We are going to yet again defer the decision”? Every Member will have to go back to their constituents and explain why today, at the first Saturday sitting since 1982, we were not able to take the decision about whether we support the principle of the deal or not. I think that would be deeply damaging to our democracy and to the reputation of this House and of every individual in this Parliament. I strongly urge everyone here, whatever their views, whether they are for this deal or against it: let us not put ourselves in a position today where we are simply not taking a decision and saying to the public, “Do you know what? We’ll put it off to another day.” I do not think that we can afford to do that, and I urge everyone in this House not to allow that situation to happen.

13:46

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The decision that we make today will shape the future of our country for years to come. In making that decision, three issues weight most heavily on my mind.

The first is the potential risks that this deal poses to the future of the Union of the United Kingdom. We have heard many times that the deal explicitly separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, with a border down the Irish sea and with Northern Ireland remaining part of the EU’s trading system—something that the Prime Minister promised he would never allow. I fear that these proposals would have knock-on implications for Scotland’s future relationship with the UK, too. I fear that the deal is an open goal for the Scottish National party in its bid for independence. We have heard the argument that Northern Ireland voted to remain and that it is still part of the EU, with frictionless trade, so why should Scotland not have that, too? I have always believed in the importance of unions—that we are stronger and have more power and control when we work together. I do not expect all Government Members to share that most fundamental of Labour beliefs, but, as members of the Conservative and Unionist party, I find it very hard to believe that they would vote for a deal that could put the future of our Union at risk.

The deal would also have potentially profound consequences for the future shape of our economy and public services, paving the way for the Government to take England, Scotland and Wales out of the single market and customs union—the hardest of all hard Brexits, short of no deal, with all the risks that that brings for manufacturing and services. Whatever the Prime Minister claims, there are no legal guarantees for workers’ and consumers’ rights and environmental standards. They can deny it until they are blue in the face, but we remember that it was precisely in order to cut those rights and standards that Brexiteers argued for years that we should leave the EU, so they cannot convince us otherwise now. I wish Government Members would just be honest and say, “We believe that the future of the country is as a low-tax, small-state, deregulated country.” They have a perfect right to think that, but they should have the guts to put that vision of Britain to the British people.

Finally, on the implications for our democracy, I know that colleagues on both sides of the House understand the risks that this deal poses to the Union and to our economy, but believe that the risks to our democracy are even worse. However, the truth is that the deal is not what people were promised during the referendum, nor will it get Brexit done. Far from it: we will have years more of negotiations, with another cliff edge at the end of the transition. I do not doubt that many people will be angry if the deal is voted down tonight, but we must put it back to the British people so that they can decide whether this is the future for the country that they want.

13:50

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that the deal presented to us has many flaws. As a Unionist, I think that one of its principal flaws is that it threatens the Union of the United Kingdom very directly, although I am bound to accept that I also think that Brexit in general threatens the Union of the United Kingdom very directly; I have never really seen an easy way to resolve that issue and deliver Brexit at the same time.

Although I should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the deal—he negotiated it; he was unhappy with the earlier deal; and he now says that he is satisfied with it—I remain of the view that if one looks at its detail in terms of the likely negotiating process that will have to take place next year, one is left in very serious doubt whether it will be possible to achieve a free trade agreement. This House will therefore be confronted in 12 months’ time with challenges very similar to those that we face at present, with deep economic consequences if we cannot find a way through them, so I am afraid that I am not enthusiastic about the deal.

I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who has been very consistent in her view on Brexit, which is that for MPs to offer a referendum and then try to thwart or reject it by our own actions is a con trick. I do not disagree with that, but we have the following disagreement: I do not believe that it is in any way a con trick, when one ends up with something so utterly different from what was offered, to go back and ask the electorate whether it is what they really want. I do not see anything wrong with that. I remain of the view that that possibility exists; if the House’s majority view were that it should be done, I would support it and seek to have it carried out, because the consequences are so momentous. I also make it clear to the Prime Minister that if that failed, I would not seek to oppose leaving on these terms. We have to resolve this.

That point brings me to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). It is frankly extraordinary that a Government who say that they want to follow a sensible process should seek to railroad that process in a way that makes it likely that proper debate will not take place. To that I profoundly object. For that reason, I will support the amendment, and so should any Member of this House who wants an orderly form of Brexit.

13:53

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I will vote for the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) because it is an insurance policy against no deal, by accident or by design. It is very clear from the debate so far that the deal that the Prime Minister has brought back will give us less good access to the biggest, nearest and most important market that we enjoy today and less good access than the deal negotiated by the former Prime Minister would have given. I cannot understand why anyone should regard that as something to be celebrated, cheered or recommended.

No wonder the Government do not want to do an economic assessment, because it would show the same thing as their last economic assessment. It was very striking, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) told the House, in his typically forensic and eloquent way, what it would mean in practice, to watch the euphoria evident on the Government Benches earlier give way to a cold realisation of what the deal will mean for the businesses and industries that we represent in our constituencies. I simply ask this: why would we want to undermine our future economy, investment, opportunity and potential in that way?

The second point I want to make is about consent. The Prime Minister is right to ask us how we will heal the rift that Brexit has created. If this deal is defeated, it will be the fourth time the House has been unable to agree a way forward. I am the first to admit that we cannot carry on like this. We need to find a way forward, and a way of doing so was offered, in a very prescient intervention a year ago, by my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) with their compromise proposal—and it is a compromise. There is in politics a division between those who advocate leaving with no deal if we cannot get a deal and those who say, “Let’s just cancel the result of the referendum and pretend it never happened.” I do not subscribe to either of those views.

There is compromise: we can get this done and make a decision by asking the British people. At the heart of that question is this: do the British people have the right to change their minds? I fear that some who reject a referendum would cry, “No, they don’t. We had the one vote, and that’s it.” I disagree with that view because it is fundamental to our democracy that, when the facts change, events change or time passes, we should have an opportunity to change our minds if we wish. I do not know the answer to that question. The only people who know are the British people, which is why I will vote for my hon. Friends’ amendment. We should ask the people what they now want.

13:56

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

For me, this has been quite a long journey. I want to say straightaway and very simply, having given a great deal of consideration to the issues discussed in the past few weeks and having had the opportunity to discuss them with Ministers, in No. 10, in our groups and in various other places, that I have come to the conclusion that we must support this deal.

I would go further, though I say this with great concern and respect for the DUP, because I know that elements of the deal do fall short—I still regard article 4 as a serious problem. I am glad that the Prime Minister responded as he did today with a personal assurance that he would ensure that parliamentary sovereignty was recognised in the Bill, notwithstanding the provisions that otherwise apply under the withdrawal agreement and article 4. Furthermore, he guaranteed that, where the vital interests of this country were affected, the European Scrutiny Committee would have the opportunity to ensure that the House could consider and vote on questions that so arise. I will not enlarge on that now because it has not been entirely finalised—the Bill has not been published—but there are signs of very great progress in that regard. This is about the principle of sovereignty and consent.

I also believe that Northern Ireland will benefit if the Select Committee procedures are followed along the lines I am proposing. Northern Ireland Members could give evidence to the Committee about how this is operating for them, and then, assuming all goes well with the Bill, there could be an opportunity for a vote on the Floor of the House. I wanted to make that point clear now because this is an historic moment, and a moment we have to seize. Let us get out on 31 October—no second referendum, no revocation of article 50. Let us get Brexit done, have a general election and sort this out once and for all.

13:59

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I want to say some words about the nature of the deal before us. This is all a question of trust: whether we should support the deal depends on trust. We have heard that from their representatives today that the people of Northern Ireland cannot trust this deal. This could take us backwards, not forwards, in Northern Ireland.

We are learning that, before long, the Conservative and Unionist party will be the party only of England. They are putting our Union at risk. The people on the Great Britain-Northern Ireland border, whether that is in Birkenhead, Holyhead or Stranraer, cannot trust this deal. The Conservative party is becoming the party only of the south of England. As has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and by Frances O’Grady of the Trades Union Congress, we know the damage that this deal will do to the people of our manufacturing towns. The Conservative party is becoming the party only of the south-east home counties. As for the Conservatives who want a soft Brexit, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) gave it away: the ERG has decided. The Conservative party is becoming the party of only the ERG, and this is the ERG’s deal.

The next generation cannot trust this deal when it comes to environmental protections. We have seen the protests about climate change, but those voices are not heard. When it comes to freedom of movement and our rights at work, generations of trade unionists cannot trust this deal. We on the Labour Benches are representatives, not delegates, but I challenge any Labour MP to disagree with the delegates of any trade union branch in the country. We cannot trust this deal.

The Conservative party is making itself untrustworthy. Instead of advancing rational policies, it has made itself into a historical re-enactment society, seeking to undo 40 years of progress in which it played a part. However, the Conservatives’ interpretation of our country’s history is untrustworthy. Let me mention one lesson from our history: at the time of the fall of France, the Polish pilots who came to Britain to fight alongside us called Britain “last hope island”. Then as now, solidarity in Europe, not a Britain that stands alone, should be the source of our hope. That was true then, and it is true now. This deal is bad for Britain, and we should vote it down.

14:02

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Let me first say a word about the amendment. Those who are thinking of voting for it should not be under the illusion that it will take no deal off the table. No deal cannot be taken off the table. We can ask the EU for an extension, but the EU does not need to grant an extension. The only way to take no deal off the table is to accept the only deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union that is on offer.

There are three reasons why I think we should vote in favour of this deal today. The first is that it delivers on the referendum result. Let us go back to first principles. We made a contract with the people of the United Kingdom, using the two elements of our constitution: direct democracy, which meant saying to them, “We will not, or cannot, make a decision. Therefore, you must make the decision,” and representative democracy, which meant saying, “We, the House of Commons, will determine how to implement that decision.” That is what we are being asked to do today. It is our duty to deliver on what we have promised the British people if we want to maintain faith in our electoral and political system.

Some 80% of us—those of us who sit on the Conservative and Labour Benches—stood on a manifesto that specifically said that we would honour the result of the referendum. It is not good enough for us to say that we favour a deal, and then want to vote down every single detail of every single deal that is ever made. The public will regard that as at best disingenuous. There are those who say to us, “Let us have another referendum.” Why would any citizen of this country, looking at their Parliament, which had said, “We have been asked to hold a referendum,” vote in a second referendum if we failed to deliver on what we had promised in the first one? This is a question of faith in our electoral system itself.

The second reason why we should deliver on this deal is that it gets us on to the territory of our future relationship. We have spent three and a half years taking about the divorce, and almost no time talking about the future relationship. There will be a great debate to be had about the level of alignment that we have sector by sector with the European economy. That is why there is such a strong case for having a general election. Let us actually get out and make the case for what we believe in about the future relationship. This deal also gives us the chance to help shape global trade policy—an independent trade policy, at a time when global trade is slowing down.

The final reason is that the deal allows us to get on to other issues. So much of our political bandwidth has been taken up by Brexit that the public feel that we no longer talk about the issues that matter to them.

Of course there is no such thing as the perfect deal—I voted for the previous deal three times, with strong reservations, and I have strong reservations today—but it has come to the point where we have to deliver on the contract that we made with the people of Britain. It is time for us to put differences aside, put aside the sort of stupid party political games we have had and do what we promised.

14:05

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

We have reached the fork in the road. We must now choose. Do we choose the route that leads us to an outward-looking, confident nation, punching above its weight in a European Union battling for liberal values in a world that is increasingly illiberal, isolationist and belligerent? That course guarantees that EU citizens, many of whom have lived here since the 1960s and ’70s, will not have to worry about proving they are entitled to healthcare and provides for their UK counterparts in the EU, who will not need to fret over what action to take should the time-limited six months of healthcare guaranteed by our Government expire. Or do we let ourselves be led by a colourful pied piper who chose his path and this deal not out of any conviction that his path was just, rational or economically beneficial for our nation, but because he believed it was the most secure way to achieve his own ambition?

Do we meekly follow a man whose “excellent” deal, according to such Government analysis as they have been willing to make available, will leave each household at least £2,000 worse off and hit British jobs and living standards with the ferocity of the austerity triggered by the 2008 crash? This deal, as the Prime Minister confirmed in his rather rambling and dissembling contribution, may not survive the transition period and could still lead to a no-deal crash-out.

Do we follow in the footsteps of a man who, just a month ago, claimed to a rapturous DUP gathering that the “precious Union” was “in good shape”, but a month later dealt the Union a hammer blow that could shatter it within just a couple of years? Are we so afraid of our own shadow and so lacking in confidence in our capacity to work the EU system to our advantage, as we have successfully done for decades, that we have to fall back on a nostalgic vision of empire and a buccaneering Britain?

That is the choice in front of us today. I hope that we choose the former path. It would require one further step—a people’s vote—to give the people the final say. That would be the democratic way—a way supported by the hundreds of thousands of people over there in Parliament Square as we speak. That is the only way to stop the Brexit rot in its tracks and put this issue to bed. I urge all Members to follow that path, vote for the amendment and reject this calamitous deal.

14:07

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Ind)]

I have always set out wanting to agree a deal with the EU that delivers the outcome of the referendum within the terms of the 2017 manifesto that I stood on. I have fought against an undemocratic no deal and always voted for a deal. In fact, I have voted for a deal more times than the Prime Minister. I have even voted for a deal more times than the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Transport Secretary and the Environment Secretary—combined. Despite this, I have had the Whip removed, and those who voted down deal after deal have been rewarded with jobs in the Cabinet.

I would like to support this deal as well, but the Government have been sending mixed messages. While Ministers at the Dispatch Box say they want a deal, anonymous No. 10 sources insist that they will break the law and deliver no deal. Owing to this and the Government’s Janus-like ability to face in both directions, I cannot support the Government without assurances. Those assurances come in the form of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). This would ensure that the Government and the members of my former party stuck to their promises. It would also ensure that there was enough time to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is likely to be a mammoth piece of legislation.

The House might notice that I am saying little about the content of the deal. I was always taught, “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.” Suffice it to say that it is substantially worse than the deal negotiated by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Perhaps this deal’s sole merit is to cast her redoubtable negotiating efforts in a more positive light. It is a great shame that Opposition Members did not vote for that deal.

The Foreign Secretary let the cat out of the bag yesterday when he said that it was a “cracking deal” for Northern Ireland because it will keep

“frictionless access to the single market.”

My residents and businesses in Cheshire would like that frictionless access to the single market. If it is such a great deal for Northern Ireland, why cannot my constituents have it, too?

I will back the deal, subject to the reassurance of the amendment, but I do not like the deal. Given the choice between a dodgy deal and remain, I suspect many constituents would opt for the latter. As such, if I get an opportunity to vote on an amendment in respect of a people’s vote, I will vote for that, too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liz Saville Roberts. The right hon. Lady is not in her place. I beg her pardon; I did not intend her any discourtesy.

14:10

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)]

On 26 June 2016, we had a referendum, which in effect was a snapshot on a single day. A distorted photograph was obtained. It was distorted by false images. It was distorted by fibs on a bus and by fake promises of getting an easy, quick deal that would convey all the benefits of free trade that our country has enjoyed for so many years as a member of the European Union. It was created by preying on people’s fears and fuelling their prejudices at the same time.

Three and a half years later, we now at least have some clarity. On two occasions, the Government have negotiated a deal with the European Union. Like the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), I think this a bad deal for all the good reasons given by so many right hon. and hon. Members.

This place remains divided. The answer is not yet another general election. The last one did not help us by solving anything, because it could not. The only way to solve this matter is to get it back to where, in effect, it began: to the people. We should put the deal to a confirmatory referendum. People are entitled to change their minds as the evidence changes, and they now see with clarity what Brexit is all about. Surely our young people who were not able to vote in 2016 must have the right to play a part and determine their own futures, given that so many of them will be affected by Brexit.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Soubry]

I will not, because we have not got time.

We now know what the deal looks like—and my goodness, it is such a bad deal. It is bad for the Union and bad for jobs, and it opens a back door to the no deal that certain Conservative Members undoubtedly want. I gently say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches that it defies belief that they can sit there claiming to be Unionists and vote for the deal.

We need a people’s vote, and that is why more than a million people have come to London today. Let us get it back to the British people. Let us get Brexit done but by way of taking it back for that confirmatory referendum.

14:13

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank all Members of this House for their passionate contributions. I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for sharing his mints with the shadow Front-Bench team earlier. However, that is where my joviality ends.

Today is a historic day. It is a day on which the fewer than 650 people sat here now will agonise over whether they are about to make the right choice for their communities, industries and future generations. Today, they ask themselves, “Is what is before us today truly a deal that protects and enhances our communities?” Sadly, the simple and irreconcilable truth is that it does not. As the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I want to make it clear to the House that this deal, if agreed to, would be a disaster for this country. We must reject it.

On workers’ rights, we simply cannot trust what the Prime Minister is saying. The Government say that this deal protects workers, but instead of strengthening protections they have specifically changed the legally binding withdrawal agreement to remove any commitments on workers’ rights. It tells us something that no trade union in this country—not a single one—backs this deal. The TUC says that the deal

“would be a disaster for working people”.

Unison says that

“it would risk every workplace right and leave public services exposed and vulnerable.”

Unite says that

“by further diluting the legal protections for labour and environmental standards, the prime minister has made the laws that underpin workers’ rights and public safety extremely vulnerable in future trade deals.”

I could go on, but we should also look at the business case.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Please forgive me for not giving way; we are extremely pushed for time.

What does this deal mean for business? I will put it simply; for business, for our industries and for our manufacturing, it reduces access to the market of our biggest trading partner, threatening jobs up and down our country at a time when more investment is needed, not less. There is no economic impact assessment and no accompanying legal advice—funny that; I wonder why. According to The Guardian, Britain is on course to sacrifice as much as £130 billion in lost GDP growth over the next 15 years if the Brexit deal goes ahead.

Industry has been clear that it needs market access. It needs a customs union to keep vital supply chains flowing, but this deal sells them out. With no barrier-free access and no customs union, it puts the fantasy of chasing damaging trade deals with Donald Trump over the needs of our country. Again, the House does not have to take my word for it. Make UK, which represents British manufacturing, is clear that

“commitments to the closest possible trading relationship in goods have gone”

and that the deal

“will add cost and bureaucracy and our companies will face a lack of clarity inhibiting investment and planning.”

Even the CBI added that the

“deal remains inadequate on services”

and that it has

“serious concerns about the direction of the future UK-EU relationship.”

This is a bad deal for industry, a bad deal for manufacturing and, more importantly, a bad deal for jobs.

Let us look at what the deal will mean for the environment. Let us see what green groups are saying about it. Greener UK, for example, has raised—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is excessive noise in the Chamber. It is very unfair on the hon. Lady, who is developing her contribution. Let us listen to each other courteously.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Greener UK has raised huge concerns, saying that

“environmental safeguards are absent from the new withdrawal agreement”

and that the Government’s toothless Environment Bill

“provides neither an enforcement body with independence… nor a commitment to non-regression in domestic law.”

All this is coming at a time when we face a climate crisis across the world, and it is simply unacceptable.

The Government are asking us to trust them on all these issues without, quite tellingly, setting out any detail or legislation today. The Prime Minister says that nobody in his Government wants to reduce rights or standards, but that is a remarkable statement, especially when looking at their track record. How can we trust them?—[Interruption.] Government Members can cheer all they like, but how can we trust a Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who made it clear that, for small businesses, she envisages

“no regulation whatsoever—no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights”?—[Official Report, 10 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 209.]

How can we trust a Foreign Secretary who wrote a pamphlet called “Escaping the Straitjacket” that outlined his plans to cut workers’ rights and regulations? How can we trust a Prime Minister who said the UK should scrap the social chapter and claimed that the current

“weight of employment regulation is… backbreaking”?

The answer is that we cannot trust them. If their intentions were to maintain current standards, why have they slashed every level playing field commitment in the withdrawal agreement?

We are about to make history and, in the final moments before we enter the Lobbies, MPs will consider the weight placed upon their shoulders. Is this deal right for their communities, industries and future generations? No, it is not. Agreeing this deal will not get Brexit done; instead, it will sell out our country and sell out our communities, leaving us open to an onslaught of deregulation and a reduction of rights that will put jobs at risk. That is something no Labour MP, nor any other MP worried about protecting their community, could ever support.

14:19

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)]

Our democracy is a precious thing, and this Parliament is a special place. Our democracy depends on respect for difference, and this Parliament thrives on respecting the sincerity and the commitment to public service of every Member.

That is why I know that deciding how to vote today will have been difficult for many Members, and it is important we all recognise that those who argued to remain, and who still argue that that is the best outcome, do so as patriots, but they take a different view from some of us. And we should all recognise that those who argued to leave, who have consistently argued that we should leave and who have argued for a better deal, are arguing for what they believe is best for our country.

I respect those who have argued for both positions, but I respect most of all the many Members of this House who argued that we should remain, and who during the course of that campaign believed it was the best course for the country, but who now recognise that, the people having spoken, the verdict must be respected.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not yet.

In a debate characterised by many brilliant and passionate speeches, the speech that stood out for me was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). She argued for remain, but she also recognises that, when the people have spoken, their verdict has to be respected. We have seen that not only from Conservative Members but from Members of all parties, such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and the right hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron). They all argued that we should remain, but now they recognise that there is something more precious than being a leaver or a remainer: being a democrat.

What unites us in this House is that we are democrats, and we voted in this House of Commons to have a referendum. We voted in this House of Commons to say that we would respect the verdict of the people. We voted overwhelmingly for article 50, which honoured that referendum result and said that we would leave. How will it look to those who sent us here if we say to them now, “We made those sacred promises, but now we choose to dishonour them”?

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No.

There will be individuals on both sides of the House who have specific qualms and concerns about this deal, but the time has come for us to decide. None of us in a country that voted 52:48, none of us in a House of 650 Members and none of us in a country of 65 million people can ensure that we have our own perfect Brexit.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No.

What we can do is be prepared to put aside our perfect for the sake of the common good, and that is what the public want us to do.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) laid out some of his concerns about the political declaration, but he knows and we know that if we vote today for the deal—if we vote for this withdrawal agreement—we can then move on to ensure that the future economic partnership we all want can be framed in the best interests of the British people.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

I will not give way, but I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s persistence. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not currently giving way.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Every party and every voice in this House will have equal weight and equal value in the discussion on our future economic partnership, making sure that we can deliver a Brexit deal that delivers for the 52% and for the 48%. That is our intention.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No I shall not, and no I will not—however tempting it might be, I will decline on this occasion.

The truth is that, because no deal could ever satisfy everyone, we could spend all our time searching for that elusive perfect deal, but what would that position look like to the country? What would it look like to all those who have sent us here? What would it look like to the constituents of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who voted to leave and expected that vote to be honoured? They voted to put trust in this place; to put trust in Parliament to make a vital decision. If we duck that decision, if we dither and delay, I am afraid that people will feel a sense of depression, dismay and demoralisation because the Parliament that they hoped would keep its promises had chosen once again to duck its responsibilities.

I am also clear that everyone who has spoken in this debate has done so with the best of motives, including my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), a dear and old friend of mine, but one of the things that I would say to him, and to others—

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Gove]

On that point, I will give way.

[Steve Brine]

Everybody has their beliefs, and everybody does what they believe to be right, including our right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Were the Bill that follows the meaningful vote to fail, how would the Government avoid no deal before the end of October?

[Michael Gove]

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a deal, to ensuring that we obey the law, and to ensuring that we respect the voices of all those in this House. Let me say firmly from this Dispatch Box that this Government are committed to ensuring that we have a deal, and the best way of getting that deal, leaving on 31 October and being able to move on to the other issues, that the people of this country want us to discuss, is by accepting the honourable motives of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset but recognising that, were we to accept his amendment, we would not have a meaningful vote today. That would not unlock the door to a deal being passed. We would have voted, I am afraid, in the terms of the motion, for more delay.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No.

On that basis, I urge everyone who wants us to honour the referendum mandate to recognise that the amendment, however sincerely it has been put forward, is unnecessary.

What is necessary now is for us to reach a moment of decision. Lord Judge, the leader of the Cross-Bench peers—in some respects, the voice of moderation in the other place—has said that the time has passed for people to quibble and question the precise terms of this deal. He, a former Lord Chief Justice, has said that Parliament needs to “get on with it”, because otherwise there will be “profound damage” to public confidence in this place.

That is the question that every Member of this House must ask. How will our constituents feel if we vote to support the deal without the amendment? They will feel that a cloud has been lifted; that Parliament has listened to them with respect; and that the vote in 2016, which we promised to honour, has, after three and half years of deadlock and division, been honoured by a House that at last is ready to unite. That is the choice that faces us all.

If we do not vote for the deal without the amendment, I am afraid that all those who sent us here, who are watching our deliberations, will say that Parliament has failed to meet the moment; that Parliament has failed to rise to the occasion; that Parliament has failed to ensure that an important democratic vote takes place; and that the most important vote, with the greatest number of votes cast for any proposition in our history, will be delayed and dishonoured, and will not be delivered. [Interruption.] That is why I urge everyone in this House to recognise that our first duty—[Interruption]—is to the principle that underpins this place—

[Ian C. Lucas]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said no! The right hon. Gentleman is responding to the debate, and he will do so to a conclusion.

[Michael Gove]

Our first duty to our constituents and our country is to keep our promises. This House said that we would honour that referendum mandate. The time has come. The question that all of us must answer when we return to our constituencies is: did you vote to end the deadlock? Did you vote to end the division of these days? Did you vote to bring the country together? I know that Members across the House will support the Government this afternoon, to do just that.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

I beg to move that the Question now be put.

[Mr Speaker]

I am indeed putting the Question. I am extremely grateful.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

14:30

Division 3

Ayes: 322

---

Labour: 231
Scottish National Party: 35
Independent: 22
Liberal Democrat: 19
Democratic Unionist Party: 10
The Independent Group for Change: 5
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 1

Noes: 306

---

Conservative: 284
Independent: 15
Labour: 6

Amendment (a) agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, in light of the new deal agreed with the European Union, which enables the United Kingdom to respect the result of the referendum on its membership of the European Union and to leave the European Union on 31 October with a deal, this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to motion 2 on Section 1(2)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. I remind the House that I have selected the manuscript amendment. Minister or Whip to move. It is not being moved.

[The Prime Minister]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you, the House of Commons staff, and everybody who has put themselves out and given up their time for the debate today. It has been a very important debate, and an exceptional moment for our country and our Parliament. Alas, the opportunity for a meaningful vote has effectively been passed up, because the meaningful vote has been voided of meaning, but I wish the House to know that I am not daunted or dismayed by this result. It became likely once it was obvious that the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was going to remain on the Order Paper. I continue in the very strong belief that the best thing for the UK and the whole of Europe is for us to leave with this new deal on 31 October.

To anticipate the questions that will come from the Opposition, I will not negotiate a delay with the EU; neither does the law compel me to. I will tell our friends and colleagues in the EU exactly what I have told everyone in the 88 days in which I have served as Prime Minister: further delay would be bad for this country, bad for our European Union, and bad for democracy. Next week, the Government will introduce the legislation needed for us to leave the EU with our new deal on 31 October, and I hope that our European Union colleagues and friends will not be attracted, as those on the Opposition Benches—or rather, I should say, the Opposition Front Bench—are, by delay; I do not think that they will be. Then, I hope that hon. Members, faced with a choice on our new deal for the UK and the European Union, will change their mind—because it was pretty close today—and support this deal in overwhelming numbers.

Since I became Prime Minister, I have said that we must get on, and get Brexit done on 31 October, so that this country can move on. That policy remains unchanged. No delays! I will continue to do all I can to get Brexit done on 31 October, and I continue to commend this excellent deal to the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome today’s vote. Parliament has clearly spoken. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister was heard. [Interruption.] Yes, he was; do not argue the toss with the Chair. I am telling you what the situation is, and everybody can detect that the Prime Minister was heard. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard, too. It is as simple and unarguable as that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I welcome today’s vote. It is an emphatic decision by this House, which has declined to back the Prime Minister’s deal today and clearly voted to stop a no-deal crash-out from the European Union. The Prime Minister must now comply with the law. He can no longer use the threat of a no-deal crash-out to blackmail Members to support his sell-out deal. Labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that we represent. We are not prepared to sell out their future, and we believe that ultimately the people must have the final say on Brexit, which actually only the Labour party is offering.

Today is an historic day for Parliament, because it has said that it will not be blackmailed by a Prime Minister who is apparently prepared, once again, to defy a law passed by this Parliament. I invite him to think very carefully about the remarks he just made about refusing, apparently, to apply for the extension that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act requires him to do.

[Ian Blackford]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think all of us in this House are aware of the responsibilities that we have. This is a crisis that we are in. I am thankful that the House has voted the way it has done on the amendment this afternoon. There is a clear expression from this House that we cannot crash out on 31 October.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask you what we can do to make sure that the Prime Minister respects the law of the land, that the Prime Minister respects the Benn Act and sends a letter to the European Council seeking that extension. I wonder what we can do to make sure that the Government do not bring forward a Bill until that extension, as they have been instructed, is delivered on. If there is any failure on the part of a Prime Minister who thinks he is above the law, well, Prime Minister, you will find yourself in court.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not mean it in any spirit of discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think his contribution was rhetorical in the sense that I do not think he was particularly inviting my immediate response. If he was doing so, I would say to him that I think judicious consideration of these matters is always beneficial to colleagues across the House. Everybody, of course, must abide by the law. The right hon. Gentleman is versatile, dextrous and experienced in the use of the parliamentary weaponry to try to ensure that his point of view prevails, so we will leave it there for now.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s deal was a bad deal, and the public deserve to have the final say—not just the hundreds of thousands who are marching outside, but the millions of people across our country. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I recognise that there are very strongly held views on both sides of the House and on both sides of this debate, but the leader of the Liberal Democrats must be heard. It is unconscionable if there is an attempt to stop someone being heard.

[Jo Swinson]

And the people who are outside this building right now will be heard, and they deserve the final say, along with millions across the country. The most urgent thing right now is that the Prime Minister complies with the law, and I ask your guidance. Would it be possible to suspend the sitting for a short time to allow the Prime Minister to go and send his letter, and come back and make a statement to the House to confirm that he has done so?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is not my intention to suspend the sitting. The point will have been heard by the Prime Minister. I say to the hon. Lady that all sorts of things are possible, but as to what is judged appropriate at this time, I think the puckish grin on the contours of the hon. Lady’s face suggests that she was making a point, but not expecting such a decision. I am grateful to her.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Of course I will come to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) momentarily. I call Sir Oliver Letwin.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First, let me say to the Prime Minister that I agreed with what he said at the end of his remarks, and I am absolutely certain that he will comply with the law. I say to friends and colleagues across the House who helped us to achieve this amendment, which I believe to be profoundly in the national interest, that I am grateful for that co-operation, but that our ways are now going to part. Many Conservative Members who co-operated in preventing a no-deal exit by helping to put in place the Benn Act and keeping it in place as an insurance policy today, will, when the Prime Minister brings forward a Bill to implement our withdrawal from the European Union to the House of Commons, now be voting for it. We will continue to vote for it and seek to ensure that it becomes law before 31 October. If it does become law, this country will leave on 31 October—a hope that I share with the Prime Minister—but it will do so on the basis of knowing that should anything go wrong, we will not crash out without a deal on that date.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as many Members of the House will be, for the clarity of his exposition. [Interruption.] People can take their own view of it, but it was certainly clear and very pithy, and I am grateful to him.

[Nigel Dodds]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This decision will give further time for detailed consideration of the Bill when it comes forward, as well as an opportunity to consider whatever amendments come forward in detail. It has the effect of not approving the deal today, and we will examine all the details of the Bill, and all amendments, in light of our overriding concern about the constitutional and economic integrity of the Union. That is our priority. It will remain our priority in the days ahead, and that is the basis on which we will now proceed in a timely and sensible manner.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will take it in the right spirit if I say that, having known him for more than 20 years, I feel that our proceedings would not be complete without a point of order from the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. [Interruption.] Somebody is suggesting a Division, but I will not allow one on that matter.

[Sir William Cash]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is much talk about the law of the land, but the law of the land as it stands at this moment in time is quite simple. Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 categorically states:

“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”

That is 31 October—just in case anyone cannot read.

[Mr Speaker]

I am always grateful, and I am sure the House will be indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his legal exegesis. There are other views on that matter, but he has registered his with his customary force.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If Members are leaving the Chamber—I understand the disappointment of the hon. and learned Lady, but I cannot compel Members to remain. I cannot, to coin a phrase, take anybody hostage. I do not have the power to incarcerate. I am trying to be helpful to her—I am playing for time. If those Members who, quite unaccountably, do not wish to listen to the hon. and learned Lady would leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, the rest of us—including, assuredly, the Chair—who wish to hear her, can do so. People are gradually beetling out of the Chamber, and if the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), feels that he could beetle out and conduct his conversation outside, that would be greatly appreciated by the Chair.

[Joanna Cherry]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your indulgence. Viewers in Scotland are accustomed to the sight of the Tory Benches emptying when Members of Parliament who represent Scottish seats get up, and I very much look forward to seeing that in the SNP’s party political broadcasts in the soon-to-come general election.

My point is an important one. The Prime Minister has failed to secure approval of the withdrawal agreement today under the terms of the Benn Act. Under the law of the land he should be retreating to No.10 to pen a letter to the European Union, under both that Act and the undertakings—as so described by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—that he gave to the Scottish Court. Fortunately, we are back in court on Monday morning. It will be possible then to secure the Court’s assistance if the Prime Minister has flouted the law and the promises he gave to the Court.

Mr Speaker, may I ask you this? Should Scotland’s supreme Court mandate you to sign the letter required by the Act on behalf of this Parliament, will you do so?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady. I have no expectation of being so asked. Moreover, I have no aspirations to the exalted status that would have been attained by a person so requested or directed by the court. The short answer to her is that if I were instructed by this House I would do as instructed, and if I were directed or instructed by a court I would do as directed. That is my instinctive reaction. I would, of course, seek further and better particulars. I would take advice, but I repeat that I have not been asked. I am not expecting to be asked and I am not looking to be asked, but I would do as I was required to do and I would have no hesitation in so doing.

[Caroline Lucas]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome the vote on the amendment, because it shows that a majority of Members have stood up for more democracy, not less. They have stood up for more scrutiny, not less. They have also voted to rule out a disastrous no deal. I believe it will also give us a chance to let the people have a final say. Over 1 million of them are, right now, demanding that right outside this place. The Prime Minister has changed his own mind more times than we can possibly count, most recently on the border in the Irish sea. It cannot be right that the British people are the only ones who are not allowed to change their minds. I look forward to the opportunity that this vote affords us to come back to put whatever deal is in front of us to that confirmatory ballot.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I say to her publicly what I said to her privately, which is that I am sorry that, on account of constraints of time and a desire to bring matters to a conclusion, I was not able to call her today in the debate, but she has at least had a mini speech in the form of her point of order. I know that no power on earth would or should stop her contributing frequently on future occasions. I certainly look forward to that.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any power that you have to enable this House and the public to properly understand what the Prime Minister has just said to us? According to the law passed by this House, if a deal or no deal is not agreed, the Prime Minister is required to send a letter under the Benn Act today, 19 October. It may be my misunderstanding, Mr Speaker, but I have no idea, from what the Prime Minister said, whether he is actually going to write and sign that letter, or whether he is not going to do that. If he is not going to do it, that means he is not complying with the law that has been passed by the House of Commons. Any of our constituents who do not comply with the law face the consequences. Is there anything we can do to properly understand whether the Prime Minister intends to comply with the legislation and send the letter, or whether he is simply going to ignore it?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of some very considerable pride—but my understanding is that the legal position is clear. I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the legal position. Ministers have made—I say this quite neutrally—a number of statements about adherence to, or compliance with, the so-called Benn Act. Those statements have not always been immediately and obviously compatible with each other. I think we have to await the development of events. In general terms, it is of course true to say that Ministers have emphasised their commitment to observe the law, including the Prime Minister, who has said that on a number of occasions. It is also true that the Prime Minister has indicated that he is not willing to seek an extension.

My understanding of the legal position is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. We must await the development of events. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), from the SNP, raised a similar concern about this matter, which has now been echoed by the hon. Gentleman. Further enlightenment may follow when the Leader of the House uncoils and addresses us from the Dispatch Box—I do not know. I am not psychic; we shall see.

I think that matters are coming to a conclusion today, but the House will sit on Monday and I confidently anticipate that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will be in his place and ready to leap to his feet with alacrity to advance his point of view and that of others. [Interruption.] The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), is shaking his head in a mildly eccentric manner. [Interruption.] Not at me—indeed. We are deeply grateful. I was not looking to call him, but if he particularly wanted to raise a point of order, especially as he used to be my constituent, far be it from me to deny him. [Interruption.] He says “Not today”—okay, fair enough.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of today’s decision, I should like to inform the House that Monday’s business will now be a debate on a motion relating to section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and I shall make a further business statement on Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the Leader of the House has said. We will hear what others have to say—that has been done by him on a point of order.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for making it, and in response I would like to ask him, through you, Mr Speaker, why we are having a rerun of the vote. If that is not the case, could the Bill be published and debated in an orderly way? And how discourteous this is to Her Majesty the Queen, when we are still debating the Queen’s Speech. When are we likely to have the remaining days of the Queen’s Speech debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the right hon. Lady has said.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I too am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing that additional piece of business on Monday. I share deeply the concerns of the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on these issues. What is happening to the Queen’s Speech? What will now happen to the debates and votes that were supposed to happen? We were supposed to conclude the Queen’s Speech debate by Wednesday.

This is a huge discourtesy to the House. If the Leader of the House wanted a vote on this Government’s deal, he could have had it 20 minutes ago. That was the right time to do it. We deserve some sort of explanation as to why this is being brought back on Monday so quickly without any conversation or discussions across the usual channels and no discussions or debate with other parties in this House. He has to get back to his feet and explain a bit more about what he is intending and why he never took advantage of the opportunity to have a vote on this 20 minutes ago.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Should the Leader of the House not have sought to make an emergency business statement, if that was what his intention was, so that we could do what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) have just done and asked questions of the right hon. Gentleman about his intentions regarding what happens to the rest of the important business that we have before us?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to that is yes. I intend no discourtesy to the Leader of the House, but it had been intimated to me—albeit not by him—that in the event of the Government being defeated on amendment (a), it would be the Executive’s intention to bring forward an emergency business statement. Although an emergency business statement is often narrow in its terms, because it flows from a particular event on a given subject, it is susceptible to questioning, whereas doing this on a point of order is most unusual and does not readily lend itself to questioning. It is, to be frank, unsatisfactory, but I do not intend any discourtesy to the Leader of the House and I am quite certain that he thought that he was doing the right thing. He would not knowingly do the wrong thing, but it is less than helpful to the exchanges. I will have to take advice and reflect on these matters further, because I did not receive advance notification, of any length, of the intention—still less of the intention to do it in this way.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the Leader of the House’s very brief remarks, I wonder whether it has been made clear to you when the Second Reading of the Bill that the Prime Minister said would be introduced will take place, and which days next week we will have as the two days to complete our debates, and vote, on the Queen’s Speech.

[Mr Speaker]

It would, of course, be most useful to have clarification on that matter. [Interruption.] The Clerk at the Table is waving in front of me—most helpfully, I hasten to add; it is a helpful wave, as opposed to an unhelpful wave—notice of the presentation of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill in the name of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

Like the hon. Lady, I heard the Prime Minister refer to the Government’s intention to introduce the withdrawal and implementation Bill. It is perfectly open to the Government to do that—indeed, it is perfectly open to them to do it next week—and I had anticipated or surmised that that might be the likely course of action for them to follow. It would be an entirely reasonable course of action, but at this stage I am not receiving any explicit indication that that is what they intend to do on Monday. This does not altogether assist the House, but colleagues can reflect further on these matters.

[Mr McFadden]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a slightly odd situation. My question is really for the Leader of the House, but because he made a point of order rather than a business statement, I find myself having to put it to you—although of course he is very welcome to get to his feet and help us to clarify matters if he wants to. What a lot of us want to know about Monday is whether it is your understanding, as I have to phrase it, that the Government intend to bring back a motion to approve the agreement struck with the European Union under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, or whether your understanding is that they intend to bring back the legislation implementing that agreement.

[Mr Speaker]

As things now stand, at 3.17 pm on Saturday afternoon, I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has heard: that the Government seem to be planning to bring forward a vote under the relevant section of existing legislation, rather than bringing forward the withdrawal and implementation Bill. It is not for me to make the Government’s argument for them, nor has such an argument been advanced. It may be that they are thinking that the vote would be a different vote from that which has taken place today, and they may find reinforcement in that view—from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), to give but one example. However, I repeat that an emergency business statement, with greater clarity and the opportunity for interrogation, would have been very considerably more helpful to the House.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Member who is meant to lead for the Scottish National party in the supposed Queen’s Speech debate on the NHS and trade deals, I simply need to know—like many hon. Members across the House—whether to prepare a speech. Work is planned for Monday and Tuesday, and I think it incredibly disrespectful that we simply do not know what we are doing on Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to repeat the position over and over again; I have already indicated that the situation is obviously less than satisfactory. However, I have enormous regard for the number and quality of the hon. Lady’s grey cells. It seems to me that if she is required to shift from the penning of one type of speech to the construction of another, it will be the equivalent for her of swatting a hornet: it will cause her no trouble at all.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to put a motion before the House that is effectively defeated and then to re-table the exact same motion hoping for a different result, perhaps in anticipation of certain conversations happening over the weekend between the Prime Minister and people who voted one way, and perhaps on the basis of what appears in the Sunday papers? Is it in order to bring the same motion twice on consecutive days? Do we not have a duty to our constituents and to the country to let this matter rest?

[Mr Speaker]

I am alert to the argument the hon. Lady has made. I think the fairest thing to say is that, as I have been advised by the Clerk, a ruling on Monday on this matter would be sensible. I must say to colleagues that the Chair seeks to be as dextrous and versatile as possible in attending to colleagues’ various points of view and in responding to questions put to the Chair. It cannot always be expected that the Chair will do so immediately when something is raised that had not previously been put to the Chair, of which there was therefore no advance notice, and which has not therefore been discussed with expert advisers. It is perfectly reasonable to seek that expert advice, to discuss it with those so advising, to reflect upon the matter in the cold light of day and then to come back to the House with an informed, as opposed to a speculative, conclusion.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am cognisant of your recent comments, but it seems to me that we had a business statement setting out what was going to happen next week in the normal way. That has now been altered on a point of order. I am not convinced that that was an appropriate point of order. If it was not, we have not received notice in this House of what will happen on Monday. Can the Government alter the business on Monday using a point of order, or should an invite not be made for an emergency motion that we could listen and respond to?

[Mr Speaker]

The Government can put things on the Order Paper, but I repeat that this was not an emergency business statement. It could have been, but it was not, and that is a deeply relevant matter. Although the Government can table that which they wish—they can go to the Table Office and seek to table propositions—this is not an emergency business statement. There are precedents for most things in this House—although not for everything—but I cannot recall readily an example of a business statement being made purely on a point of order. It probably happens from to time, but in any case this is not an emergency business statement as such. It is an indication of intent, but it is not an emergency business statement as such.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify whether the Queen’s Speech amendments—I have one on free TV licences—will still be considered on Monday? Will there be space in the timetable to hear those amendments?

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly expect the Queen’s Speech debate to be conducted. It is to be expected that it will be continued. After all, the Leader of the House, who must have contemplated the possible scenarios, informed the House in all solemnity on Thursday of the business for Monday and Tuesday. He has not disavowed it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The nod of the head from the right hon. Gentleman confirms that he is not disavowing the intention to continue with the Queen’s Speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman derives some succour from that fact. It is necessary for him not only to listen to me but to observe the head movements of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on a procedural point. Quite clearly, the Leader of the House is not going to bring forward a business statement, and it is clear from these proceedings that Members wish to question him. Is there provision in the Standing Orders to suspend the House or otherwise give you an opportunity to consider a request for an urgent question to the Leader of the House this afternoon in order that we might question him?

[Mr Speaker]

Urgent questions are not taken at this time, and I am not sure that it would greatly advance matters. I will hear remaining points of order and will reflect on the other point the hon. Gentleman has made.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not been to the Table Office, but I understand that the Orders of the Day for Monday have been tabled and that they do not, in fact, include the Queen’s Speech debate for Monday. I am not sure whether the Leader of the House’s nod meant that we would be having a Queen’s Speech debate on Monday or that we would not be having a Queen’s Speech debate on Monday, because the Orders apparently include only debate on the withdrawal Act. Obviously, most of us have not had a chance to go to the Table Office and see the Order Paper. It would be very useful if you could somehow compel the Leader of the House to stand up and tell us whether that nod meant that we are having the Queen’s Speech debate on Monday or that we are not having the Queen’s Speech debate on Monday, because the details that have been placed in the Table Office appear to suggest that we are not.

[Mr Speaker]

It would certainly be helpful if the Leader of the House would elaborate, because at the moment there is extreme ambiguity about intention, and that—if I may very politely say this to the Leader of the House—cannot be right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you worry unduly. There will be a full emergency business statement on Monday—that is part of what I was saying—so that people can have a full appreciation of what business there will be. I made my announcement on a point of order because the situation had arisen urgently, and it was important to make clear to the House straightaway what would happen. However, as Members will know, statements are made very early in the day, and there will therefore be an opportunity for full understanding of how business will develop.

The Queen’s Speech debate will continue, but Monday will be as I set out in the point of order that I raised a few moments ago.

[Mr Speaker]

It will be if it is orderly, and I will reflect upon that matter. The Government are not the arbiter of what is orderly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I indicated to him during the exchanges on the business question on Thursday. That is a matter that brooks no contradiction whatsoever. Even if people feel that they are immensely knowledgeable about procedure or have a right to have their own way, or both, they can do so only within the rules.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to what appeared to be a quasi-business statement from the Leader of the House, which was or was not about matters that the House may be discussing on Monday but of which we have not had proper notice—and there is no intervening day for a motion tabled today for discussion on Monday, which is the normal course of events—the suggestion that we should repeat the same debate on essentially the same matter, section 13(1)(b), is surely contrary to all our normal practices, whereby the Government of the day, if a matter has been disposed of, cannot repetitiously and vexatiously keep asking the same question until they receive the answer that they prefer.

I do not ask you to rule on this matter now, Mr Speaker, but I strongly urge you to take account of the fact that many of us would feel that it would be an abuse of the power of the Executive to come back on Monday and ask the same question again just because they did not get the answer that they wanted today.

[Mr Speaker]

I concur with the sound advice from the Clerk at the Table. The hon. Gentleman has made a good case which should be duly considered. If I heard him correctly, he said that he was not looking for me to make a definite ruling from the Chair now, and I am most grateful to him for that, because I am not minded to do so. However, I say to him again, in all seriousness and candour, that he has made a good case. I have heard his point, it has been amplified by many other colleagues, and I will reflect upon it and give what I hope will be a fully considered ruling on this matter on Monday. I will do so, of course, having taken advice in appropriate quarters. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the House.

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your response to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and your statement that you will make a ruling on Monday, I am anxious that, if a section 13(1)(b) motion were to be tabled for the House to consider on Monday—which seems to me to be what we have just chosen to amend today—there should be an opportunity for an amendment, or amendments, to be tabled to it. Depending on whether the Government may table such a motion, could you indicate whether you would be willing to accept a manuscript amendment once we know what your ruling is on Monday?

[Mr Speaker]

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. My instinctive and unfailing approach, to the best of my limited ability, is to try to facilitate the House. It flows from that that I do not want the House to be disadvantaged.

In the ordinary course of events, one would hope that there was adequate notice of a motion and therefore an opportunity for amendments to be submitted on an earlier day. If there is no reasonable opportunity in this case, but there is—and I say “but there is”; it remains to be seen whether there is—an orderly motion before the House, tabled at rather short notice, it must be right that there should be an opportunity for manuscript amendments to be tabled, so that alternative propositions can be put before the House. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that that would be the case. It would be, I think, desirable in processing these matters for any such amendments to be down by midday on Monday. The Government’s motion has gone down today; a simple nod of the head would suffice.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful. However, I am happy to hear other views about that, although that would be my instinct—by midday would be helpful. Yes, there would be an opportunity for manuscript amendments.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two points that I want to put on record that may be worth considering when you are making your decision about whether this is an orderly proposal.

First, contrary to what one might assume, it is not the case—even if the Prime Minister has written his letter tonight, as I believe he now will and must—that this motion, which the Government have now put down, is in a substantially different context or would have a substantially different effect from the one which they tried today, but which the House rejected. The reason for that is that, in the Benn Act, we provided very specifically that if there is a validation by the House through an approval of the withdrawal agreement subsequent to the depositing of the letter with the EU, that letter can then automatically and immediately be withdrawn. So, what the Government are attempting in this motion to do is nothing more and nothing less than to repeat what would have been the effect of today, on Monday.

Secondly, I think it is important that the decision of the House today when it passed the amendment and subsequently passed the motion as amended was specifically that the House was withholding approval “unless and until” the legislative stages of implementation had occurred. This very clearly flies in the face of that, because it seeks the approval of the House without the legislative stages having been approved.

I understand entirely why the Government are trying to do this, because of course it would negate the whole effect of the amendment today, rather than moving us on to the Second Reading of the withdrawal implementation Bill, as I had hoped and expected, but I wanted to point those things out to you, Mr Speaker, because I think they are material when deciding whether it is orderly.

[Mr Speaker]

That is an extremely helpful series of points from the right hon. Gentleman. In responding, I merely repeat what others will have heard—namely, that the Prime Minister himself talked about introducing the legislation. I cannot recall off the top of my head whether he referred to when that would happen. I do not know whether he said that it would be next week, but he certainly did indicate that that was the intention, so one would deduce from that that that was indeed what the Government were proposing to do, rather than to introduce a motion under an earlier Act.

That, too, is, in a sense, grist to the mill of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and by others. It is most helpful of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to offer me his expert view in this public forum, the better to assist me in deliberating on this matter in the next couple of days—in fact, less than a couple of days.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The orders in the Table Office—[Interruption.] I am now not really sure whether I have a point of order to make, Mr Speaker. The orders in the Table Office make no mention of the Queen’s Speech whatsoever, so I assume that the Leader of the House meant that the Queen’s Speech debate will take place on other days. However, they do provide for a motion under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for up to 90 minutes. Therefore, if there are no urgent questions or statements on Monday, we will all be going home at 5 o’clock. Is there any way in which the Government can provide more time for a debate, given how heavily subscribed and how much interest there was today, and, for understandable reasons, how many Members were not able to be called? What provision is there for the Government to make more time available than just the statutory 90 minutes, if we are to have a meaningful vote on Monday?

[Mr Speaker]

People are bound by the Standing Order. It is possible to put a business of the House motion down, but it would have to be done before the close of business today.

I am very sorry that the Leader of the House has left; I know that some colleagues are complaining about that. This is not a business statement or a business question. [Interruption.] Indeed, I know colleagues are indicating from a sedentary position that they think it should be a business statement. I had anticipated that it would be an emergency business statement, but it has not been. If it were a business statement or an emergency business statement, the Leader of the House would obviously stay throughout the exchanges, but it was not and he has not. Colleagues must form their own view of that.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier; I was watching on the television screens and heard what you said about the need to consider this matter carefully. I only became aware of it when I popped into the Table Office and saw that something had been thrown down by the Government, in a quite odd move. If the Government were in effect trying to put the same question again, is it not the case that they would be trying to avoid tabling the withdrawal Bill, which the Prime Minister indicated he would do? Of course, many Members of this House from all parts and with all views on Brexit wish to see that Bill so that they can adequately consider it, appropriate impact assessments can be undertaken, Committees such as the Exiting the European Union Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), can consider it, and amendments to it can be tabled. Does it not strike you, Mr Speaker, that this is an odd way to be proceeding, given the clear will of the House expressed today on a very clear question?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I do not dissent from what he said. Whether the particular question that the Government would be minded to table, or indeed have attempted to table, is exactly the same as that which was put today is less clear. The same question rule on which I gave a ruling to the House on 18 March this year holds, but whether this is the same question is not so clear, because the Government would be wanting to put a proposition that was separate from the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). However, the apparent purpose of the said motion, which Ministers are attempting to table, is to invalidate or obviate the effect of the decision that the House has reached today. That does seem most curious and irregular.

It is certainly to be expected that the Government might seek to bring forward legislation, as the Prime Minister himself indicated to the House he intended to do. Quite at what point—as people will know, I have been in the Chair without interruption since 9.30 am, and I have not had conversations outside—it occurred to somebody to suggest that a motion, this motion, would be tabled rather than legislation be brought forward, I have no way of knowing, because I have not been able to penetrate the inner recesses of ministerial minds. I can only say that when I have reflected on this matter, I will give a full ruling.

I very, very, very politely reiterate that the Government are not the arbiter of what is orderly. That cannot be so, and it is not so, and it will not be so. There can be no argument about that.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that, hitherto, a motion of regret in relation to the Gracious Speech had been tabled in the name of Leader of the Opposition and me about the future of the national health service that sought to exempt the national health service from a trade deal with the United States. The motion has provoked considerable support in the country among NHS staff and patient groups, many of whom were going to go to a lot of trouble to come to the House on Monday to lobby Members of Parliament ahead of that debate. Out of courtesy, can you tell the House what we should be saying to NHS campaigners about whether they should come here on Monday, because it looks like the Government are running scared of a debate on the NHS?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to advise people on their travel plans, but I take seriously what the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has just said on that extremely important matter, about which not merely thousands or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands or, indeed, millions of people feel very strongly. If people who may not have regular interaction with or cause to pay visits to the House intend to visit the House, it would be most unfortunate if they were inconvenienced and disadvantaged with very little notice and without explanation, let alone apology. I cannot think that that conduces to the better reputation of the House. People will have to make their own judgment about whether to come, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless offer them his advice, but I think I have given colleagues an indication of my unhappiness with the procedure that has been adopted by representatives of the Executive branch. I will bear colleagues’ concerns in mind in ruling on this matter on Monday.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you think that this issue should be referred to the Procedure Committee? It always used to be a convention that we had decent notice of business. That convention has been in a sense undermined by, for example, the recent practice of debates following applications under Standing Order No. 24 taking place immediately after the application has been granted, rather than on the following day, which gives people notice. We have some dangerous precedents for business being changed at short notice to the detriment of Members of this House and to members of the public who might want to attend our proceedings. If the matter was referred to the Procedure Committee, it may be able to recommend some tightening of Standing Orders so that this sort of situation did not arise again.

While I am on my feet, it looks as though, from what the Leader of the House said in his point of order, a motion has been put down for Monday under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but it will not fall under section 1(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. The motions we debated today covered two different Acts and two different provisions, but I understand that the motion down for debate on Monday relates only to the 2018 Act, so it seems—I hope that you will be able to consider this over the weekend—that it cannot be regarded as the same issue that we dealt with today. I hope that you will be able to take such matters into account.

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly will reflect on that point and the other points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I take his points in the constructive spirit in which he has made them. He speaks as someone who has of course been a distinguished ornament of the Procedure Committee over a period. Is the hon. Gentleman currently gracing the Committee with his presence?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Yes. If you can put it that way, I am, and I can say that I first had the privilege of joining the Procedure Committee back in 1984, when it was graced with the presence of the right hon. Enoch Powell and many other distinguished Members of this place.

[Mr Speaker]

I know quite a lot of things about the hon. Gentleman, but I did not know that. I am now better informed, so I recognise that his service on that Committee dates back a long way.

I take very seriously what the hon. Gentleman says, and I accept the point he makes about the unpredictability spawned by the, in my view, justified decisions in relation to Standing Order No. 24 applications for debates. Nevertheless, it is a fact that that has inevitably produced a degree of unpredictability in the business.

The only point I would make, and which I think is fair to make in this context, is that when we are dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 24, there is an established process provided for by the Standing Orders, and it is understood by colleagues that an application can be heard only if the Speaker agrees to hear it, and can therefore proceed, if the Speaker hears and approves it, only if the requisite threshold of support has been attained in the House.

By contrast, in this particular case, a representative of the Executive is seeking to change the business not on the basis of a voted-for proposition but on the basis of what some people might regard as an act of Executive fiat. That does seem to me to put it in a somewhat different and perhaps inferior category.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

The appetite of colleagues is insatiable.

Before I call the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I must say that the very best behaved person here present is a very, very tiny person who seems blissfully unperturbed by our deliberations, and I wish that splendid little person all the best.

[Tom Brake]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise if you have already made this clear, but is it your intention, perhaps as the first piece of business on Monday, to make a very clear statement on the process we have just heard, particularly if you consider it to be of a vexatious and repetitive nature? If it is appropriate, would you look kindly on an urgent question on this subject? Members have clearly expressed some very strong views about what the Government have just done.

[Mr Speaker]

It would certainly be my intention to make a statement on the matter after Question Time—in other words, at or very close to 3.30 pm. It seems to me to be a matter of genuine urgency, and therefore it would be right to have a decision on the matter communicated to the House before it might treat of other questions or statements, and certainly before the commencement of public business.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. Can you give me some guidance on how best I could register my disgust and disapproval of the behaviour of the Leader of the House in walking out as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) tried to respond to his point of order? This continues on from the behaviour of Conservative Members who, at every opportunity, barrack and shout down my group leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). This should not be allowed to continue, and I would like to know what I can do to help it stop.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is invariably a helpful member of our flock in relation to these matters, because she is a model of good behaviour. If her example were emulated across the House, our proceedings would be altogether more seemly. Her stock is high.

So far as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is concerned, colleagues have said what they have said and I have said what I have said. It is very important that we respect each other, and part of respecting each other must be hearing each other. I intervened on a number of occasions to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman must be heard. I do not say this in any pejorative spirit, but my only caveat is that he is well able to look after himself.

Moreover, there are colleagues who feel that the right hon. Gentleman has a rumbustious style that is sometimes almost calculated to inflame colleagues who disagree with him—[Interruption]—even if inadvertently, as the Minister says from a sedentary position, and that therefore to some extent he has to cope with that which his style invites, but only to some extent, and it is important that he be heard. I hope that the hon. Lady is happy to trust the Chair to protect him, if he needs to be protected.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you clarify whether it would be in order for the Leader of the House to apologise to Back-Bench Members who were expecting some sort of explanation following today’s proceedings, and indeed to those who had been preparing to speak in Monday’s Queen’s Speech debate, and looking forward to it—they might be polishing their speeches as we speak—but who will now be unable to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

It would be open to the Leader of the House to do that if he so chose, but he is no longer in the Chamber and therefore, even if he was minded to do so—he might not feel so inclined—he could not do so at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless be back in his place on Monday, as I am sure the hon. Lady will be in hers, when further exchanges on that matter and others can take place.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Leader of the House was not making his business statement earlier, we had no suggestion of the timings of anything that might happen in Monday’s sitting. We presume that our proceedings will commence at 2.30 pm, but we have no idea as we are sitting today on Saturday. We are having to presume a lot of things. We are being left in the dark by a Government whose Leader of the House, frankly, is not sufficiently courteous to make a business statement. Could you please clarify the expected timings for Monday?

[Mr Speaker]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we will be meeting at 2.30 on Monday afternoon. We have had a business statement on the business for next week. That business statement—I say this as much for the people attending to our proceedings, to whom they should be intelligible, as for Members of the House—is the status quo; it is the given position. We will meet on Monday afternoon at 2.30. That is governed by Standing Order No. 9. The Government may well plan to make an emergency business statement on Monday, but they cannot change the start time, and I must say to the House, and to the people observing our proceedings, that there are very good reasons why there cannot be an arbitrary change in the timetable: it is really for the protection of the House. If it were possible for the sitting times to be arbitrarily changed at the whim of the Executive, that would be deeply injurious to the rights of individual Members and of the House as an institution. That cannot happen and, believe me, it will not happen.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to register my concern about, effectively, the debate that we are now having, when most Members felt that business would have already finished and who, on a Saturday, had arranged to get back to their families and to other commitments. It is very clear to me that the Government knew that today’s vote could have only two outcomes: it was either going to succeed or it was going to fail. There was therefore no reason for the Government not to be transparent about their intentions for the following sitting day and how they will proceed following the outcome of today’s debate.

I really do feel that we have now spent a year with the previous Government and now this Government, unfortunately, seeking to override votes here. Only today the Prime Minister said that

“Parliament should be at the heart of decision making… I acknowledge that in the past we have perhaps not always acted in that spirit.”

I simply want to reflect that this has got to stop. This House cannot do its job if we have plans and debates sprung on us at the last minute. All that we are seeking to do is to scrutinise on behalf of our constituents, represent their concerns and play our role in trying to help make any Brexit deal the best possible deal that it can become. This is simply not the way for the House to be run. I hope that you can reflect on Members’ concerns as you reach a ruling.

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly will reflect on Members’ concerns.

Colleagues will understand that the Speaker regularly meets the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the Government Chief Whip, the Opposition Chief Whip and a number of others who occupy influential positions in the House, and that is absolutely right; it facilitates the efficient, orderly and fair conduct of business. It is also important that, of course, many of those discussions—not necessarily all of them, but many of them—are private in character, so I would not make a habit of divulging the detail of what has been discussed.

It is, however, fair to say that I did see the Leader of the House earlier this week, and we had a perfectly good and constructive meeting in which we discussed a number of matters, I hope in our usual fashion—that is to say, with great respect for and courtesy towards each other. It was perfectly possible to anticipate, as the right hon. Lady said, a number of scenarios that might flow later in the week, with the upcoming European Council and the deadline for the passage of a deal, but in that meeting earlier this week the Leader of the House gave me no indication of any, what might be called, reserve plans in the event that things did not proceed as he hoped. I just want the House to know that I have been blindsided on this matter, as others have been, and I would that it had not been so. I express myself, I hope, in quite an understated fashion: I would that it had not been so.

Rather than pronounce with sound and fury now, which I do not think would be the right thing to do, I will reflect on the matter, absorbing what colleagues say and consulting others for their advice, and I will report to the House on Monday. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is an immensely dedicated parliamentarian and who has served, if you will, on both sides of the fence—both as a senior Minister and as a Back-Bench Member.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point I made in my earlier point of order, in respect of which you kindly ruled that this matter should have been dealt with through an emergency business statement, I think we all, if we have been in the House long enough, recognise low-rent jiggery-pokery from the Government, which is what this actually amounts to. I understand that that is not something you could say, Mr Speaker—I notice your head movements, but it is not my duty to comment on people’s head movements in the House.

If the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) were seeking to table what we might call an insurance amendment ahead of Monday’s proceedings, just in case a ruling should occur that allowed the Government to proceed as they suggested through the rather irregular point of order from the Leader of the House earlier, and that insurance amendment was not tabled by the time we finished these points of order, would you be minded overall to accept such an amendment as a manuscript amendment, prior to our proceedings on Monday?

[Mr Speaker]

By noon on Monday, any manuscript amendments would be eligible for consideration. I would have to see the amendment before deciding whether to select it, but such an amendment—I hope this reassures the hon. Gentleman—would be in no different or lesser category to the other manuscript amendments to which one of his colleagues referred earlier. It would be perfectly possible for those to be decided on and therefore, if appropriate, selected by the Chair. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Government about whether or not they intend to undertake and publish an economic impact analysis on the Brexit deal, in advance of bringing it before us again on Monday?

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me, I heard the hon. Lady refer to an economic impact analysis, but I did not quite hear her question.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Brexit Secretary, this morning, confirmed that the Government have not undertaken an economic impact analysis on the Prime Minister’s deal and have therefore not published it. Have you had any notice, Mr Speaker, about whether they intend to undertake and publish that analysis in advance of Monday, as they now have a few extra days before they bring it back to us?

[Mr Speaker]

I have had no such indication at all. Hope springs eternal, as far as the hon. Lady is concerned. It is possible that grey cells are being applied to this matter and that there are hot wet towels over the heads of departmental officials as they beaver away and burn the midnight oil tonight and tomorrow night in the construction of such an analysis. Concerned as I am for the wellbeing of the hon. Lady, I say to her that, on the evidence so far, I would not advise her to hold her breath for any length of time.

[Stephen Doughty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome the remarks that you have made already in response to the other points of order. Can you tell us how we will know whether or not the Government have sent the letter to the European Council to comply with the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 by 11 o’clock tonight? Have they indicated whether they will lay it in the Library or put a copy on the gov.uk website? Because otherwise we could be in the dark until Monday on whether this has even happened, and given the jiggery pokery, as has been described, that is going on, no doubt they would seek to hide from us whether this letter has, in fact, been sent, as required by the law.

[Mr Speaker]

There is no requirement for the letter to be laid. From memory of the legislation, I do not think that there is any legal requirement for it to be laid, or for it to appear in the Library, so I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any great comfort on that point. Knowing his indefatigability, I rather imagine that he will be pursuing this matter with considerable intensity over the next 24 hours or so, and possibly for most of those 24 hours, allowing himself, perhaps, a couple of hours here and there for sleep. I am sure that he will be making his own inquiries to try to ascertain whether the letter has been delivered, and I dare say that representatives of the fourth estate may be making such inquiries as well. I imagine that enlightenment will descend upon us at some point. I am quite sure that, by the time we sit on Monday, we will know the answer to his question, and I expect him at that point to be in his place.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As there is just so much distrust of the Prime Minister and the signing of this letter, may I suggest, through your good offices, that this is done as publicly as possible? Now, the popular TV programme “Strictly Come Dancing” is on tonight, and I am pretty certain that Tess and Claudia would welcome the Prime Minister to the show and order that that letter be signed so that the whole nation could observe it.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to advise the Prime Minister on either his viewing habits or his attendance at popular television programmes. I am certainly not aware that the Prime Minister has any plans to take part in that particular programme in a dancing capacity—I am not conscious of that. It is not something that he and I have ever discussed, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The wider point is about transparency, and I agree that it is absolutely right and proper that we should know what action has been taken on this matter, but I do feel that colleagues will take their own steps to try to ascertain what happens over the next 24 hours or so.

I do not seek to constrain colleagues in any way, but I have a sense that some may wish to bring our proceedings to a conclusion. [Interruption.] Oh, it is very good to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Chamber, albeit sitting in the second row, which is becomingly modest of him. He could perfectly well bestride the Treasury Bench if he were so minded. He is an understated fellow.

If there are no further points of order, we have to leave matters there for now. I suggest that we come now to the Adjournment.

Adjournment

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

16:04

House adjourned.

Written Statement

Saturday 19th October 2019 Written Statements

Saturday 19 October 2019

Brexit Deal

Saturday 19th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

This is a statement, for the purposes of Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (No. 2) 2019, that the United Kingdom has concluded an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, and for the purposes of Section 13(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, that political agreement has been reached.

With regard to Section 13(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018,1 am of the opinion that an agreement in principle has been reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of:

a. the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and

b. the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.

A copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement which, in my opinion, reflects the agreement in principle so far as relating to the arrangements for withdrawal, including provisions for the implementation period, has been laid before each House of Parliament on Saturday 19 October with the title “Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community”.

An additional document relating to the withdrawal agreement, which is a unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom, is also being laid alongside this statement with the title “Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the ‘Democratic consent in Northern Ireland’ provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland”.^[1]

A copy of the framework for the future relationship which, in my opinion, reflects the agreement in principle so far as relating to the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom has been laid before each House of Parliament on Saturday 19 October with the title “Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom”.

These documents have been laid before each House of Parliament ahead of the parliamentary debates required under Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (No. 2) 2019 and Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

At this stage, the withdrawal agreement represents a version of the text which has been agreed, but has not yet been formally signed. Before this formal signature takes place, the agreement must complete the European Union’s jurist-linguist translation process. During that time, minor technical corrections will be made to the text, though these changes will not affect the substance of the agreement. The laying of the withdrawal agreement before Parliament at this stage does not therefore trigger any procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

In relation to the section 20 procedure for ratification under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the Government will make provision in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to ensure that the withdrawal agreement can be ratified before exit day.



^[1]The declaration was submitted by the United Kingdom Government to the European Union on 17 October with the title “Declaration of 17 October 2019 by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the 'Democratic consent in Northern Ireland’ provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland”.

[HCWS23]

House of Lords

Saturday 19th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Saturday 19 October 2019

10:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Arrangement of Business

Saturday 19th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Announcement

10:07

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to say a few words regarding our business today. This is a very important debate and there are a large number of speakers, so there is an advisory limit of five minutes for Back-Bench contributions. I urge noble Lords to stick to that out of consideration for all the other noble Lords who wish to speak. Even so, it will mean that our debate will finish after 4 pm.

My noble friend the Leader of the House will open the debate by repeating a Statement given by the Prime Minister. We will then proceed with the speakers’ list as published in today’s list. My noble friend Lord Callanan will wind up the debate in the usual way—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I should have said “in his normal, smooth manner”.

I urge noble Lords to raise any questions when they make their speeches rather than make interventions. Your Lordships will have noticed that there are two Motions on the Order Paper today and, as indicated by today’s list, we will be moving only the first of those Motions.

Brexit

Saturday 19th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

10:08

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That for the purposes of section 1(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 and section 13(1)(c) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this House takes note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement titled “Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community” and the framework for the future relationship titled “Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom” that the United Kingdom has concluded with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, as well as a “Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the ‘Democratic consent in Northern Ireland’ provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland”, copies of which three documents were laid before the House on Saturday 19 October.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for assembling on a Saturday for the first time in 37 years. I know that this has involved sacrificing personal time, time with families and, of course, missing the end of England’s World Cup quarter final, although the result is looking quite promising. On behalf of us all, I thank all parliamentary staff and the police who have made this sitting possible. I shall open this debate by replicating a Statement on the new agreement with our European friends made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

Noble Lords will need no reminding that this is the second deal and the fourth vote to be held in the other place—three and a half years after the nation voted for Brexit. During those years, friendships have been strained and families divided, and the attention of both Houses has been consumed by a single issue that has at times felt incapable of resolution. But this is the moment when we can finally achieve that resolution and reconcile the instincts that compete within us.

Many times in the last 30 years, we have heard our European friends remark that this country is half-hearted in its EU membership. It is true that we have often been a back-marker, opting out of the single currency, not taking part in Schengen and trying to block some collective ambition. In the last three and a half years, it has been very striking that Members on all sides have debated Brexit in almost entirely practical terms, in an argument that has focused on the balance of economic risk and advantage, rather than calling for Britain to play her full part in the political construction of a federal Europe, ever closer union, ever deeper integration or a federal destiny. There is a whole side of the debate that you hear regularly in other European capitals that has been absent from our national conversation, and that has not changed much in the last 30 years.

But if we have been sceptical, if we have been anxious about the remoteness of the bureaucracy, if we have been dubious about the rhetoric of union and integration, and if we have been half-hearted Europeans, it follows logically that with part of our hearts—with half our hearts—we feel something else: a sense of love and respect for European culture and civilisation, of which we are a part; a desire to co-operate with our friends and partners in everything, creatively, intellectually and artistically; a sense of our shared destiny; and a deep understanding of the eternal need, especially after the horrors of the last century, for Britain to stand as one of the guarantors of peace and democracy in our continent—and it is our continent.

It is precisely because we are capable of feeling both things at once—sceptical about the modes of EU integration but passionate and enthusiastic about Europe—that the whole experience of the last few years has been so difficult and divisive. That is why it is so urgent for us now to move on and build a new relationship with our friends in the EU on the basis of a new deal—a deal that can heal the rift in British politics and unite the warring instincts in all of us. Now it is time for all sides in both Houses to come together and bring the country together today, as we believe people at home are hoping and expecting, with a new way forward and a new and better deal for both Britain and our friends in the EU.

That is the advantage of the agreement that we have struck with our friends in the last two days, because this new deal allows the UK, whole and entire, to leave the EU on 31 October in accordance with the referendum, while simultaneously looking forward to a new partnership based on the closest ties of friendship and co-operation.

As a Government, we pay tribute to our European friends for escaping the prison of existing positions and showing the vision to be flexible by reopening the withdrawal agreement and addressing the deeply felt concerns of many in both Houses. One of the most important jobs of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been to express those concerns to our European friends. We shall continue to listen to all Members in both Houses throughout the debates taking place today, to meet with anyone on any side and to welcome the scrutiny that Parliament will bring to bear if, as we hope, we proceed to consider the withdrawal agreement Bill next week.

Today, Parliament has an historic opportunity to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours and the same resolve to reach beyond past disagreements by getting Brexit done and moving this country forwards, as we all yearn to do. This agreement provides for a real Brexit, taking back control of our borders, laws, money, farming, fisheries and trade, amounting to the greatest single restoration of national sovereignty in our parliamentary history. It removes the backstop, which would have held us against our will in the customs union and much of the single market. For the first time in almost five decades, the UK will be able to strike free trade deals with our friends across the world to benefit the whole country, including Northern Ireland.

Article 4 of the new protocol states:

“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom”.


It adds that,

“nothing in this Protocol shall prevent”,

Northern Ireland from realising the preferential market access in any free trade deals,

“on the same terms as goods produced in other parts of the United Kingdom”.

Our negotiations have focused on the uniquely sensitive nature of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and we have respected those sensitivities Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and upheld the long-standing areas of co-operation between the UK and Ireland, including the common travel area. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the other place on 3 October, in order to prevent a regulatory border on the island of Ireland we proposed a regulatory zone covering all goods, including agri-food, eliminating any need for associated checks along the border.

But in this agreement we have gone further by also finding a solution to the vexed question of customs, which many in both Houses have raised. Our agreement ensures,

“unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market”.

It ensures that there should be no tariffs on goods circulating within the UK customs territory—that is, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—unless they are at risk of entering the EU. It ensures an open border on the island of Ireland, a common objective of everyone in both Houses. It ensures that for those living and working alongside the border there will be no visible or practical changes; their lives can carry on as before.

This Government believe that this is a good arrangement, reconciling the special circumstances in Northern Ireland with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences at a few points of arrival into Northern Ireland. It is precisely to ensure that those arrangements are acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland that we have made consent a fundamental element of this new deal, so no arrangements can be imposed on Northern Ireland if they do not work for Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland will have the right under this agreement to express or withhold their consent to these provisions by means of a majority democratic vote in their Assembly four years after the end of the transition. If the Assembly chooses to withhold consent, the provisions “shall cease to apply” after two years, during which the joint committee of the UK and EU would propose a new way forward, in concert with Northern Ireland’s institutions.

As soon as Parliament allows the process of extracting ourselves from the EU to be completed, the exciting enterprise of building our new relationship with our friends can begin. We do not wish that to be the project of any one Government or party but rather the endeavour of the United Kingdom as a whole. Only this Parliament can make the new relationship the work of the nation, and so Parliament should be at the heart of decision-making as we develop our approach. I think the whole House would acknowledge that in the past we have not always acted in that spirit.

So, as we take forward our friendship with our closest neighbours and construct that new relationship, the Government will ensure that a broad and open process draws upon the wealth of expertise in every part of both Houses, including Select Committees and their chairs. Every party and every Member who wishes to contribute will be invited to do so, and we shall start by debating the mandate for our negotiators in the next phase.

The ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised political declaration, which also provides for Parliament to be free to decide our own laws and regulations. The Government have complete faith in both Houses to choose regulations that are in our best tradition of the highest standards of environmental protections and workers’ rights. No one believes in lowering standards; we believe in improving them and seizing the opportunities of our new freedoms to do so. For example, free from the common agricultural policy, we will have a far simpler system where we will reward farmers for improving our environment and animal welfare instead of just paying them for their acreage. Free from the common fisheries policy, we can ensure sustainable yields based on the latest science, not outdated methods of setting quotas.

These restored powers will be available not simply to this Government but to every future British Government of any party to use as they see fit. That is what restoring sovereignty and taking back control of our destiny means in practice. Our first decision, on which we believe there will be unanimity, is that in any future trade negotiations with any country our National Health Service will not be on the table.

The Government believe that an overwhelming majority in this House and the other place, regardless of their personal views, wish to see Brexit delivered in accordance with the referendum. In that crucial mission, there can no longer be any argument for further delay. This Government passionately believed that we had to go back to our European friends to seek a better deal. With this new deal, the scope for fruitful negotiation has run its course. They said we could not reopen the withdrawal agreement and that we could not change, never mind abolish, the backstop. We have done both. It is now our judgment that we have reached the best possible solution, so those who agree that Brexit must be delivered and who prefer to avoid a no-deal outcome must abandon the delusion that this House can delay again.

We must tell this Parliament in all candour that there is very little appetite among our friends in the EU for this business to be protracted by one extra day. They have had three and a half years of this debate. It has distracted them from their own projects and ambitions and, if there is one feeling that unites the British public with a growing number of EU officials, it is a burning desire to get Brexit done. Whatever letters they may seek to force the Government to write, it cannot change our judgment that further delay is pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust. People simply will not understand how politicians can say that, on the one hand, they want delay to avoid no deal and, on the other, they still want delay when a great new deal has been done.

Now is the time to get this done, and all Members should come together as democrats. Let us come together as democrats behind this deal, the one proposition that fulfils the verdict of the majority, but which also allows us to bring together the two halves of our hearts. Let us speak now for the 52% and the 48%.

Let us go now for a deal that can heal this country and allow us all to express our legitimate desires for the deepest possible friendship and partnership with our neighbours, a deal that allows us to create a shared new destiny with them, and a deal that also allows us to express our confidence in our own democratic institutions, to make our laws, to determine our own future and to believe in ourselves once again as an open, generous, global, outward-looking and free-trading United Kingdom. That is the prospect that this deal offers our country. It is a great prospect and a great deal. I beg to move.

10:21

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. There were some points of difference from what the Prime Minister said, which I will come to. I listened carefully to what she said. It is now 1,212 days since we heard the outcome of the 2016 referendum vote, and few could have foreseen how Brexit would lead to our politics and our country being so uncertain and bitterly divided. Nobody could have predicted that Parliament would be sitting on a Saturday to debate the merits of the “new” Brexit deal, which is inferior to the one previously rejected by an historic margin.

The noble Baroness says that the Government will now speak for the 52% and the 48%. I had hoped that honouring the referendum result meant more than just one side saying, “We won, you lost. Get over it”. I had hoped that, during this process, there would be a recognition that in this huge democratic exercise, while 17.4 million people voted to leave, more than 16 million people made it clear that they were very much against that. So yes, there is a mandate, but not one to ignore the wishes of almost half the voting public. The real challenge for the Government was not just to leave the EU but to do so in a way that respected the votes of all their citizens, and to seek to unite our country rather than foster division. In that challenge, the Government have failed—spectacularly.

Our politics is not built on a winner-takes-all system. When one party wins a general election, it does not take every seat in the House of Commons. Our system and constitution ensure a voice and a role for the Opposition, as well as a clear, scrutinising, advisory role for your Lordships’ House. In the Statement in the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister made several references to the role of that House. The noble Baroness spoke instead of an ongoing role for both Houses of Parliament. It would be nice to know which the Prime Minister intends.

As we know, power in our politics lies ultimately with Parliament as a body, not just with the Prime Minister or the Executive. It was your Lordships’ House that ensured a role for all MPs in reaching a final decision on how we leave the EU, with our amendment on a meaningful vote for the elected House. That is why they are sitting today—which they may not thank us for.

The way Boris Johnson is trying to portray his deal is reminiscent of Theresa May’s Brexit offer, when she also claimed that it was “taking back control” and the “best” and “only” deal possible. As it was previously, the route to the deal before us today was a rollercoaster ride. I have to admit to some cynicism about how much of that has been stage managed. Deadlines were imposed and missed. Expectations were ramped up, only to be dampened down. As ever with this Government, sabres were rattled and then hastily tucked away again. Then, all of a sudden, the proverbial white smoke emerged. Now I do want to put on record that we should all be immensely grateful to the negotiating team officials for their hard work and dedication throughout the entire process. It has been a huge challenge.

Other than to debate matters of war, the last time this House sat on a Saturday was in 1949. At that time, the very concept of some kind of Europe-wide union was a hope held by some men and women who, having lived through a terrible conflict, sought to forge a path to a sustainable, long-term partnership of peace and prosperity. Yet here we are, 70 years later, examining a revised withdrawal agreement and political declaration for our departure.

Despite the assertions of No.10, let us remember one thing: it was not the current Prime Minister who forced Brussels to reopen the withdrawal deal. Given that a majority of MPs rejected the previous agreement three times, the EU heard the very clear message that Mrs May’s deal could not be ratified. For many Conservative MPs, the issue was the backstop—but that, after all, was intended to come into force only if all else failed. Jonathan Powell, who did so much in Downing Street with Tony Blair to bring about the Good Friday agreement, said that while some,

“claim they have got rid of the backstop … they have in fact transformed it from a fallback into the definitive future arrangement for NI with the province remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union”.

So, instead of leaving the future status of Northern Ireland up for negotiation in the next stage of talks, a new set of arrangements will be in place until at least 2024, with a further two-year wind-down period if consent is withdrawn. Even the DUP, which has kept this Government afloat, rejects this. I am sad to see that DUP Peers are not in their places today and contributing to this debate. These proposals introduce a border down the middle of the Irish Sea, despite the previous derision of the Prime Minister and his ERG allies on this.

Our concern with the original deal was that Mrs May had failed to provide enough clarity over the UK’s future relationship with the EU in areas that we consider crucial. It was unclear what form of trade relationship she envisaged beyond cross-border trade being “as frictionless as possible”. That meant little certainty for businesses, preventing industry from planning ahead and unlocking new investment. There were no concrete commitments on UK participation in EU agencies, nor on the extent of future co-operation on security matters. That potentially left consumers getting a worse deal and our security services facing significant gaps, putting UK citizens at risk.

The political declaration is aspirational, and it is of major concern that it now contains issues that were previously nailed down in the legally binding withdrawal agreement—for example, the level playing field for social rights. Now this is in only the political declaration, which merely references maintaining present standards,

“at the end of the transition period”,

and notes:

“The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship”—


which is uncertain. So there are no guarantees on employment or environmental protection beyond the end of the transition period.

Paragraph 25 of the original declaration, which committed the UK to considering long-term regulatory alignment, has vanished, and there are other indications that the Government will be able to pursue wholesale divergence, to the detriment of businesses, employees, consumers and the environment.

In some areas, however, Mr Johnson’s Brexit provides a greater degree of certainty—but not in a positive way. The Government’s ambition is limited to negotiating a free trade agreement, rather than seeking a closer arrangement such as an association agreement. The Treasury’s own analysis predicts a loss of more than 6% of potential GDP growth in the next 15 years, equivalent to each household losing well over £2,000. The political declaration confirms that the agreement will include rules of origin requirements, thus selling out the UK car industry.

The level playing field commitments in the political declaration are vague. That is why the TUC’s Frances O’Grady warns that the deal is,

“a disaster for working people”,

that would,

“hammer the economy, cost jobs and sell workers’ rights down the river”.

Meanwhile, the National Farmers’ Union is concerned about British standards being undercut, with our market potentially opened up to products that could not be legally produced in this country. So what is before us seems to take us a step closer to hardcore Brexiteers in the ERG, rather than a common-sense Brexit that could have benefited citizens and the economy.

So this does not strike me as a “great new deal”, as the noble Baroness read out in her Statement—and it does not seem to have struck others in that way, either. The CBI’s Carolyn Fairbairn speaks of business having,

“serious concerns about the direction of the future UK-EU relationship”,

with the new deal being “inadequate” for the service sector, which makes such a significant contribution to our economy. The Institute of Directors, while admitting some guarded relief at recent progress, says that,

“if a passable deal is in touching distance then politicians on all sides should be pragmatic about giving us the time to get there”.

This is key. The deal is unsatisfactory. I have always thought that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act—the Benn Act—could have been a lifeline for a Prime Minister close to a deal but without the final details. He should use that time available—no ifs, no buts and certainly no second letters.

But everyone is losing patience. An extension will work on only two grounds: first, if a Prime Minister is willing to compromise to gain a majority in Parliament; or, secondly, to seek a public mandate. If MPs do not accept the deal today, the impasse cannot continue. We have moved on from abstract views and opinions. Nobody who voted in the referendum of 2016 could have even imagined the deal being presented today by the Prime Minister. At the beginning of this process, when Article 50 was invoked, I argued against a second referendum. We had barely started dealing with the outcome of the first. But now, with all that has gone before us and the incompetent way in which Brexit has been handled by the last three Prime Ministers and their Governments, we have a responsibility to put the real choice—the actual choice—to the public. If this is the best Brexit that a Brexit-believing Prime Minister considers can be delivered, why not seek a public mandate for it? Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

10:33

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House is sitting on a Saturday for the first time since 1983 and for only the fourth time in 80 years. These occasions have typically been to debate a serious foreign threat to the vital interests of the United Kingdom: the outbreak of the Second World War, Suez, the Falklands. Today, we sit on a Saturday to try to resolve a serous internal threat to the unity and future of the Conservative Party. There is no reason, other than the Prime Minister’s macho commitment to leave the EU by 31 October, for the Government’s decision to recall Parliament today.

Such a timetable is a complete abuse of the parliamentary process. It does not allow the appropriate impact assessment to be made, for the relevant Select Committees to consider the proposals, or for the Commons and your Lordships’ House to give proper consideration to the withdrawal Bill. It barely gives us time to read and compare the documents. The withdrawal agreement itself—some 535 pages—was available for the first time for noble Lords to pick up from the Printed Paper Office just this morning.

We certainly have not had time to identify and work out what some of the changes mean. For example, the sections in the political declaration on dispute settlement and the forward process have been substantially rewritten. Why? Parliament is being asked to approve these changes with no effective ability to question Ministers on them. It is a disgrace.

It is, of course perfectly understandable for the Government to want such a timetable, because if they were to give Parliament time to look at the deal properly, a number of its highly undesirable consequences would become clearer. There would, for example, be time to have an economic assessment. Latest figures from UK in a Changing Europe suggest that the hit to GDP of this deal would be about 6.4%. This is broadly in line with the Government’s own analysis of last November, which suggested that, with the kind of restrictive immigration system the Government have in mind, such a deal could have an even bigger effect. For the north-east, north-west and the West Midlands, the fall in GDP would be considerably higher again.

There would be greater time to expose the fact that, as a consequence of the new deal, EU components of goods manufactured in the UK will no longer be treated as of domestic origin. Given the low proportion of UK content in cars, for example, this would have the effect of making it impossible to export any car manufactured in the UK to a third country duty free, even under a free trade agreement. This raises the spectre of the end of bulk car manufacturing in the United Kingdom.

More time would enable us to examine the threat to the level playing field on environmental standards and employment rights, which were guaranteed in Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement but are now relegated to the eminently amendable political declaration, with no presumption there that we should follow future improvements in standards under EU rules. More time would give us the opportunity to question whether, as the Conservative John Baron has claimed, the Government see this deal as leading to the equivalent of a no-deal Brexit at the end of the transition period next year.

More time would enable us to examine the economic impact on Northern Ireland. Under this deal, businesses in Northern Ireland will have to pay up front to “import” from Great Britain. They will be able to claim that money back only once the goods have been sold and once businesses can prove that the goods remained in Northern Ireland. Small and medium-sized businesses provide 75% of employment in Northern Ireland. For those with tight cash flows, this deal will have a crippling effect.

More time would enable us to expose the threat to the union that these proposals pose, for, unlike the May deal, under this deal we are moving to a position where there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic but there is most certainly a border for goods and services between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Under these proposals, the economic union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is effectively no more. Politics follows economics. It is impossible to see how the proposed arrangements will not provide further impetus for a border poll on the island of Ireland, and one that might prove successful.

The impact on the union with Scotland is also clear. Northern Ireland will have freer access to EU markets than Scotland. Scotland will want the same, understandably, and the only way it will get it is by independence. This deal is a further recruiting sergeant for the SNP. For the Conservative and Unionist Party to hail this deal as good for all parts of the United Kingdom, when it will lead to its disintegration, is frankly shameful, but typical of the lengths that the current Prime Minister will go to try to preserve the unity of the English Conservative Party.

Of course, Conservative MPs dismissed the Northern Ireland proposals put forward by the EU at the start of the negotiations, yet now they line up on a deal that is essentially the same thing to support it. Just over a year ago, the Prime Minister said that EU proposals to have a customs border in the Irish Sea were,

“little short of an attempt to annex Northern Ireland”.

In your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said:

“We will not permit a customs border down the Irish Sea, which would put at risk the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK”.—[Official Report, 4/9/18; col. 1754.]


Those were wise words. Yet the very thing which was anathema in January is now a triumphant achievement, the gateway to a British utopia. I am sure that in winding up this debate, he will explain why his views and those of the Prime Minister have changed. I am sure that all noble Lords are struggling to understand.

At this moment, it is unclear whether the Prime Minister has the numbers to get the deal through the Commons. This is despite the capitulation of the “Spartans”. Where, in their hour of crisis, is their Leonidas? Under pressure to save the Tory party, the leader of today’s Spartans has shown the backbone of the eponymous Belgian chocolate, rather than the courage of the hero of the pass at Thermopylae.

There has been one amendment tabled in the Commons which would delay today’s meaningful vote on the deal, but even if it passes, a number of things are clear. First, a letter will need to be sent under the terms of the Benn Act, seeking an extension. Secondly, if the Government lose the meaningful vote on the deal—either today or at a later date—then the only way to get a resolution to the impasse is to consult the people. As we discussed earlier in the week, this could take the form of either a general election or a referendum, and for reasons which I set out on Monday, a general election is by far the inferior method of making what is—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this party is absolutely sure that an early general election would deliver it many more seats. The same cannot be said for the Conservatives or Labour, yet we do not believe it is in the national interest to have one. There will be an election in the next year, and we are really looking forward to it.

Even if the deal passes by the narrowest of margins, it should still be put to the people, because it is so far from anything that anybody voted for in the referendum. Opponents of the referendum have, until now, seized on the fact that there was some ambiguity about what the questions might be. Clearly, to remain in the EU was always going to be one option, but it was unclear what the alternative would be. We now know. The alternative would be the Prime Minister’s deal, because even those in the Commons who have said in the past that no deal was an option—including the Prime Minister himself—now say that the deal is far superior to this. There is now near unanimity among Brexiteers that this is their desired outcome.

The deal before us today is significantly worse for the economy and the integrity of the UK than that negotiated by Mrs May. It deserves to be rejected. I had hoped that we in your Lordships’ House would have the opportunity to express that view today. That was not to be. However, we will have to play a part in dealing with the consequences of today’s vote, as any route now taken will involve legislation. At that point, I hope that we exert our powers to the full and help mitigate the costs to the country of this shameful, shameless Government.

10:43

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, this is supposed to be a calm occasion. Can anyone suggest that Brexit has been underdebated in either House? We know what the issues are, and, more importantly, everyone in the country knows what the issues are. We have all heard—but, I regret to say, not all of us have listened to—the arguments in support of Brexit. We have all heard, but not all of us have listened to, the arguments in support of remaining in the EU. We have all heard, but not all of us have listened to, the arguments in support of and against Mrs May’s deal.

I am something of a legal nerd. I forced myself to read that entire document, all 500 pages-plus. I did not understand half of them. I knew that it was not a very favourable deal to the UK, but I also knew that—we tend to overlook this—the EU has a negotiating position to protect the rights and interests of, and advance the welfare of, its 27 nations. “Welfare” is perhaps too modest a word. We must remember that if we go back to the negotiating table, that is what it will do.

I am not going to read this new edition. I am sorry, but 600 pages of it I just cannot face. There is a simple reason why I am not going to be a nerd about this: I no longer think that the terms of the deal are the crucial issue. Notwithstanding all the arguments—indeed, perhaps because of listening to all the arguments—I do not have an absolutist, categoric, assertive, strident view. My personal concern is directed elsewhere. The public understand the arguments. If we have a referendum—which I do not support—the public would be able to vote tomorrow, whatever the terms. Whether they voted for or against Brexit, the majority of the public cannot understand why we the politicians, the parliamentarians, have not resolved this issue. The public voted in a referendum, and in a general election in which both main parties went to the country promising to honour the result, and they are still waiting. I respect and understand the genuine passion and commitment of those on both sides who adhere to the principle they espouse. That respect, however, does not extend to those who contrive a synthetic passion because they sense the proximity of possible political advantage.

Whether it is politics or principle, the parliamentary processes of the last 1,200 days are shattering something even more important than Brexit. It seems to me—it is the only issue I have sought to address when I have spoken in the Brexit debates—that we are so sure that we are right, so preoccupied with our own arguments, that we in both Houses have done, are doing and may continue to inflict on the general public’s confidence in their own political and constitutional institutions, the most profound damage.

The lesson of history is chilling. When the public lose confidence in their own institutions—and they are the public’s, not ours—they can be beguiled by an individual or a party, whether of the left or the right, that appears to offer them a route out of what they perceive to be political chaos and uncertainty. That is aggravated if their perception is that their current politicians and their current political arrangements have caused or contributed to it. Too many democracies in Europe have had cause to learn that bitter lesson. We must be careful that we are not opening a path to a public opinion that will extol authoritarianism.

Every day that goes by and every additional delay adds to public uncertainty, aggravates public anger and disillusionment with our political process and makes the task of restoring that very precious confidence more difficult. Already, it will take years. On Thursday evening, catching my train at Euston, I overheard a young woman, discussing Brexit with her companion, say, “Thank God it’s over”. Well, it is not over yet, but it really should be.

10:49

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

If I might support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said, it is about time that Parliament made up its mind on this matter. I thought that I would start in an uncontroversial way by praising the Prime Minister. Against all odds, he has brought a deal back when Europe said that it would not do that in any way. He stuck at it, was attacked for it and was thought to be a rash optimist, but he has negotiated a deal. It began with the Taoiseach and the prose was then changed a great deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, he had to eat many of his words—but, as Churchill said, the most nourishing diet you can have is eating your own words. When I saw the pictures of the Prime Minister being congratulated and smiled at by the other Heads of State after agreeing the deal, it reminded me of how Macaulay described Horatius keeping the bridge,

“In the brave days of old”.

He did it so well that,

“even the ranks of Tuscany

could scarce forbear to cheer”.

We have seen a remarkable transformation of the Prime Minister, from being a bit of a buffoon to a bit of a statesman.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Oh yes, there is no doubt about that. This is what troubles the House: he has got a deal that might pass and we might actually leave Europe, so this is an exciting and important day for us. If I might say why the deal is so good, there is no backstop and there is no border. The border in the Irish Sea—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

There is no border on land and the border on the sea is largely a filter, because most of the trade between Britain and Northern Ireland in the future will be frictionless, as it is today. The other great advantage of the deal is that it gives Northern Ireland a unique position, with a foot in both camps: one in Europe and one in our own country. This is an enormous opportunity for expansion in all sorts of ways. For example, if you were a great entrepreneur you would register a fishing boat in Northern Ireland today, because the expansion of the Northern Ireland fishing industry will be absolutely enormous.

As we all know, in a matter of two or three hours the destiny of the United Kingdom will be determined in the other House. I find it very strange that that may depend upon the votes of 10 DUP Members, members of a minority party in the United Kingdom. If they vote against the package today, it will have grave consequences for our relationship with Ulster. I will put it this way: for a start, the 17 million people who voted for leave will ask the DUP and Ulster difficult questions, emphasising their dependency on this country. Is it not true that their security depends entirely on the United Kingdom? Is it not true that their financial viability depends entirely upon the United Kingdom, and that all of business and industry in Northern Ireland favour this deal? This will bring to a head the position of Ulster in the UK—as a result of their voting.

We know, of course, that Ulster has been very loyal to Britain in times of trouble. We remember the Ulstermen who died in the First World War and the Second World War. But today, we are also in the time of trouble. There is absolutely no doubt about it and I hope very much that the Ulstermen—the DUP—will realise that they should in fact support the Government. If they do not do that, the long love affair between the Tory party and Ulster will be fractured and broken, possibly for ever, because it will be seen that although the DUP voted leave, its members did not, when it came to it, support leave. That will have a grave consequence for the relationship with the DUP, but an even graver consequence for Ulster. This is a deal that is of great advantage to Ulster: there is absolutely no doubt about that. I therefore hope that the other House will be able to support it, and that we will be able to pass the Bill in reasonably good time in this House.

10:53

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I have ditched the speech that I intended to give because of what I have heard. I particularly want to reinforce the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. His warnings are prescient, although his conclusion reminded me of that of the General Synod on writing liturgy. It was unanimous that there should be only one form of the Lord’s prayer in our new liturgies. Everyone agreed; we ended up with three. The “how” is a very difficult question.

From what we heard in the Statement earlier, it seems that the question at the root of all of this stuff is trust. Trust cannot be commanded, even by a Prime Minister; it has to be earned. We have had three years or more of either learning to trust or becoming suspicious about trust, and that goes across the country. We heard in the Statement that we have been half-hearted in our commitment to the EU. We have not just been half-hearted. We have been told lies and there has been gross misrepresentation, including from the current Prime Minister when he was a journalist in Brussels. Propagated through the media, these lies have been allowed to go on and have formed the way that we see and understand Europe, ourselves and our role. That raises a question about trust.

We have been asked to reconcile competing instincts. Which ones? Do they include loyalty or integrity? It seems to me that our MPs and parliamentarians have been doing precisely what they are there to do in a parliamentary democracy. They are not delegates. They are there to use their judgment, with integrity, and to face the consequences of that at the ballot box. Of course, the consequences they face are usually through Twitter and other social media, where they and their families are threatened with violence or even death. Is this really acceptable? Is this what we have come to?

I have three questions about what we have learned from the last three years, because the question of trust is behind all the other issues that we are looking at. My three questions have to do with culture, language and character. The cultural question is: what has become of our political and public discourse, and our relationships with one another as we describe them in language and our behaviour towards one another? How will those go beyond today? What used to be called the conflict metaphor, in relation to science and faith, has gone beyond a metaphor in our political culture into a simple acceptance of divide and rule. It is all very well hearing now that we need to pull all the different parties and elements in both Houses together to find a way forward. Some of us were asking for that three years ago, two years ago and a year ago, and it was dismissed. It was a zero-sum game of winner takes all. Have we learned that the conflict metaphor, although effective, is actually disreputable?

On language, we have been subjected to repeated slogans and oversimplifications. We heard them again this morning but “Get Brexit done” is meaningless because we know that whatever happens today, Brexit will not be done. We will be on the starting blocks of Brexit. This was supposed to be the easy bit; well, I look forward to the difficult bit—or maybe not. This is not the end and we know that when we use this language, there are people in the populace beyond Westminster who believe it. We know, and I think we should learn, that slogans are more effective and powerful than reasoned fact or argument.

Briefly, on character, the UK’s global reputation is not exactly flying high as a result of Brexit. I will be in Hanover next week addressing parliamentarians, trying to explain Brexit and what has become of England—their question, not mine. I refer the House to Susan Neiman’s book, Learning from the Germans. What we learn from history is that we need humility instead of hubris. I await what that might look like in the culture of the future.

10:59

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, this is not the time or occasion for “we told you so” speeches and remarks, but it is odd how many supposedly well- informed people and authorities have got it wrong about the possibility of a deal. They clearly totally underestimated the will and resolution of the Prime Minister. It was not just in politics: the Times said there was no chance of a deal; the Financial Times said with great authority that there was absolutely no possibility of reopening the withdrawal agreement, except for the excellent Mr Münchau who spotted that there was. Several authorities in this very House, with great expertise and knowledge, asserted that there could be no possibility of any alternative to the backstop. The BBC now blames “conventional wisdom” for getting it wrong; what it means, of course, is that it got it wrong itself. All these people said that it was impossible to open the withdrawal agreement again and that there was no alternative to the backstop. Well, there was, and it is before us now. It is a huge opportunity for this country to go forward.

Many speeches have been based on the proposition that the Northern Ireland protocol happens tomorrow morning or on 1 November. It does not; this deal means a standstill of 14 months and an opportunity to develop sensible solutions in many areas. The Joint Committee has to work out the details of the protocol over the next 14 months. Even if it comes into operation, it does not do so until the beginning of 2021—after December 2020. It becomes relevant only if there is no comprehensive and balanced free trade agreement with zero tariffs, which is the prime aim and intention of Her Majesty’s Government and other negotiators. If that happens, the controls down the Irish Sea become largely redundant.

The nation as a whole is a winner from this deal, but I concur with my noble friend Lord Baker that the real winner is Northern Ireland industry. This explains why industrialists throughout Northern Ireland are very anxious that this deal should be passed—Northern Ireland industry, Northern Ireland consumers and Northern Ireland prosperity. I speak as a former Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland and know how incredibly difficult it has been over the last 20 to 30 years to attract investment to Northern Ireland. It is possible—we succeeded to a certain extent in my day—but I have no doubt that the position will be vastly improved with this deal.

I have a question for my noble friend when he winds up. At one stage, there was mention—perhaps a little fantastical—of a bridge between England or Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is that really a possibility? Would it not help physically to reaffirm the closeness between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom: that we are all part of the same United Kingdom? That would be a great improvement.

If the Prime Minister loses this afternoon, or if the Benn-Letwin legislation prevails, will the EU actually grant the extension that that policy requires? I suspect that there will have to be a very short, technical extension anyway to get the withdrawal agreement through. I also suspect that the EU will be extremely reluctant to grant the three-month extension that the Benn-Letwin legislation requires. Mr Macron has made it clear that he does not want it, as has the Polish Prime Minister. Several others have suggested that this is not an appropriate delay and would merely lead to new difficulties three months on. I therefore doubt whether the three-month extension would be granted. Those who believe that it would, who believe that the Prime Minister will lose this afternoon and who argued for the conventional wisdom that there could be no deal were wrong then, and will be wrong again.

11:04

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the House may not be surprised to know that I have not read every one of the almost 600 pages of this agreement this morning. I am not sure that it would have helped. I am reminded of Woody Allen saying: “I have been learning speed reading. I have just read War and Peace; it is about Russia”. However, I know enough to know that this is a bad deal. It is worse than remain and worse than Theresa May’s deal.

I will make three simple points. First, it will leave this country much weaker economically. Even on the Government’s own projections, made last year, a deal such as this will mean that, in 15 years’ time, we will be £130 billion worse off in GDP than we would have been had we remained. It is also worse than Theresa May’s deal, resulting in three times the reduction in national income than the deal she provided. This is not just a matter of graphs on an economist’s wall. This affects the prosperity of every citizen of this country, each of whom will be £2,250 worse off. That is a bad move, but it is a disaster because it will affect the poorest families most.

Secondly, it adds a threat to the stability of this United Kingdom. Speaking in this House on 3 July, I said that I was already worried that, for the first time in my lifetime, we were marching towards the prospect of the break-up of Britain. I see nothing in this deal that assuages my concerns. Indeed, the special provisions for Northern Ireland are likely to enhance those concerns in Scotland. I am sorry that the DUP Members are not in their seats today, because they have played such a role over the last year or two. Despite the assurances that I hear on Northern Ireland, I accept the judgment of two Prime Ministers—Blair and Major, who did more than anyone else to end an 800-year conflict on the island of Ireland—who have warned about instability. I accept their judgment far more than that of the present Prime Minister, who famously said that the consequences of the border in Ireland were no greater than moving from Camden to Islington. What ignorance that is of the history, culture and sentiment of the people of that Province to come from a British Prime Minister.

On those two aspects, I think that we are much worse off with this deal. I suggest that those who say we could rely on being bailed out economically and in Northern Ireland by our allies—particularly by the President of the United States, because he is a reliable man when he pledges his word—should have a word with the Kurds and perhaps decide to reflect on that.

My third point is one which is rarely mentioned: the strategic challenges which will face this country over the coming years. The world has changed dramatically, despite the post-imperial delusions of the Little Englanders who think we can do what we did 300 years ago. We now live in a world where multinational companies cross borders; where migration knows no borders; where cyber, by definition, is worldwide—it is the world wide web; where all global finance and commerce crosses borders; and where the environment does not recognise territorial distinctions. If we isolate ourselves from a large power bloc such as the European Union, we will be much less influential in the world.

In short, this deal will leave this country more impoverished, its citizens less well off; as a United Kingdom, we will be less united, and as a nation state, we will be less influential. That does not seem to me a great new deal. I do not know what will happen in the House of Commons today. I have difficulty understanding today’s politics: when my friend Jeremy is a potential Prime Minister and Boris is the actual Prime Minister, anything is possible. However, I know one thing: it will not be done today, as the right reverend Prelate said. There is a rocky road ahead of us for years, with sacrifices, negotiations, implementations, compromises and so on. We do not know the final destination, but at least the route is now clear. Because the route is now clear, in a way that it was not three years ago, we should put whatever solution we pass in this Parliament to the people. They have that right and we should do it.

11:10

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Reid; I agreed with every word. I found the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, somewhat perplexing. She reproached those of us arguing against Brexit for not arguing for a federal Europe. The clue is in the name: “remain”. We just want the status quo, not to expand or change our existing terms of membership.

I agree with Tony Blair—not something I used to say. He rightly says that the Government are using the,

“sentiment of ‘let’s get it done, let’s get it over with, end the agony’, to sweep away proper scrutiny of what is a profoundly bad deal for our country”.

Tony Blair is right that:

“You don’t take a decision of destiny through a spasm of impatience”.


Boris Johnson had previously damned the division of Northern Ireland and Great Britain through regulatory checks and customs controls down the Irish Sea, declaring that:

“No British Conservative government could or should sign up to any such arrangement”.


Now, he says that this is a fantastic arrangement. It is a looking-glass world. Can the Minister, in winding up, clarify how these arrangements comply with Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which makes it unlawful for the Government to enter into arrangements whereby Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory from Great Britain?

It is astonishing that the Chancellor refuses to give us a new economic analysis, but both government and independent figures suggest that every household will be around £2,000 worse off than even under Theresa May’s version—a drop of 6% or 7% in GDP. The weaker Canada -minus trade relationship that this Government envisages, compared with Mrs May’s association agreement, will worsen that prospect. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, told Radio 4 yesterday that access to the customs union and single market would be good for Northern Ireland’s economic stability and security. Excellent. So why is such access being torn away from England, Scotland and Wales? It would be good for us too. Instead, the Government want to cut the rest of the UK adrift from the continental internal market. This does not honour the heritage of Mrs Thatcher.

Hard Brexiters are being encouraged to vote for the Johnson deal with a nod and a wink that it will still allow a no-deal crash-out next year, leading former Chancellor Philip Hammond to write that he would not be,

“duped into voting for a heavily camouflaged no-deal at the end of 2020”.

Quite right. The Government’s plan for a much looser trading relationship gives far greater scope for divergence, with no reference to dynamic alignment with EU rules or a level playing field arrangement. This means no guarantees for employment rights or environmental and food standards. I am really not sure how any progressive politician could vote for this deal.

As for the promise of slashing red tape, being outside the customs union and the single market will bring a cost, time burden and job losses for British businesses. My noble friend Lord Newby talked about rules of origin and the devastation for the car industry. In Northern Ireland, the need to juggle two customs, regulatory and VAT regimes for trade will be onerous. For consumers, there is the loss of pet passports, recognition of driving licences, free roaming or free emergency healthcare under the EHIC card—they are all being torn away. It is more bureaucracy, more administration and no slashing of red tape.

The noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, spoke of the wonderful prospect of international trade deals. President Trump has just imposed a 25% tariff on imports of single malt whisky. Smaller independent whisky producers risk having their “feet taken out from under them”, as one said. Compare this with how the EU has used its clout to lever open markets for Scotch whisky in Asia that were previously heavily protected by tariff walls. We cannot trust President Trump.

From the loss of free movement rights to the impact of weaker cross-border law enforcement arrangements with loss of access to key EU security tools, this is a bad deal. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said, we need humility, not hubris. The people must have the final say.

11:15

[The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, whose insight has been informed by her time as a distinguished MEP.

Last year, the draft text of the then withdrawal agreement appeared on 14 November, the finalised text appeared on 26 November, the debate in the House of Commons began on 4 December and our own debate on 5 December. The European Union Committee report on that agreement and the political declaration appeared on 4 December as well, in order to inform debate. The new Northern Ireland protocol is a particularly long and complex document and the political declaration, although shorter, is full of subtleties. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, with only a non-sitting Friday to analyse these documents, strongly regret that the House of Commons is being asked to agree them without the scrutiny committees having any opportunity to inform their decision.

The new withdrawal agreement is 536 pages long and consists of six parts in the main body, three protocols, including the Northern Ireland protocol, and nine annexes. The only bit of the withdrawal agreement that has changed is the Northern Ireland protocol, with a couple of very small conforming changes in the main body of the agreement. Accordingly, I would commend our report of last December on the withdrawal agreement. In it, we described the joint committee as,

“a uniquely powerful and influential body”.

It has, for instance, the power to amend the withdrawal agreement itself in certain ways and, most especially, it also has the power to extend the transition period. Our conclusion about the power was that,

“this is a widely drawn power, and is not subject to clear scrutiny procedures or parliamentary oversight”.

We also felt that the joint committee was not transparent. The rules governing the joint committee are governed by Annexe VIII of the withdrawal agreement—an annex that of course has not changed. In commenting on the rules, we said last year that:

“The relevant rules suggest that meetings would be confidential, decisions might not be published, and even summary minutes might not be made publicly available”.


This lack of scrutiny in the withdrawal agreement is clearly deeply unsatisfactory. I ask the Minister, when he gets up—I realise that this was partly addressed in what the Leader of the House said at the start but, I felt, not strongly enough—to confirm that the Government intend to engage with Parliament on how scrutiny over the joint committee will work and, in particular, how Parliament will exercise control over extensions to the transition period.

This is of course not the only scrutiny that is important. Switching to the Beyond Brexit report that we delivered in March this year—a report which, I regret, has still had no government response—the committee unsurprisingly concluded that it was equally important to have strong scrutiny of the negotiations of the future relationship discussions for the UK and European Union. Indeed, in the joint statement of 11 March, which supplemented the then political declaration, there was specific reference to the “appropriate involvement of parliaments”. Can the Minister give us further comfort and confirm that this is still the Government’s position and they will engage with Parliament?

In closing, I submit that the lack of engagement by the Government of Parliament has been a root cause of the problems of the process to date. We must not compound that error going forward.

11:19

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, wise words from the noble Earl. The House will be looking to him and his committee—my commiserations to him there—to make sense to this House of what is about to follow.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made what was intended to be a great unifying speech, but, unfortunately, it came against the background of great division. She did not explain to the rest of us why it is now that this deal, as compared with Mrs May’s deal, is attracting the support of the right wing of the Conservative Party in a way in which the previous one did not. We have been conned into believing that this change is entirely to do with Northern Ireland. There are changes on Northern Ireland, and noble Lords may well be right that they are beneficial for Northern Irish industry, although those beneficial changes do not apply to the rest of British industry, but they do not in any way resolve the divisions there.

The real change is not on Northern Ireland; it is that we have diluted what references there were to regulatory environment alignment—in the legally binding part of the documentation they are weakened and in the political declaration the choice of trade arrangement has been narrowed such that, rather than the closely aligned two economies that were envisaged in the Chequers agreement and Mrs May’s agreement, the options are confined to what amounts to a Canada-minus-minus form of trade agreement. That is not progress. If anything, it is taking us back. I hope this House and another place recognise that they, the public and the media have to some extent been conned over the last few weeks.

The Prime Minister is a great entertainer. He is a great illusionist, but entertainment is not the same as statesmanship. Like charlatans through the ages, he first embraced and then betrayed Mrs Foster and the DUP. Like a two-bit conjurer, he has got us to concentrate on one hand while doing unmentionable things with the other. The reality is that this is taking us to a more deregulated economy which will reduce not only employment rights but food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection in a way in which elements in the party opposite, although by no means everybody in it, have always tried to see as the consequence of Brexit.

I appeal to those one-nation Tories who did not feel able to support Mrs May’s agreement and to those Labour MPs from Brexit-voting seats who likewise could not support Mrs May’s agreement that, from the perspective of logic, intellectual content and moral duty, they should not support this agreement either. It is taking us down a road for which there is no consensus in the population. There is antagonism to that road from large sections of British industry. The people of Britain will be the worse off for it, not only economically but in quality of life; if the Government persist in going down this road, and if somehow the deal gets through the House of Commons, it is very important that those people get a chance to have a say on it. Therefore—and I did not start from this position—I have come to the conclusion that, at some stage in the process over the coming months, the whole issue has to be put back to the people.

11:23

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister, we are told, has succeeded where all said he would fail. He has returned apparently triumphant, with a deal that the nay-sayers said could not be done. Or so his champions claim. Not all the nay-sayers doubted he could do it. I certainly did not, and I suspect that many others who have studied him over the years did not either. Experience suggested that he had just the qualities to succeed. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said, he is the quintessential showman, the man of smoke and mirrors who always prefers style over substance. It is not so hard, after all, to get a deal if you do not care much about what is in it or anything about the people you are prepared to betray to get it.

The Prime Minister is well practised in the art of abandoning people who are no longer of interest to him, as the DUP is now finding out. I cannot pretend to have huge sympathy for the DUP, because if you make government a purely transactional matter to get what suits you, you should not be surprised when the entity you are transacting with repays you in kind.

Nor do I have much sympathy for the DUP’s claims that the deal breaches the consent principle. It did not seem to care much about the consent of the nationalist community, or indeed the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, when it backed the disastrous policy of Brexit. We all failed Northern Ireland ahead of the referendum in not recognising the full extent of the difficulties that would be thrust upon its people, but no party failed it more than the DUP, which has done more to undermine the union than any allegedly unionist party in history. It is living proof of the adage that tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

So much then for how we have got here. What about where we have actually arrived? It is a dismal location. Someone described it to me as lipstick on Theresa May’s deal, but that implies something more attractive, and the changes that the PM has secured make it less attractive, if that is possible. It is nothing like the outcome promised in the referendum: it undermines the integrity of our union; it makes one part of our country subject to the courts of the European Union, which the Brexiters told us was unforgivable; it puts a border down the Irish Sea, which the PM told us would be unconscionable; it will make us all substantially poorer—estimates suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has said, that the deal will leave people around £2,000 worse off on average; far from having millions to spend on the NHS, we will have billions less to spend on everything. So much for the promises of the leave campaign. These are not abstract consequences; they are real-life consequences that will impact people up and down the country.

Of course, it will not be the elites who will feel the chill. The Brexiters who occupy the Privy Council Front Bench will doubtless be fine, but people on marginal incomes will not: people who work in businesses that will have to close their doors or have already done so and people who work in industries that will depart or already have departed will not. For so many Brexiteers this has seemed a political game, an ideological obsession that must be indulged no matter the cost to our economy, people and union. Now they tell us that Brexit was never about money, although one might have been misled on that point by what they had to say on the side of their bus. However, they have had no choice but to concede it given what is coming down the road for our economy.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House tells us that the British people wish to see Brexit delivered in accordance with the referendum, but this deal is nothing remotely like what was promised in the referendum. If the Brexiteers wish to dispute this, let them put it to the people so that they can determine the outcome. But they will not. The people, they say, have spoken. They must never be allowed to speak again. The Prime Minister, the ERG and even the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, are allowed to change their minds, but the people are not; they are not to be allowed even to express a view.

The Leader of the House tells us that we must get Brexit done. This deal does not get it done. It is only the beginning of a tortuous process. The only thing that might be done for today is the future of our United Kingdom. I believe there was a rugby match played this morning. I am delighted that England won, but I hope that this afternoon in the House of Commons it will be the United Kingdom that is the victor in the vote, that this damaging deal is rejected and that the people are given the final say.

11:29

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I thought that Mrs May’s deal was a bad deal for the economy and I am sure that this is a worse deal for the economy. That comes as no surprise, because the Prime Minister’s letter of 2 October to President Juncker made it clear that we wanted a more distant relationship, which is why Carolyn Fairbairn of the CBI pleads:

“Decades of free and frictionless trade … forged by thousands of firms big and small, must not be abandoned”.


I of course accept that intellectually honest right-wing libertarians have always agreed that there is a trade-off. It is a question of autarkic sovereignty versus economic well-being, and they prefer autarkic sovereignty. I strongly disagree with the way they put the issues, because it is not their jobs at stake, but I can respect their argument. What really shocks me is how narrowly English is their little-Englander concern for sovereignty, and how far Mr Johnson has moved on this—or been moved on this—in the past fortnight. It is fascinating to compare the proposals that he sent to Brussels with those he came back with. One recalls the lady who went for a ride on a tiger. Or perhaps the lesson is that it is dangerous to have an unchaperoned walk in a Wirral garden.

Mr Johnson told the DUP conference that he would never agree to a customs frontier in the Irish Sea. Mrs May said that no Prime Minister ever could or would. Mr Johnson just has. He wants us to sign up today to an internationally run frontier between two constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Internationally run? Yes, because the Commission will never leave it to us to decide which goods might be at risk of moving across the inner Irish border.

Caught by his own “do or die” deadline, the Prime Minister has been forced to drop all talk of alternative arrangements. Instead, Northern Ireland will stay in the EU single market for goods, stay in the EU customs union, apply EU laws, regulations and VAT rules and respect ECJ jurisdiction—all with no semblance of democratic control. Northern Ireland will not be asked to consent to any of that for at least five years. The whole concept of cross-community consent, central to the Good Friday agreement, has gone. For Northern Ireland, the trade-off is the other way round: prosperity, which comes from the all-Ireland economy, accounts for more than sovereignty.

I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who served with great distinction in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, whether he honestly thinks that the Iron Lady would have put up with that impairment of UK sovereignty, because I do not. Why does an intellectually honest Spartan—if there is one—swallow it? Presumably because his concept of sovereignty is English-specific. Mr Johnson should beware: the Scots are watching. A little-Englander approach breeds comparable chauvinism elsewhere. Scotland, like Northern Ireland, voted to remain, but Scotland, unlike Northern Ireland, will bear the full economic costs of Mr Johnson’s deal—costs that he and his Cotswold friends will hardly feel. These imbalances breed justifiable resentments. In the Scottish referendum in 2004, I campaigned for the union. Next time, the decision for me will be more difficult and the outcome will definitely be more uncertain. The best way to maintain the union of the United Kingdom is to stay in the European Union.

Given its costs, economic and political, it is no wonder that Mr Johnson is scared to put his deal to the people, but I honestly believe that we should. In 2016, no one voted to be poorer, and no one told us then about a frontier in the Irish Sea. Indeed, I recall Mrs Villiers, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, assuring the people of Northern Ireland that there was no question of any change in frontier and border arrangements.

Now that people can see the price of Brexit, is it not reasonable to ask them: do you want to go ahead and pay it? For my part, I am with the crowds outside in the square. I hope that Parliament will today reject a deal worse than any previously mooted, reject a suicidal no-deal and use the Benn Act’s extension period to ask for the people’s choice—this time determinant, not advisory. I see no other route to closure.

11:34

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, it is always something of a bittersweet pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, if only as a faint reminder of the long-ago days when we worked together in relative harmony. I begin by addressing one of the observations made in her opening remarks by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. She complained that the views of the 16 million people who voted to remain in the European Union referendum were being, to use her word, “ignored”.

I pose this question. Can there be any doubt that if it had gone the other way—if 17.4 million people had voted to remain and 16 million people had voted to leave—the view of the 16 million would have been, to use the noble Baroness’s word, “ignored”? Can there be any doubt that we would simply have remained in the European Union and the 16 million people’s views would have been ignored? In fact, the decision to remain or to leave is in essence a binary choice, and that choice was made by the people of the United Kingdom in the referendum of 2016. In particular for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with whose speech I entirely agreed, that decision must be respected and implemented.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the result of his negotiations. He has achieved what I believe to be a good deal—a deal that many thought impossible—and he deserves full credit for that. The merits and alleged demerits of the deal have been extensively disseminated over the airwaves and in print over the past few days and in your Lordships’ House this morning. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by repeating them: I want to make one simple additional point.

The cry of those who oppose this deal—I exclude the opposition from the Brexit Party, which verges on the eccentric—and which we have heard this morning, is that Brexit, including the form of Brexit in this deal, will damage our economy. That argument, which we have heard many times, is based on forecasts that may well prove mistaken. I think it was the great economist John Kenneth Galbraith who said that economic forecasting was invented only to give astrology a bad name.

I think everyone would agree that our economic performance has been held back over the past three years by the uncertainty over our future that has bedevilled the period which has passed since the referendum. Although it is impossible to predict the precise outcome of any rejection of this deal today, it is absolutely clear that almost all possible outcomes of that course of action will increase the uncertainty and the economic difficulties.

I say almost “all possible outcomes”, because I suppose one would be that we Brexit without a deal of any kind. That would not necessarily increase the uncertainty, but it is obviously not an outcome desired by those critics of the deal whose arguments I seek to address. All other outcomes would, beyond dispute, increase the uncertainty. An extension would, by definition, increase the uncertainty. A second referendum would increase the uncertainty. A general election to determine this issue would increase the uncertainty.

Yet these are the outcomes urged on us by those who complain that this deal would cause economic damage. I beseech them to consider and reflect. If they are democrats, they must respect the result of the referendum. If they are realists, they must recognise the damage to our economy that would be caused by the prolonged uncertainty that rejection of this deal would bring about. If they have the interests of our country at heart—and I know they do—they must see that this deal presents a unique opportunity to resolve this most intractable issue, to move on and to bring our country together again. I commend the Prime Minister’s deal to your Lordships’ House.

11:39

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I am fascinated to follow the noble Lord. I profoundly disagree with a range of things he said. He started by asking what the position would be if the referendum had gone the other way. That was made extremely clear to us. Nigel Farage said, “If this goes the wrong way, the campaign for the next stage will begin immediately and we will continue with that”. The reality is that we are in this position because the Tory party was frightened of Nigel Farage and the people in ERG; that is why we have ended up in this ridiculous mess.

However, I will start with the changed arrangements on regulatory alignment. The reason for them being changed can only be the glorious rhetorical pleasing of the ERG, because as soon as we move out of regulatory alignment, that will put our manufacturing industry—particularly where there is inward investment, with reliance on a complex supply chain and with most of the exports going to Europe—in real danger. That is my response to what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said.

In my region, we have rebuilt from the loss of the pits, the shipyards and the steelworks. We have rebuilt our economy around inward investment and complex manufacturing programmes. Whether it is steam, the railways—tomorrow, I will be going on the new Azuma, built and constructed in Newton Aycliffe—or Nissan cars, the intricacy of the relationship between what regulatory alignment means and the ability to get the supply chain in the way it wants means that, yes, on the certainty of this deal, companies are now beginning to say, “We cannot progress and further invest if that is the road the UK is taking”. Have the Government done an impact assessment for the manufacturing industry, particularly for the sort of manufacturing industry that I have just described? I suspect that they have not.

I confess that I am bewildered by the arguments around taking back control and sovereignty. As my noble friend Lord Reid said, the only way that we can survive is by recognising and understanding the interconnectivity of this world. To say that we can go back to a glorious past where we can maintain relationships on our own is naive and, quite honestly, offensive to the way in which some of those other countries have tried to make accommodations—not from their hard-line, personal, individual positions but from trying to make partnerships and relationships because they recognise that, in such a complex and interconnected world, it is only through working with others very firmly that we will ever be able to make progress.

The other thing is that this is a con. I was very moved by the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. This is about our culture. It is about who we are and our values. “Little England” does not describe it because, apparently, “Little England” does not include the north-east of England. It is also about what we mean by “democracy”. Over two years ago, I begged the Government to do more to consult properly and work with people, to make sure that they knew how people really felt and what they really wanted. I spend a lot of time with people from the citizens’ assembly that was conducted by, I think, King’s—either King’s or University College. People’s views changed—all of them—because they began to understand the different issues. We have never allowed that of the British people. We could have done it and we should have done it—and because we have not done it, we have an absolute responsibility and no option but to go back to them now, to let them see where the original referendum has led to and to give them the opportunity to ask, “Did we get it right? Did we not? Will this lead us to the sort of country that I want to live in?”

11:45

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I agree with the noble Baroness. One reason is that, for the first time in our union’s history, part of our union will be under the legislative authority of a foreign entity in which the people living in that area will have no representation. Part of our union will have the laws governing its economic policy and trade regulations set by a foreign entity whose rules they will have no say in. Taxes affecting businesses and consumers will be set by that foreign entity but their representatives will have no vote on them. To be clear: according to the schedules to the new backstop, 371 laws and regulations that would not apply to Great Britain would automatically be applied to Northern Ireland. On 1 October, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, stated:

“Any deal on Brexit on 31 October must avoid the whole or just part—that is, Northern Ireland—being trapped in an arrangement where it is a rule taker”.—[Official Report, 1/10/19; col. 1620.]


That is what the Government propose today. The Conservative Party frequently lauds the fact that it is the Conservative and Unionist Party owing to its role in the defeat of Irish home rule, but it now puts in front of us a proposal for the UK to be one country with two systems. We can see elsewhere in the world how effective that is. Yesterday, this “one country, two systems” Brexit was hailed by the Foreign Secretary as terrific news for Northern Ireland because it will stay aligned with the EU. Presumably, he will now say that doing so is also open to Scotland.

The deal is utterly contrary to the Government’s position when they adopted the UK internal market framework, which this Parliament debated, and when they explicitly said that there would be no division within the four nations of the union. Given that it is also the opposite of what Boris Johnson presented to the DUP conference, when he said that this would never happen under a Conservative Government, there is little surprise that the lines in the sand have been washed away by waves of duplicity. As my noble friend Newby said, in January the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, stated:

“We will give an unequivocal commitment that that there will be no divergence in rules between … Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. 2222.]


The House can make its own mind up about where equivocation lies. Yesterday, the Home Secretary spoke doublespeak with alacrity on the BBC. She claimed that the deal takes back our laws—but not the 371 of them that apply to Northern Ireland and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the European court. She said that it takes back our borders— but it creates a new border between the nations of our island and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, a new European Union border within the United Kingdom for the first time in our history. She said that it takes back control over our money—but we will be a tax collector for the EU, and the UK bodies in Northern Ireland will be forced to apply EU taxes that they have no role in determining.

How do the Government intend the deal to work? There will have to be a Northern Ireland economic quarantine, which will be compounded by the already hugely negative impact on the UK as a whole, and, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to publish an impact assessment for this debate and referred back to the Government’s forecasts—which Conservative Members have disparaged—we know that there is likely to be more than 6.7% less economic growth. Moreover, the regulatory burden on Northern Ireland businesses will be immense. The closest we can get to estimating what that would be likely to be is in the most recent publications from HMRC, which show the potential for the crippling bureaucracy that is likely to be in place. The Northern Ireland economy is fully integrated into the GB economy with a third of businesses purchasing from GB also selling to the EU. That is 3,500 businesses, but they have no idea of the regulatory system covering what they will have to declare for their goods when they go on to the rest of the EU or Ireland, and there is no indication of how these issues are to be assessed or resolved.

Finally, if the Government no longer talk about money, business bureaucracy and the union, we should consider the mothers of those Spartan soldiers who told them, “Either come back alive or on your shield”. We now see the “Spartans” fully alive but with the shield of Northern Ireland carried in their back pockets and, as we have heard from some Conservative noble Lords, they will quite happily sacrifice it if it puts at risk the English priority of Brexit. I am a borderer, and it will break my heart if this union breaks up. Today is an historic day, because we are potentially seeing the start of that. I hope that the whole House will recognise that the people of all our four nations should have a say, not just three of them as this Government propose.

11:50

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, we are here on a Saturday morning, holding an emergency debate on Brexit, for the first time since the Falklands War—which really was an emergency—and we are doing so under false pretences. There is no such time-sensitive national emergency over Brexit, only an attempt by the Prime Minister to bounce this deal through Parliament without proper time for scrutiny and reflection rather than to do the sensible thing and ask the EU for a little more time. There is a mandated approach in the Benn Act, but this is more like the practice of a banana republic than it is of the mother of parliaments. I have yet to hear a serious argument in favour of the deal which has been struck other than that it exists and that it is better than nothing. I have listened to and take very much to heart what the Convenor has said about listening to the other arguments, but I have heard no advocacy for this deal of a serious kind.

That is perhaps not surprising because for the last two weeks, this Government, like their predecessors in the final weeks before the March deadline, have been following a strategy of, “Any deal is better than no deal”. Huge amounts of baggage have been thrown overboard on the final stage of the journey. No part of the Government’s early October text has emerged unscathed, yet it is still being said that this is a good deal when it is quite evidently worse even than Mrs May’s deal, which quite a few Members of the Government rejected.

The arrangements for Northern Ireland trade are of unbelievable bureaucratic complexity. The hated Irish backstop has been turned into a “frontstop”. All this has been done quite unnecessarily, as the approach recommended by your Lordships’ House on the Trade Bill of remaining in a customs union with the EU would have solved the whole thing at a stroke. Then let us take the provisions for a level playing field between us and the EU, which will be absolutely crucial to the quality of any trade agreement that we negotiate post Brexit. By a devious sleight of hand, the commitment to a level playing field on labour laws, the environment and much else has been switched from the legally binding withdrawal treaty to the totally aspirational and non-binding political declaration. That is not of much comfort to those who actually depend on those rights. As a lifelong supporter of the union of the UK, I say that the damage that this Government and their predecessor have inflicted and continue to inflict on the union is painful. Can anyone seriously contest that remaining in the EU would reverse that damage and strengthen the union in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

Those are just a few reasons why I hope that the honourable gentlemen in the other place will vote against the Government’s deal. If this is such a wonderful deal, why on earth do they hesitate to put it to the people in a referendum so that they can have a final say? That is surely the best and most effective way of conducting the end game in this interminable saga, because we now have a clear alternative to remaining in the EU in the form of the Prime Minister’s deal. Let us ask the people what they think of it.

11:55

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that my voice is not as I would like it to be today. My intention is simply to talk about the law as it is just now. My understanding is that unless we have a deal approved before 31 October, we will go out of the European Union without a deal. It is said that there is an answer to that in statute. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I know a good deal about that, and I want to draw attention to a provision in the Benn Act which I think is important. I refer to Section 1(4):

“The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020”.


Why? What is this wanted for? It is,

“in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks”.

That is the purpose for which the extension is being sought. Is there any truth in that as a purpose? I think not. I see no likelihood that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is going to debate and pass a Bill to implement Mrs May’s agreement. Therefore, what the Prime Minister is being asked to do is to send a letter for a purpose which we all know is incorrect. I must say that I am finding it very difficult to understand how we can do that.

This point was fully discussed in this House during the proceedings on the Benn Bill. I did not know anything about the history of this provision and I was amazed, when I read the text of the Bill at Second Reading, that this was in it. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will remember that; others beside him had the same feeling. I was astonished. Then, on the Friday morning, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean sought to get rid of that provision, but by a very large majority this House kept it in. That is the position and I would certainly like to know what we can do in the light of it, because otherwise, the law is in our statute book.

I should like to mention briefly one other point. In the decision of the Supreme Court, the important point was that Parliament has the responsibility, duty and power to call the Executive to account. You cannot easily call yourself to account and therefore, that makes a very important constitutional distinction between the area of operation of Ministers of the Crown and Parliament. That is an important observation in relation to certain of the proceedings which have taken place up until now.

11:59

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not have an answer. The fact is that the House was under the Prorogation guillotine, and that Bill could not take a change because it would not have been possible to swap down the other end and get it back. We were under the guillotine of the illegal Prorogation presided over by the Leader of the House.

A good line is always worth repeating. This deal is no good, because any deal is worse than membership of the European Union. Under current EU rules, we already have control—if we wish to exercise it—of our laws, borders and money. That is a fact. We should look not at next week, next month or next year, but a decade ahead. Brexit fatigue makes it tempting for some people to grab what they think is a comforting end, but it is not. What looks okay in the short term can look very negative in the long term. If the Government are so certain, put the deal to the people to obtain a fresher consent instead of relying on the stale and somewhat smelly consent from 2016. If the people choose this deal, so be it.

As has been said many times this morning, this deal puts the union at high risk of being dissolved. I well understand. If this goes through, I will find it incredibly difficult to vote against the border poll both on the island of Ireland and in England and Scotland when the requests come.

Yesterday, Tony Blair—still Labour’s best election winner—pointed out the inherent contradiction between paragraphs 22 and 77 of the political declaration regarding trade. I am referring to the document we had last week—not the one this morning, which might have changed. There is an inherent contradiction between those two paragraphs regarding trade.

Removing the annexes to the Northern Ireland protocol from the original withdrawal agreement was not necessary following the removal of the Northern Ireland protocol itself. There were 10 annexes that were not really connected to Northern Ireland, and Annexe 4 of the legal document dealt with taxation, environmental protection, labour and social standards, including agreements and monitoring. The Government could have allowed those annexes to remain part of the legal part of the withdrawal agreement. The Government therefore knowingly want lower standards, in order to obtain free trade agreements.

Lower standards of protection will lead to consequences. The push for a free trade agreement with America—the food poisoning capital of the West, where food poisoning rates are 10 times those of the UK per head of population—will have consequences. I realise that this is a minor point of detail, but research published in the UK only last year by the Microbiology Society proves that chlorine-washing food does not kill all the bugs. Given that more than 400 people a year die of Salmonella in the United States of America, compared with none here, it seems we are heading for very serious life-and-death consequences. Questions will be asked in due course as to the level of Brexit-related deaths the Tory Government are prepared to accept. I realise that it is stark, but those questions will be asked in due course as standards get diminished.

I am not a lawyer, but I maintain that the UK is a sovereign nation today. I also maintain that we will be less sovereign outside the EU.

12:03

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

As some of your Lordships will know, I have a particular interest in the legal aspects of Brexit. Depending on the votes today in the House of Commons, important legal issues may arise under the Benn Act, the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. If the House of Commons today approves the amendment tabled by Sir Oliver Letwin withholding approval of the Prime Minister’s deal unless and until the implementation Bill is passed in the next two weeks, or if it rejects the Prime Minister’s deal, the Prime Minister has a legal obligation to send the prescribed letter to the President of the European Council by the end of today. He must seek an extension under Article 50 until 31 January next year.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has repeatedly told this House that the Prime Minister would comply with the law and has repeatedly resisted the request to amplify what he understands that to mean. This legal obligation would require the Prime Minister personally to send the prescribed letter—the Act sets out the letter—by midnight. In my view, the Prime Minister has that duty irrespective of the purpose of the extension to which the Act refers—a point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, referred a few moments ago. If the EU offers an extension, it must be accepted in accordance with Section 3 of the Benn Act. The Prime Minister would have a legal duty not to frustrate the Benn Act by adding some other phrases to the letter or sending another, conflicting letter. If the Prime Minister did not comply with this legal duty, I do not see how any reputable Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor could remain in post.

The Benn Act, however, does not, and could not, oblige the European Council to grant an extension, and nor does it prevent the Prime Minister reminding the EU member states that he does not want an extension, wants to leave on 31 October and is sending the letter only because Parliament has required him to do so. I do not see that the Benn Act can sensibly be interpreted as requiring the Prime Minister to abandon his policy objectives.

There is a very fine line between not frustrating the Benn Act and the Prime Minister making clear to other EU leaders that his policy is unchanged. What if the Prime Minister telephones another EU leader on Monday and encourages him or her to oppose or even veto an extension? That would be an interesting Supreme Court case.

Section 1(4) of the Benn Act says:

“The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension”,


but it then adds how he must seek an extension—

“by sending to the President of the European Council a letter”.

I doubt that the courts would interpret the Benn Act as also requiring the Prime Minister to refrain from pursuing his policy objectives by other political means.

What if the Supreme Court in the next two weeks were to hold that the Prime Minister has acted unlawfully by breaching the Benn Act and persuading the EU not to offer an extension? As a matter of EU law, would we still be treated as leaving on 31 October because the EU has not offered an extension, or would the requirement in Article 50.1 be determinative? I quote:

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.


That question would have to be decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

12:08

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is somewhat daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—and the number of other eminent lawyers and parliamentarians who have spoken and are now departing—on this subject.

I shall speak from the perspective of a businesswoman. Many people have said to me, “Why has business been so silent on the topic of Brexit recently?” We listened to all the eminent and learned opinions this morning and some very entrenched views, and it is not that surprising that business people are keeping their heads down and trying to avoid this topic. But here goes: I will try.

I have learned two things in business that are relevant. The first is that it is important to actually make a decision. Sometimes, when you are leading large numbers of people, the worst thing that you can possibly do is not decide to do anything at all. I fear that that is exactly where we are, not just as a business but as a country. The second relevant thing that I learned in business is that the hardest thing to do in any negotiation is to know when it is time to stop and to know as a leader when it is time to pull the negotiating team away, call a halt to this phase of the negotiation and move on. Again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said so eloquently earlier, I believe that is where we are.

We really need to move on. Unusually, at a time when we are told not to listen to experts but to listen to the public and popular opinion, both experts and popular opinion agree on this. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee said on 9 October:

“Brexit uncertainty is weighing on business investment, the prices of UK assets and flows of capital into the UK”.


I declare my interest as deputy chair of the court of the Bank. The experts tell us unambiguously that it is the uncertainty that is crippling our country.

Go out on to the street of any village, town or city across this country and ask ordinary people going about their daily lives what they think about Brexit and politics. They want us to get on with it. So unusually, the experts agree with the popular view. Again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we have this confluence of business, economics and politics telling us that we need to move on.

We need to accept this deal, and that requires all of us to move. It requires those of us like me, who voted and campaigned to remain, to accept that the country voted to leave. It also requires those of us who voted to leave to accept that this might not be their ideal Brexit, but it is a very hard-fought, long-negotiated deal and Brexit it is. We are doing irreparable damage to this country by not making a decision—and I do not accept that I am describing Brexit fatigue. It is leadership to move on when it is time to make a decision and show the country the way forward.

12:12

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness in urging all Members of your Lordships’ House that this is the time to move on. My noble and learned friend the Convener looked at the rational approach to these things. Looking at the documents in detail, we have had the rational approach from my noble friend Lord Kerr about the economic harm that will come about by our leaving the European Union. There are many rational reasons. The most vulnerable are likely to be most harmed by our leaving the European Union in the way proposed. But if we keep on waiting it may become even worse.

There is another side to this: the emotional concerns. Everyone around Churchill in 1940 was telling him that it was all over and that the rational position was to give up, but he managed to move the British people, to give them hope that sunlit uplands were approaching. In this debate, it is important to understand the emotions of people as well as the reasons. In your Lordships’ House, we always seek to be as reasonable and logical as possible, but there is a strong emotional aspect to this. One of the strengths of the Prime Minister is understanding very well the emotional impulses behind people’s actions.

As I travelled here today, I sat with a Labour MP who has a secure seat in a northern constituency that voted strongly to leave. I have known this redoubtable MP for many years, and I know that she would be strongly against leaving and can see all the benefits of continuing to be part of the European Union. For several years now, she has tried to reconcile that difficulty. My concern is, as my noble and learned friend said, that we might get a leader who can speak to the emotions of those who feel bitterly disappointed.

My father was a Member of your Lordships’ House for 65 years. He was the Father of the House. His advice to me was, “Do not raise people’s expectations and then disappoint them”. We have raised the expectations of many of our people and they believe strongly that we should leave the European Union. How can we know that we will resolve this issue? I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his negotiators for seizing a deal out of what seemed a very unlikely scenario. How can we know that we will succeed in another a referendum? Is there not a risk that this will just drag on and on, drawing all our energies into this continuing debate? We have talked about this as a divorce, but it is becoming a long, acrimonious divorce in which the dependants are all but forgotten about. After years of underfunding of services, there is so much work to do to remedy those services, and yet we are distracted by this intractable problem.

I hope that we can move forward and that in the next 10 years, the argument will be made very positively that being a part of the European Union, we are a stronger and better nation. Looking at my own experience, what I see on the continent is a strong social contract; I am afraid that in this country, that has much diminished in recent years. I am afraid that our neighbour across the Atlantic has a very weak social contract. My concern as we move away from the European Union and look more to the United States is that we risk moving in that direction. There are good, positive arguments to seek to rejoin the European Union.

We also need to look at Parliament and how representative it is. When I last visited Germany, the far-right group Alternative für Deutschland had secured 90 seats in the Bundestag. At the same time in this country, UKIP had a similar proportion of votes but secured only two seats. It makes it much easier for people to undermine Parliament if so many people feel unrepresented. How can two or three principal parties represent the complexity of experience across the land? I hope that in the next few years, we can look at ourselves and how we need to change to be more representative.

I support this deal.

12:17

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, the last time that this House sat on a Saturday there was an increasing sense of unity among those who spoke. Today, the sense of unity is shattered. The language has become more extreme. Some of the earlier speeches set a bad example to the rest of the country of how we should behave. There has been no attempt by people to move, from various sides.

When we spoke on Brexit about three years ago, I said that if there is to be a break it should be like an accident: the cleaner the break, the sooner it will mend. But this break has become a series of multiple fractures which will take an even longer time to heal and will be much worse, not just for this country but for our friends across the water in the EU.

What has happened over the last three years has followed a fairly predictable course. The negotiations have been much more difficult than we were told they would be—nobody read the House of Lords report where we indicated that negotiations would be immensely complicated and take more time. Several MPs who for a lot of their lives said how good their constituents were, supported them and spoke about what they wanted, now say that they are not quite so wise after all and that their own view is preferable to their constituents’.

A deal was negotiated at the 11th hour. It is typical within the EU that things take a long time to get negotiated. But the deal that was signed in good faith on both sides was not agreed by the House of Commons on three occasions. The fact that it did not ratify that deal has demeaned it in the public’s opinion. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge: it has done the whole of politics a deal of harm. The Prime Minister had to ask for an extension, which was duly granted. The EU said that the deal was non-negotiable, but the EU always renegotiates. It has done in the past; it will do so in the future. Despite the deal being non-negotiable, our Prime Minister has indeed negotiated a different deal. If so many noble Lords opposite say that it is worse than the May deal, they should ask Members of Parliament why they did not vote for Theresa May’s deal. It was on the table. If it was going to be the deal, they should have voted for it and should not whinge about a different deal and say that it is worse.

The indecision in the other place is appalling; it has not helped at all. I hope that now, as noble Lords have said, we make a decision. I voted remain. I wish we were still in the EU, but the decision was taken that we should leave. We have a deal before us. It is time for this Parliament to act, to make a decision, and then we can get on because it is the indecision that is hurting our businesses and declining our economy. That has to be resolved. The only way it can be resolved is by accepting this deal and getting on.

12:21

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise in my place, but my heart is not here. My heart is with the hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens currently marching through the streets of London in support of a further referendum. I hope I may be forgiven for injecting a note of frivolity into this debate. There have not been many such notes so far. I am in favour of a four-way referendum: no deal, Johnson’s deal, remain—and “I do not give a stuff” because I think that is what quite a lot of our fellow citizens feel. They have lost all touch with this and they do not give a stuff what the outcome is. I think they are wrong to think that, by the way, as a no-deal outcome would be a disaster, but that feeling is there in the country.

I make that point in order to make a much more serious point. Over the past couple of weeks, the streets of London have been full of demonstrators against our indifference to climate change. The demonstration went on a bit too long and some of the tactics used were wrong, but climate change is about whether the human race survives and whether our planet continues. That is a crucial issue. At a lesser level, what about social care? Thousands of our elderly citizens sit neglected while the Government dither about their social care policy. What about housing? People are paying half their income in rent. Are we sure that we really have a sense of proportion about this European issue? I have listened to all the passionate speeches that have been made but in some ways, we could do with a bit less passion and bit more reaching out one to another to try to find common ground, without party politics.

I have been in politics here for 50 years. When I started out, it was the Labour Party that was divided about Europe. On the one hand, there were the Jenkinsites making powerful speeches in favour of Europe and on the other hand, the Bennites were making their speeches against. I worked for a man some noble Lords will remember, Tony Crosland. He refused to be strung out like that. He was a pro-European in principle, but he refused to think it was the most important issue facing the nation compared with how we achieved economic growth and greater equality, how we dealt with housing and so on. I think he was right then and that his philosophy has something to teach us now.

How did the Labour Party resolve that problem? It did so by a referendum, and I would like to see another one now.

12:24

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I dwell upon the processes of today and on what has brought us here. Everything about this Brexit has been a disaster, from the dreadful referendum campaign, to Article 50 being served before we knew where we wanted to go, and to the self-strangulation of our negotiating capacity by arbitrarily decided red lines. Today’s sitting has been described, at least in regard to the other place, as historic. It is historic in the sense that in what we thought was a sophisticated parliamentary democracy, we, and particularly the other place, are being asked to express a view, and in their case, decide, on one of the greatest questions which has faced our nation in our time. We are being asked to do so in circumstances where the official text was laid before Parliament only today and the unofficial documents were available only on Thursday afternoon. An email tells me that there are other documents that the Government have prepared. We do not have in the Printed Paper Office the position of the Government on the terminability of the protocol on Northern Ireland —I will not give noble Lords the whole title—or the explanation of the new Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol and political declaration. It seems to me that to express a view on an agreement which appears to be a limited rehash of Mrs May’s agreement, with no analysis of the changes and no assessment of the impact, is not the action of a sophisticated democracy and Parliament.

Other noble Lords have spoken on the detail and pointed out the shortcomings or otherwise to Mrs May’s deal—an agreement, let us not forget, that the Prime Minister voted against on more than one occasion, as a result of which we have lost valuable time, particularly in respect of the transitional or implementation period. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister, the leader of my party, has been portrayed in his supporting press as a hero conquering the forces of Europe and now taking on Parliament on behalf of the people, with no explanation whatever of his vision of the future relationship with Europe and casting principles and allies to one side as he proceeds. In fact, we have been brought to a position where the Government present Parliament with a choice between agreeing or rejecting the agreement while, notwithstanding the Benn Act, maintaining we will leave on 31 October. I have never understood the statement that I have heard in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere: “We will observe the law; we will leave on 31 October”.

It is reported that the Government may withdraw the Motion in the other place if the Letwin amendment passes. Perhaps when my noble friend replies to this debate he can tell us something about the intention behind that and whether that is true. I am sorry to say that I feel that Parliament is being used and manipulated by the Executive to achieve the ends of the Prime Minister. We are being made to look foolish by a Prime Minister and his colleagues whose idea of taking back control we now see means taking back control to the Executive.

Any debate today has no time for detailed considerations of the contents and we are faced with the prospect of legislation required to implement the deal being pushed through both Houses by 31 October. I hope no one will seek to pretend that the Northern Ireland Bill or the Benn Act were precedents for doing that; they were single-issue, short Bills. We cannot proceed in that way just to satisfy the reckless ambition of the Prime Minister to leave on 31 October, do or die. Deal or no deal, we need more time to give responsible consideration. If we fail to give that consideration and do not deal with this matter in a proper way, the loss of support by the people for political institutions, as indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will be justified. I hope that the other place will support the Letwin amendment and insist on an extension come what may. Let no one suggest that this is a remainer plot to thwart the referendum. It is about how we leave and whether we do so while retaining as many of the benefits of membership of the European Union as possible, or whether we cast ourselves adrift on an uncertain sea.

12:30

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I agree wholeheartedly with his intervention.

The noble Baroness the Leader, in repeating the Statement, referred to resolving the differences and divisions, and I wholeheartedly agree, but how can there be a resolution when the demands and aspirations of over 16 million people—48%—are disregarded? They are people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, are marching on our streets today because they feel unheard and left out of the negotiated deals.

Having read the additional documents published on 17 October, I have to say that my fears about human rights and fundamental rights in the United Kingdom are reinforced, and therefore I am deeply concerned about the human rights landscape that lies ahead of us. However, I will not go down that avenue, as I have been down it frequently in our other debates.

I do not know about your Lordships, but I wake up in the morning to the sound of music—and I do not mean the dulcet tones of Julie Andrews. I listen to commercial radio to remind me of what the real world is like. In certain advertisements about the preparations for leaving the European Union, I am informed that I must prepare for the new restrictions when travelling to, trading with or driving within the European Union. Those are just three examples. Can the Minister tell me where in the arguments that were made for leaving the European Union the British public were told that they would face more restrictions, more red tape and fewer freedoms? I could give other examples of freedoms that citizens will lose: the right to study in and the right to freedom of movement through 27 other countries, and there are many more. Nowhere were the British people told what they would lose; only what they might gain.

In order to move on, as other noble Lords have urged, I say to the Government and to the supporters of their withdrawal Act that, if they believe that this deal is so brilliant and that it is what the British people demanded in 2016 by voting in the referendum by a very narrow majority, then have the guts and integrity to put it to the British public in a confirmatory referendum. They should ask the British public whether they accept this deal, these conditions and all the consequences that will follow. But no; the Government will fight shy of holding the British public accountable—yes, accountable —in this long drawn-out saga. They will utter the phrase “the will of the people”, ignoring that the will of the people can and does change. I do not often quote Lady Thatcher but, to use her word, the Government are “frit”.

In conclusion, during these three years of pantomime politics, aided and abetted by the leadership of the Labour Party in the other place—a party that I have left after 45 years of membership—it has been said that we are being led by donkeys. That is the wrong analogy. Donkeys would have got us somewhere. We are not being led by donkeys; donkeys would have done better. Therefore, it is time to put this deal—if it is the best that the Government can do—back to the British people.

12:34

[Baroness Pidding (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak today to give my fulsome support to our Prime Minister and the deal that he has secured for the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

Back in January 2018, I said in this Chamber that, regardless of which side we supported in the referendum,

“we all recognise that our departure from the European Union will be one of the biggest challenges faced by any British Government in modern times”,—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1516]

and so it has proved to be. The ongoing debate following the result of the 2016 referendum has sucked the oxygen out of our political discourse. It has been bruising and debilitating both in Westminster and throughout the country.

I believe that the health of our democracy depends on implementing the referendum result, and the health of our economy depends on us proving that we can make a success of the opportunities that Brexit offers us. I am also mindful of the fact that 48% of the country voted to remain. The referendum exposed a country divided, and the deliberations of the past three years have exacerbated this running sore. I hope that today is the day that we can begin to mend the wounds by moving forward.

Our Prime Minister has, against the odds and despite a backdrop of much negative political commentary, successfully brought forward a deal that I believe Parliament must support. It is a deal that fulfils the democratic result of the 2016 referendum and will allow us to take advantage of a new relationship both with our friends in the EU and throughout the wider world. It is a deal that contains much of what over the past weeks and months and, dare I say, even the last three years, many of our politicians have been asking for. It is a deal that I believe can fulfil the ambitions of people on both sides of the Brexit debate.

So today is the day when we see whether our colleagues in the other place, who have spoken of the hopes for a deal, will be true to their word and will back this deal. I urge them to do so. I recall the fewer than a dozen words, with unambiguous meaning, that were written on the Government’s leaflet and delivered to all homes prior to the referendum in 2016:

“We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome”.


To not do so would be seriously damaging to the relationship between Parliament and the electorate.

Today, I was meant to be at the races, celebrating the imminent retirement of my partner Tim. On the rare occasions when I go to the races, I have little luck in backing the winner. Today, I hope that I am backing the winner—this deal. I hope, too, that our colleagues in the other place will back the new deal that has been secured. Now is the time to move on and bring to an end the uncertainty and division. It is time to unite the country and to get back to the domestic issues that matter to people up and down the land. This debate is corroding the electorate’s faith in us as politicians. We have a deal, and it is a good deal. Let us get Brexit done.

12:37

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, the deal on offer before us today is the very hardest of Brexits without actually being a no-deal Brexit. I want to follow up on the points made by my noble friends that this would be a disaster for manufacturing, for jobs in our country, for the region that I come from in the north, and indeed for the town that I represent on Cumbria County Council, which has a factory employing 950 people, with 60% of its product exported to the single market.

I would like the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to confirm in his summing up that this is a much harder Brexit than anything that Mrs May proposed as Prime Minister. I draw his attention to pages 5 and 6 of the political declaration and ask him to compare them with the political declaration of Mrs May. Let us deal in the facts.

First, in Mrs May’s political declaration it was said that we wanted an ambitious trading relationship “as close as possible” to the EU. That has gone. Secondly, it was said that we wanted as much alignment as possible. Instead, in paragraph 22 is the fact that we are not going to have alignment. Therefore, there is a new reference to,

“appropriate and modern accompanying rules of origin”—

necessary checks at the border that would not have been necessary if that alignment had been in place. Thirdly, the May deal had an objective of frictionless trade. Will the Minister confirm that that is no longer the Government’s objective? That is clear from paragraph 26 of the political declaration, which says that,

“customs and regulatory cooperation would be taken into account in the application of related checks and controls”.

In other words, checks and controls are a certainty at the border in this agreement, whereas they were not under Mrs May’s objectives.

Noble Lords have spoken about the importance of certainty; the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who is not in his place now, made very good speeches on certainty. However, the certainty that is proposed in this type of economic arrangement is a drying up of foreign inward investment in manufacturing in Britain. That has very serious consequences for our people—consequences that cannot lightly be brushed aside.

The other certainty is the loss of competitiveness that this agreement will bring for British industry. Whatever the Government’s preferences—I do not believe that all Conservatives are evil and want to lower workers’ standards, destroy environmental standards and all the rest of it—if we lose competitive strength in the way that the deal intends, they will find that they are driven to lower taxes on business, and that will mean less money for the health service and for one-nation policies. We will be driven to have lower standards than the European Union, because that is the only way we will be able to compete. I think that is a disaster.

The Prime Minister tells us that this is the greatest ever restoration of national sovereignty. Actually, the referendum promise was to “take back control”, but control in the modern world is something very different from sovereignty. Brexit gives us no control over how we, as 3% of the world economy, are going to negotiate preferential trade deals with other parts of the world, or how we are going to face up to the big challenges of climate change, migration, development and security on our own. To have control, we need to remain part of an organisation such as the European Union, and that is why this proposed deal has to go to a referendum as the only way forward.

12:43

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is normally courteous to thank the Leader of the House for repeating Statements from the Prime Minister. However, on this occasion, I rather wish she had not. The Prime Minister articulated a view, reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, that he hopes that the two halves of our country—the 52% and the 48%—can now speak with one voice. I made a similar comment in July 2016, straight after the referendum.

I am a democrat and was willing to respect the result of the referendum. It is a matter of record that I did not vote against triggering Article 50. During the referendum, like the Government, I was very clear and said time and again that a vote to leave meant that we would leave. However, the fact that I believe in democracy does not necessarily mean that I have changed my mind, any more than any of my fellow Liberal Democrats have done, about the importance and value of membership of the European Union. That the Prime Minister could stand in the House of Commons this morning and say, “I have not heard anybody over the last three and a half years make a case about Brexit other than in practical terms” is deeply disingenuous. The fact that people have been arguing on the basis of the situation we are in does not mean that we have changed our minds. I have not rehearsed the pre-referendum arguments over the course of the last three and a half years, because we had already had that debate. That does not mean that I do not think that membership of the European Union is by far the best thing that this country can aspire to.

I am a democrat and was willing to accept the outcome of the referendum. However, over the course of the last three and a half years, it has become clear that it is not possible for this Prime Minister or his predecessor to find a deal that is acceptable to the whole of the United Kingdom. We have heard exhortations today to support this new wonder-deal that our new Prime Minister Boris Johnson has found. It is an inferior deal to the one that Theresa May saw rejected three times. I spoke in a debate on that deal in December last year; I did not feel a need to speak subsequently, because we kept being asked about exactly the same deal.

It is common for members of other parties to criticise the Liberal Democrats for supporting or backing up the Conservatives and their worst excesses during the coalition. In practice, in many cases, the Liberal Democrats stopped the worst excesses. However, people did not see that, because when a decision is stopped, it is not seen in public. It never occurred to me that I would end up having to support in some way Arlene Foster. When Theresa May said she had a deal with the old withdrawal agreement, Mrs Foster stopped her at that stage and changes were made, so that the deal that came forward was one that at least the DUP felt was acceptable for Northern Ireland. As a Catholic of Irish heritage, it pains me somewhat to end up on the same page as the DUP.

Like so many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am deeply concerned that the deal that is now being put forward presages the break-up of the United Kingdom. The Sun newspaper has a headline today that says, “It’s time to do right by Britain”. That says it all. It does not say that it is time to do right by “the United Kingdom”, and that highlights one of the real divisions. This country is a United Kingdom of four constituent parts. The deal separates off one part of our United Kingdom. Time and again, Theresa May talked about the importance of “our precious union”. The deal that Boris Johnson has come back with drives a coach and horses through that and paves the way for the SNP to rightly suggest that if Northern Ireland can have a different deal, why not Scotland? As MPs prepare to vote, they must think about the national interest of the United Kingdom. This agreement is not in the national interest.

12:48

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the debate in your Lordships’ House today is a mere sideshow to the real action that is taking place in another place. The other place has a huge decision to make today, and I fervently hope that it will give its approval to the Prime Minister’s deal to take us out of the EU.

If the other place does not do that, the MPs who go through the Not-Content Lobby will be the only ones to blame if we leave the EU without a deal on 31 October. The Prime Minister could not have worked harder to achieve the deal before Parliament today. The doubters should have taken him at his word when he said that he wanted a deal and did not want to leave without one.

Failure today will likely lead to no deal. There is no other deal waiting in the wings. No one can be certain what the EU will do if faced with the rejection of this deal, but there is more than a sporting chance that it will refuse a further extension. It is as fed up with this long-running saga as are the British public.

While I loathed the deal that the former Prime Minister negotiated with the EU, if I had had the privilege of voting in the other place I would have voted for it at the third time of asking in order to honour the result of the referendum—which I remind the House was the largest-ever expression of the will of the people of the UK. But the other place did not do that.

Since then, we have had the energy and determination brought to the task of leaving the EU by our new Prime Minister. I place on record my admiration for the way he has tackled it. He has had a hugely difficult hand to play against the background of both Houses of Parliament determined to thwart him. He had his biggest negotiating card taken away from him by attempts to remove no deal from the negotiating table.

The Prime Minister did not play his hand perfectly. We could have done without the Prorogation mess—although that did show that Parliament had no useful purpose in the extra weeks that the Supreme Court forced us to sit. But we should judge him not by the individual steps along the way but by the end result. The Prime Minister has achieved what practically everybody outside our party—and a fair few within it—said he could not achieve. They said that the EU would not reopen the withdrawal agreement, that the backstop could not be changed, and that the political declaration on the future relationship could not be changed. The Prime Minister proved them wrong on every count.

The new deal remains based on Mrs May’s deal and is far from perfect—but I accept the realities of compromise. Indeed, I am thrilled by the prospect that this deal could see us leave the EU in two weeks’ time. We will then be on a path to a free trade agreement with our neighbours in continental Europe and the prospect of our own trade deals with the rest of the world.

Those who seek an extension, for whatever stated purpose, I invite to look at the recent polling. The huge ComRes survey this week found that 54% of the public just want us to get on and leave. Yesterday’s YouGov survey showed 41% in favour of the deal and only 24% against it.

I hope that the other place today will show wisdom and pragmatism. I hope that this precious opportunity to deliver the result of the referendum and achieve Brexit on the basis of a good enough deal will not be squandered. It will take courage for some Members of the other place to vote with the Prime Minister, but I pray that they will find that courage.

12:52

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I am as nervous as I ever have been about the consequences of Brexit for our economy and our union. If there is a pathway to a further referendum, I will take it. But, if there is to be a choice between this deal and no deal—and I am fearful that that now is the choice—I will choose this deal, for it satisfies the key demands of those who, unlike me, voted to leave: ending freedom of movement, reclaiming the right to forge bespoke trade deals around the world, and eliminating the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

More positively, the political declaration offers, in notably generous language, the prospect of a speedily negotiated deal with our closest neighbours and the world’s most powerful economic bloc, with the prospect of an agreement in place in a little over 12 months’ time. The scope of that potential deal set out in the political declaration is wide. It offers the prospect of free trade, with no tariffs or quotas; regulatory equivalence for the City; free movement of capital; data transfer; air connectivity; a continuing interconnection of power supply; mutuality in public procurement; co-operation on nuclear; a partnership on security and cybersecurity, and on crime, defence and intelligence. Someone once quipped that the British were only ever half in Europe. In future, we may in practice be only half out. That is my hope.

The backstop in the previous deal raised justifiable constitutional concerns. This deal delivers no hard border in Ireland and allows Northern Ireland to participate in both the UK and the EU customs unions—welcome news indeed for Northern Ireland’s unsettled business community. Checking goods in transit from the UK mainland to the Republic via Northern Ireland seems an insignificant price to pay for such an arrangement. If Northern Ireland does not want to pay that price, it can, by a majority unavoidably now involving both communities, withdraw its consent—although I cannot conceive why it ever should.

The objection that this deal will reduce labour and other standards appears to me to be weak. The political declaration is emphatic about the UK signing up to a level playing field of standards, and of not seeking unfair trading advantage. Moreover, future Governments of whatever party will be free to legislate on these matters, if and when they choose.

I would far rather remain in the European Union; that is the best deal of all. However, if we are to leave, embracing this deal offers at least the prospect of a fruitful and healthy future relationship with our closest neighbours. Rejecting the deal risks damaging that relationship even further, and risks a further descent into ever more torrid political chaos, with incalculable consequences.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. It is now time to decide. It is now time to jump.

12:56

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, the last three and a half years have been the most divisive, frustrating and unpleasant I have known in over 30 years’ membership of your Lordships’ House. However, as most speakers will recognise, we have an opportunity today to put that behind us and take an important step forward. We can leave either with or without a deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, today’s debate enables us to leave with a deal. I realise that a significant majority of your Lordships, like the noble Lord, would prefer not to be leaving the EU at all, but the mandate of the 2016 referendum, supported by the two main parties at the last election, is to leave, like it or not.

As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, we have heard repeatedly that the withdrawal agreement could not be re-opened, but it has been. We were told that the backstop could not be dispensed with, but it has gone. We were assured that the Irish would not deal directly with the Prime Minister; not only has the Taoiseach negotiated directly with the Prime Minister, but it was his intervention that unlocked this deal.

In my experience, it is very difficult to do a deal unless there are two willing parties, with a degree of good will on both sides. I have observed the past three years of negotiations only through the prism of the media and through your Lordships’ House, neither of which is without bias, as your Lordships may have noticed. While there has been deplorable weakness and naivety in the Government’s negotiating positions and tactics over the past three years, it is difficult to conclude that there was much good will on the other side. Whether a deal was ever possible in those circumstances is doubtful, but the conduct of those who have consistently sought to undermine the Government’s position and have, even within the past few days and weeks, effectively conspired with a foreign power against our national interest, is quite unprecedented. In these circumstances, to have successfully negotiated a deal, as the Prime Minister has, is an extraordinary achievement. To reject today’s Motion, and thus effectively support our leaving the EU without a deal, which this House has strongly opposed, would be bizarre, to say the least.

Mrs May’s deal was unacceptable to the House of Commons because of the backstop, which could have prevented the UK leaving the EU at all. It has now been removed, which means that, whatever else, this deal ultimately will deliver a complete end to the UK’s membership of the EU. By removing the backstop and replacing it with a virtual customs border between Ireland and the rest of the UK, this deal presents some very real problems for the DUP. I understand that. While I am a passionate supporter of the union, I do not pretend to understand all the intricacies of the politics of Ireland. However, I am more than aware of the sensitivities. At the same time, I marvel at the progress made since the Good Friday agreement and deplore anything that puts it at risk. I also recognise points of principle as much as anyone else does, but I struggle to see a system of tariffs and rebates as a genuinely significant constitutional barrier for most people—for politicians perhaps, but not most people. I understand, too, the concerns about the potential democratic deficit, if that is the right way to put it, in approving this system of tariffs, but I do not see that as so much of a problem that it cannot be resolved—not by some diktat within a treaty, perhaps, but by the same good will that brought about the Good Friday agreement itself. To have climbed that huge mountain yet now to trip over this small step seems too cruel. I hope beyond hope that my DUP friends will see their way through this dilemma.

I am what is now called a Brexiteer. Like most people, I struggled to decide how to vote but in the end my heart ruled my head. If I had any doubts about how to vote, and I did, they have been dispelled by the behaviour of the European Commission over the past three years and the conduct of the remainer campaign, which has been dishonourable and demonstrably against the national interest. I am not in favour of a hard Brexit, nor a soft Brexit, because I am not entirely sure what those terms mean. I am in favour of a sensible, reasonable Brexit, detaching us from the EU completely and regaining the freedom to make our own political and economic decisions while maintaining a strong friendship with our European neighbours, with whom we share so much and with whom I look forward to sharing a peaceful and prosperous future. I do not think that is too much to ask.

My father, who sat in this House for almost 50 years and served in four Governments, taught me that politics was about not just the way you think about your country, but the way you feel about your country. He impressed on me the importance of learning to assess the mood of this House and the mood of the people. The mood of this House today is still split, but not, I think, the mood of the people. I look at the polls and I read the press. I listen to the people I meet—from all walks of life, not just my own circle of family and friends. My assessment of the mood is that, overwhelmingly, people are sick to death of the protracted mess that Parliament has made of this. But the mess is not Brexit: it is Parliament’s unwillingness to implement Brexit that angers people.

My noble friend Lord Heseltine, who is not in his place, told your Lordships in an earlier debate that his Brexiteer friends were now all remainers.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

May I remind my noble friend of the speaking limit?

[Lord Mancroft]

I am most grateful. We all know that the present situation is damaging our economy; I know that from my personal experience. But it is not Brexit that is damaging our economy; we have not had Brexit or even the prospect of it. It is the political paralysis that exists in this House and another place, caused by those who seem willing to do anything to prevent it. We can break that deadlock today.

13:03

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, there have been a lot of mentions today of the last time Parliament met on a Saturday. On that occasion, I had the great privilege of participating in the debate in the other place, and a really dramatic debate it was. I am not the only speaker today, however, who spoke in it. The other is our parliamentary national treasure the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose speech I look forward to later—although my noble friend Lord Rooker intervened from a sedentary position. Nothing changes. The late Lord Carrington, who led the debate, is very sadly no longer able to be with us but neither is the honourable tradition of ministerial resignation, which he showed on the Falklands, although he had no personal responsibility or fault then.

Today we have two questions: how did we get into this mess and how do we get out of it? David Cameron is the prime culprit—for trying to solve the chronic Tory division on Europe not by trying to reform the European Union to make it more acceptable to us, but by this referendum. He then ran a feeble campaign—nearly as feeble as my own leader’s. The skulduggery of the leavers, who were more astonished by their victory than the rest of us, was part of the reason we are in this mess now. Theresa May missed every opportunity to get out of it and now we have this cliffhanger down the Corridor.

I cannot fault the PM for his determination, his sleight of hand or his back slapping—it makes a change from back stabbing—but I can fault him for his duplicity, as other noble Lords have said: that is how he achieved this deal. I understand the Liberal Democrats wishing to grab the opportunity of leading the remain campaign. We are not going to let them, by the way; we are equally part of it. I understand the SNP’s desperation to get an election before they are faced with the trial of the century, which will be fascinating. However, I am astonished by any Labour MP supporting Johnson’s deal. First, so-called Labour leave constituencies are mirages. It was the Tories and the Brexit voters in those constituencies who voted to leave. Most Labour voters voted to remain, and now they will be tempted to go to the Liberal Democrats or the Greens. What a false thing the Labour MPs in those constituencies are doing .

Secondly, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds rightly said, MPs are not delegates. They have a duty to lead, not to follow—to convert and convince their electorate. I did it as an MP, as did my noble friend Lord Reid and others. We convinced them on capital punishment, on abortion, on devolution and, indeed, on Europe. The Labour Party used to be against it; we convinced them to be in favour of it. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, Europe is a beacon on food safety, workers’ rights, consumer protection and environmental protection. That is why we should be staying in Europe. Any assurances that Labour MPs get from this Prime Minister are totally worthless. He is, we know, an inveterate liar and the sooner people recognise that the better. Mark my words: if one Labour MP helps Boris Johnson to get a majority of one, he or she will rue this day. I hope there is not; I hope the agreement will be defeated. Like so many on this side of the Chamber—and, indeed, some on the other—I hope we will go back to the people and, now that we know the reality of Brexit, give them the opportunity to decide the way forward once again.

13:07

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, today is an historic day—as we have already heard—for many reasons but perhaps for one in particular. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, spoke of the importance of respect. Today, we can show the British people that we actually respect them; that we respect the result of the once-in-a-generation people’s vote; and that we respect their desire to get Brexit done.

Of course, I appreciate that there will be many opportunities to debate Brexit in the months and years ahead, but today at least can mark the end of the beginning. The process of returning to this United Kingdom accountability for decisions affecting the minutiae of people’s everyday lives can now begin. We are privileged to serve the people in this the mother of Parliaments. Because of this deal, I believe, democracy is at last coming home.

So today is surely not the time to be demanding neverendums. Today is surely a day for taking pride in Great Britain, pride in its people and pride in its Prime Minister for doing, after all, what we demanded he do: secure what Jean-Claude Juncker himself described as a “fair and balanced agreement”. This deal, as so many Members of your Lordships’ House have argued, deserves support. It is time to respect the people’s vote of 2016 and get Brexit done.

13:10

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, when we first debated the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill—the famous Article 50—on 21 February 2017 and almost a year later the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, little did I imagine that, as we approached the end of 2019, we would still be in the European Union. I said then that it would not be easy, much to the amusement of the Liberal Democrats, but how could we have made it so hard?

The British people were asked a clear question in the 2016 referendum, and they gave a decisive answer. Although I voted remain, I respect that answer. Over the intervening three years, I have watched with increasing despair as we have failed to deliver the promise, made so emphatically by the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservative Party, to uphold the decision of the referendum.

In 1992, had the astute voters of Oldham Central and Royton not rejected me in the general election in favour of my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and had I been given the honour of serving in another place, like my noble friend Lady Noakes I, too, would have voted for the withdrawal agreement negotiated by my right honourable friend Theresa May. I did not like parts of it; I was particularly uneasy with the backstop and its potential to keep us in the customs union, effectively keeping us in the EU with no voice and no vote. But we would have been out earlier this year, completing the first stage of the process, and would now be some six months down the line in our free trade negotiations with the European Union.

The EU was always crystal clear: we could not discuss in detail our future trading arrangements, such as open and fair competition and standards, nor our future collaborative relationships, until we had left. Yet so much of what we have been discussing these past two years is about the next stage. We just have to get there, to make that decision of which my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe so eloquently spoke.

I agree with the powerful speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I, too, acknowledge the sincere and passionate views of those who think differently to me. If we were just having a debate with no consequences, that would be fine. But our actions do have consequences, and I can understand, and indeed have sympathy with, the mounting exasperation and anger among the electorate at the parliamentary manoeuvrings that have prolonged and frustrated the delivery of the referendum result. My noble friend Lord Howard is so right to point to the damage that the delay and uncertainty is causing.

Now, on this historic Saturday—and it is historic—Parliament has before it another chance with a revised withdrawal agreement, which those with superior knowledge said would be impossible to obtain. It removes the backstop and, in the words of one the architects of the Good Friday agreement, my noble friend Lord Trimble, it is,

“fully in accordance with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement”.

But, most importantly of all, it fulfils our promise to the British people, which is long overdue.

13:14

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, when the Prime Minister made his “do or die” statement during the Conservative leadership campaign, I felt strongly, and said at the time, that he had boxed himself in. He is now seeking to release himself from that box by agreeing to something that both he and his predecessor Theresa May said no British Government could or should ever contemplate: putting a border in the Irish Sea.

Politics is often described as the art of the possible. For this Prime Minister, it is the art of the expedient. For all the bluster and tough talking by the new Government, much of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated by Theresa May remains unchanged. In so far as it has changed, it has been materially for the worse. Those who say that it opens up the prospect of a harder Brexit, greater regulatory divergence and a race to the bottom on workers’ protections are right. We have seen assurances from the Government today on that, but why were those things taken out of the agreement in the first place?

There is a connection between this and the economic impact. We do not have the Treasury’s economic assessment, as others have observed, but we have the economic modelling of the independent think tank UK in a Changing Europe, which says that this deal will be significantly more economically damaging in the long term than the May deal. This economic damage will be even greater if we have the equivalent of a no-deal Brexit in December 2020, as some of the hard-line Brexiteers are secretly hoping for. Whatever short-term boost there is to the economy from reaching a deal will quickly evaporate as trade barriers start to be erected. Here is the connection, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out: to respond to that economic challenge, workers’ rights and conditions will be under threat.

The Johnson deal materially adds to the risk of the United Kingdom breaking up. Much has rightly been said about Northern Ireland, but if this deal goes through, a second referendum on independence in Scotland would be almost impossible to resist and would have a much stronger prospect of succeeding. Like John Major, I find it genuinely surprising that some of the most passionate supporters of the union are willing to put that at risk for this deal.

In short, I did not much like the May deal and I like this one even less. The only reason this deal is being given houseroom at the moment is Brexit fatigue. I doubt that there is anyone in this room who is not heartily sick of Brexit. Indeed, Sky News now runs a separate news channel where the B-word is not used. It is also right to say that Brexit has crowded out many vital issues facing this country and damaged trust in our democracy. However, as so many others have said, agreeing this deal now does not end the uncertainty or Brexit. The Brexit nightmare will continue for years to come. It will be like the film “Groundhog Day”, but without the laughs. We will still wake up to the latest Brexit news on our radios; the only thing that will have changed is that John Humphrys has now retired.

It is now three years and four months since the EU referendum. The terms of our departure now proposed are almost unrecognisable from those which were promised at the time of the referendum. It may be that, despite all this—despite the fact that the benefits are so much smaller and the costs so much higher—the public still feel that leaving the EU is worthwhile. However, given the extent of that change and the deep divisions we have in Parliament, we should let the British people make that choice. If I were not in this Chamber today, I would be on the People’s Vote march.

13:19

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not recognise the picture painted by the Leader of the House in her opening words. Our membership of the EU has made us better off, it has been flexible and it has kept the peace. Yet many noble Lords tempt us to end the uncertainty by accepting this deal. That is wrong because of the damage that this deal will do both socially and economically.

Yes, ending uncertainty may produce a temporary pick-up but, as others have told us, in the medium and long term, we will be worse off; the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, explained that it will be somewhere between the 5.5% loss of GDP under the May agreement and the 8.7% loss of GDP under WTO no-deal arrangements. That is obviously why the Treasury has been so silent. Is it worth the impact on our standard of living, at a cost far greater than our net contribution to the EU, for which we get something in return? Still to come, as many noble Lords have said, is the long and complex negotiation of future trade agreements, negotiations in a world of increasing trade conflict, less growth and increasing doubts about fair dealing.

The political declaration sees us leaving the customs union. That is a key requirement of business, and of the unions. Yes, there is some temporary alignment for manufacturing, but there is silence on services. All this is bound to worsen the fiscal framework for the promised spending on the NHS, education, infrastructure and the green economy. What about the loss of inward investment? Nobody voted for this.

Above all, there is the danger to the union. We must repair the strained relationship between us and the devolved Governments. All were opposed to leaving the EU, and somehow they must have a say. We know that this agreement is a damaging act of self-harm. Is this what the people want for their children and their grandchildren? Thousands of people are demonstrating outside—including my wife—saying that this is not their vision. It would be irresponsible and reckless to agree this with a sigh of relief just to get it over. I see no alternative to putting this to a public vote with, for the sake of the union, the alternative being to remain.

13:23

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register. Later today, when we have finished here, some noble Lords may go home and watch “Strictly Come Dancing”. Those who are familiar with ballroom dancing will know what step it is when you take one step forward, two steps sideways and two steps back. That is what we are presented with. The step forward is that under the new backstop arrangement relating to Northern Ireland, there is an exit clause. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked, “What is the difference and why are some of my Conservative colleagues voting for this deal when previously they opposed Theresa May’s deal?” At the heart of that is that the backstop, as previously proposed, had no way out, once one was in it, without EU consent. So that is a step forward. The step sideways is that this backstop relates only to Northern Ireland, not to the United Kingdom. I shall come back to the consequences of that.

Of the two steps back, the first seems to be the distance that will be created between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the potential for regulatory divergence. The second is the extent to which we will potentially leave without continuing institutional relationships such as a customs union or the single market. We are moving further away from what many voters in Scotland thought they were voting for and the risks to the union have been exacerbated, as has been mentioned several times in the debate. So those are steps backwards.

Another step back is that, not least as a consequence of focusing only on Northern Ireland and the backstop, we have removed what was previously, in effect, the benchmark for looking at the future relationship between ourselves and the European Union. I am staggered that, three years down the line, we know less about what that future relationship will look like than we did two years ago. How have we arrived at that point? Article 50 itself says that the withdrawal agreement should be negotiated in combination with the future relationship. It was a central failure of the Article 50 process that the European Union institutions were allowed to separate the withdrawal agreement from the future relationship.

My main point today is that we have an opportunity, in the days ahead—or, if not in the days ahead, in the weeks ahead—quite literally to put clearly on the statute book Parliament’s view about what the future relationship should look like. Indeed, in an hour or so, those at the other end of the building may determine that the withdrawal Act should specify more of that and enable the decision on the withdrawal agreement to be made in the light of what the future relationship should look like. I do not need to go through the whole list of the aspects of that that are important, but, for example, when the noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about the risks to the automotive industry, I sat there thinking, “There won’t be tariffs. We can be pretty sure that we could arrive at a free trade agreement with zero tariffs or quotas on cars between ourselves and the European Union”.

However, what really matters are rules of origin. What really matters is that we get a free trade agreement that allows a cumulation of rules of origin such that there is a supply chain for Nissan in the United Kingdom in which UK content can be treated as EU content, and vice versa. That was part of Theresa May’s deal, but it has disappeared. Because the backstop will no longer apply under any circumstances in Great Britain, we will no longer have that benchmark and the political declaration no longer says that we should build on it for the future. So there is a risk that there would be no obstacle to leaving other than on WTO terms. In the days ahead, we must ensure that, under the withdrawal Act, we are very clear about the many objectives that should form part of the mandate for those future negotiations.

13:27

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

What can your Lordships’ House most usefully do today? Eschewing Gilbert and Sullivan, I suggest as context a sporting analogy that may appeal to the Speaker of the House of Commons. We are like a tournament match of tennis veterans and amateurs taking place at the same time as a Grand Slam final in the other place. The eyes and ears of the world will, quite properly, be on the other place.

First, I suggest that we reiterate our respect for the collective and individual integrity of MPs in extraordinarily testing circumstances. Earlier in the month, I argued that, in contrast to the intemperate attacks of the Prime Minister and other senior government Ministers, Parliament has been doing its job—and doing it well. On Monday this week, Robert Shrimsley of the Financial Times wrote, far more eloquently, in respect of MPs of all parties and persuasions, that,

“this has also been a magnificent parliament, shaped by MPs—backbenchers especially—of political stature and personal courage … many will look back and regard the actions of individual MPs in this parliament as little short of heroic”.

Whatever votes are called this afternoon and/or next week and whatever the results, I believe that Mr Shrimsley’s judgment will still apply. I ask the Minister again to ask the Prime Minister and his colleagues to refrain from any further denigration of Parliament and parliamentarians.

I hope that, whatever pressure is applied, Sir Oliver Letwin will not withdraw his amendment and that it will be passed. It will serve two important purposes, as long as the EU is willing to respond positively to a request for an extension. First, if the withdrawal Bill is introduced and passed at Second Reading, adequate time should be given for its scrutiny and for potential non-wrecking amendments by both Houses. Secondly, it should prevent a no-deal Brexit arising from a breakdown, whether accidental or intentional, in that legislative process. I, like my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, have come to believe that, under either of those scenarios, a confirmatory vote is now the best way of achieving resolution and closure.

What of the new deal itself? I strongly endorse the analysis of my noble friend Lord Reid and many other noble Lords of the economic, security and constitutional deficiencies of the deal. It is, though, a moving target, as the Prime Minister has been throwing bones to MPs across the House in his attempt to secure a majority, so it is difficult to know exactly where we stand. As my right honourable friend Pat McFadden MP asked the Prime Minister earlier today, “He tells Brexiteers that he backs deregulation. He tells Labour MPs that he backs stronger workers’ rights. Which is it?”. Perhaps the Minister can give us a clearer answer than the Prime Minister gave Mr McFadden. Whatever his answer, though, it is inescapable that this is a bad deal.

I turn finally to Northern Ireland. The uncompromising style of the DUP and its past lack of support for the Good Friday agreement do not naturally engender sympathy; its objections should cause widespread concern, with the peace process still fragile. The Prime Minister’s willingness to renege on past commitments, both generally and to the DUP, is of course a warning to all whose trust he is seeking. In today’s Times there is a letter from a former Conservative district councillor. He writes:

“The threat to the Good Friday Agreement is more apparent than real … The implicit threat of bloodshed can safely be ignored”.


There have been persistent hints of these horrifying and complacent views among some Brexiteers since before the 2016 referendum. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to make it absolutely clear that protecting the peace process in Ireland is paramount government policy.

13:33

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is my pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and I admire his work for the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. Having just checked the Brexit timer, I see that it is now 12 days, 10 hours and 27 minutes until we will still remain at risk of a crash-out Brexit. I want to begin by acknowledging the suffering that this is causing millions of people: EU 27 citizens living here in the UK; UK citizens living in other parts of the EU; and small businesspeople who are being scolded by the Government for not preparing for Brexit when they do not have the time, the money or the energy to face these continually shifting scenarios. We should acknowledge the damage being done by the Brexit chaos as well as the individual suffering.

However, that is not an argument for voting for Boris Johnson’s deal. The fact is that the best possible deal we can have is the deal we have now—remaining in the EU. That is particularly true for those EU 27 citizens along with their friends, neighbours and colleagues, because otherwise they will face Theresa May’s legacy, that of a hostile environment in the Home Office. It is something that we really need to face up to once we have cleared this Brexit chaos.

As a new Member, perhaps it is appropriate for me, in my brief time, to reflect on what some Members have already said in this debate and—as you may see me doing often in future—go a little or a lot further. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said young people would suffer from the loss of freedom of movement. I really want to highlight that fact, because I believe young people should not have fewer freedoms and opportunities than their parents and grandparents had. They should be able to go anywhere in our own country and 27 other EU countries to live, love, work and study—to move freely. That is something we must not take away from our young people. We know that they overwhelmingly do not want Brexit to happen.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, my almost neighbour in Sheffield, said that we are just on the starting blocks of Brexit. This is a crucial point that has been utterly undermade, and one I will come back to.

I also pick up on the crucial point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about what has happened in the last 1,200 days and how confidence in our constitution has been shattered. He focused on the negative risks there—the fact that this could open the path to authoritarianism. I want to be the voice of optimism, as I often will be, so in focusing on this I say that it could be the path to making the UK a democracy as it now is not. The people who voted leave had a strong point when they said they wanted to take back control. People whose votes do not count in safe seats up and down the land, and people who live in local authority areas continually overruled again and again by the overpowerful Westminster, are not in control of their own lives. Let us make this a path to democracy, looking at the great work of Make Votes Matter, the Electoral Reform Society and others.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, referred to the power of multinational companies in the modern world. We can look at the power of one of those, the website Amazon. If we are to make Amazon and companies like it pay their taxes and pay their workers fairly, we need to be united as part of the peoples of Europe, together standing up to those multinational companies and creating a different kind of economy.

I conclude where I started with the Brexit chaos and the Brexit fatigue, which I dare suggest affects nearly every Briton. “Can we just stop talking about Brexit?”, is a sentiment that I am sure many in your Lordships’ House share. Well, yes, we can—but not by allowing Boris Johnson’s deal through. The only way to stop talking about Brexit is to stop Brexit, otherwise we face years of trying to negotiate our new relationship with our neighbours and the rest of the world. That is not something I believe the country or your Lordships’ House want to do.

13:38

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I start from the point of view that I support the deal as offered and would vote for it in any straightforward circumstances, but I come today with two questions that I still have and want answers to. I know I will not get those answers here today, but I will use my time just to ask the questions to get them on the record.

The first derives from memories of my Scottish history master, who used to come to class wearing his service revolver and say he was going to shoot the first English boy who did not understand and respect the role of Scotland within the United Kingdom. He never shot any of us, but we were very polite. I have a question arising out of what he taught us then. I am trying to verify it by reading back through the Act of Union, and it looks as though he may still have a point, which would be a problem with what we have here. Is it still correct that the union itself requires there to be complete parity and similarity between all taxation imposed on each of the countries, and that any breach of those circumstances that led one country to be advantaged over another would result in the immediate termination of the whole union, and the union would be null and void? The arrangements that we are now proposing for Northern Ireland seem to leave open the possibility, for example, that the VAT rate could be reduced by 5%, outside our control at any time, and that would have the technical impact of breaking the union. That is a huge point and I want somebody to tell me that I am wrong. Some 40 noble Lords have spoken today and nobody has asked yet, so I probably am wrong, but I would like confirmation that there is no hazard in that point please.

My second question is: what are the known unknowns behind the deal? What do the Government know has been agreed privately—hands have been shaken on it and it is subject to some protocol somewhere—that is not set out in the information here for us to be told about? I provided a list of five names to Mr Gove, and asked him to research them and take them to the Prime Minister, of people who were sent by the Cabinet Office to undertake separate negotiations in Brussels on a range of subjects. I will not be mischievous by naming what those subjects are, although I have a fair idea. I want to know what private deals have been done that affect the future of our country and our sovereignty and which challenge all the things that we hold dear in this country. The Government may say that I am talking total rubbish and that there are none, so I want it certified that there are none and that the day we Brexit we cannot have Mrs von der Leyen on the phone saying, “By the way, we hold you responsible for all those deals that you signed up for, and we will implement them as of tomorrow”.

I want to know that there are none or I want to know what they are. I believe that there are at least five or six out there. I have provided the names of the people who I believe led those negotiations and I want those deals either identified to us or it confirmed that they will never apply. Then I will support this deal and I believe many noble Lords will join me in doing so.

13:42

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak again on this topic. In September, contrary to my party’s viewpoint at the time, I said that I thought, when I revisited Mrs May’s deal, that it was worthy of support and that it offered an opportunity, given the Commission’s offer to take a look at the backstop. In the event, we now have a change and we have a further deal.

It is interesting to see the journey that we have made. The longer that we work at it, the worse the deals get. This deal is worse than the last. My fear is that if we keep at it and keep delaying, the next deal will be worse. The next deal, of course, could be to crash out without a deal. That is still a possibility and all the difficulty that we have talked about encountering —in the diminution of workers’ rights and all the rest of it—would be a damn sight worse if we crashed out. So it is vital that everything is done to ensure that we do not crash out.

If we crashed out, the Government’s estimate of the likely consequences are probably far wide of the mark of what would happen. We have no idea how a divided country would deal with supermarket shelves that were empty and not being filled, or if there were no access to fuel or the medicines that people need. Those are the kind of problems that we would encounter. We do not know what would happen if sterling crashed and the stock market crashed. So, when we come to look at any deal, we have to think not just about its demerits but about what might follow if we fail to reach a deal. Noble Lords can probably hear where I am coming from, even though I do not like the deal.

With any deal that we reach—and I return to unison with my colleagues here—the Prime Minister will have to go the extra mile and find a way of putting it to the people. Brexit came from the people. It is difficult to realise that only four years ago we would never have believed that we would be having these kinds of debates. Before David Cameron was elected, it just was not on the agenda, and here we are now with the great imponderables we have.

I am sorry to be preceding, not following, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has a Private Member’s Bill about balloting and referenda. I have not had a chance to read it, but I believe that we will not get the genie back in the bottle on referenda. The monopoly of power in Westminster is now being challenged in a way that we have never experienced before, and we are not responding well to it. We are failing and failing. We must not for one moment believe that this is the last referendum. People are already asking for another one on the deal. Referenda will come in Scotland and, in due course, in Northern Ireland. It is likely that we will end up with the UK falling apart come what may because we now have the technology that people will insist on using to have their say. They have their power and they will take much of it away from Westminster. They will look at the issues which are closer to them and are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, local and are not addressed in the way that they wish.

We must be alive to the changes taking place around us and try to respond to them better than we have done so far. Otherwise, we are in real trouble. That means we have to spend more time with people. We must have citizens’ juries, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Armstrong, and get back closer to the people. We have to remember that when we had the vote in 2016, many people voted who do not normally do so. They may have voted in a way we did not like, but we have to understand them better and we have to encourage them to continue voting and playing a part. With the technology that is coming, they will find ways to do that, and it is our risk we if we do not respond and try to take into account their views and develop policies accordingly. I am moving away from the deal and taking a broader view of where our democracy is going. We can turn it round, but we need an entirely different approach from that which we have adopted today, and to be prepared to share our power.

13:47

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for trailing my forthcoming Bill on referenda and how they should be organised. I hope it will appeal to noble Lords in all parts of the House when it comes before them.

I have a question for my noble friend who is to wind up. A rumour is circulating—I received a text about an hour ago—that if the Letwin amendment is carried, the Government will pull the main vote. I hope that will not happen because the passing of the amendment does not prevent the deal being done, and it would be deeply unfortunate if there were such an anti-climactic end to today’s proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his inimitable way, referred to the fact that 37 and half years ago he and I took part in that truly dramatic and truly emergency debate on the Falklands when the Commons and, I believe, this place were virtually united and the leader of the Opposition made a passionate speech that enabled the Prime Minister of the day, Margaret Thatcher, to dispatch the great force to the Falklands on the Monday. Had there not been that degree of consensus in the House, that could never have happened. Our debt to Michael Foot is very considerable.

For the past four years, Brexit has dominated our discussions and for the past three—nearly three and a half—it has overwhelmed them. We have to recognise that in this long and sorry saga, precipitated by a referendum we should never have had, we have been complicit. This House gave the referendum Bill a pretty smooth passage, as did the other place. We have rehearsed this many times in your Lordships’ House and we now have to realise that the referendum having happened, and a small majority—not the qualified majority that we called for—having voted in favour, the time really has come to accept a deal.

I would have supported Mrs May’s deal, had this House had a chance to vote on it. Incidentally, I understand that a few minutes ago Mrs May made a powerful supportive speech of her successor, treating him with a degree of kindness that she did not always receive herself. We have to listen to what she says. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said in a very interesting and thoughtful speech, we could well be on the brink of this deal or no deal, and no deal would be the worst possible outcome. It would dramatically endanger the union. I believe in the union of the United Kingdom more than I believe in any other political entity, and to see it dismembered as part of the Cameron legacy would be deeply distressing.

I say to your Lordships: remember that when we vote in this place, we do not, as they do in the other place, vote with a strident “Aye” or “No”; we are more reflective and vote “Content” or “Not content”. I do not particularly like this deal. I would never have started from here. You can never retain the benefits of membership of an organisation by leaving it. However, the fact is that we are on a very dangerous cusp, and I say to your Lordships that we may well better serve the interests of our country—I believe that we would—by taking a deep breath and voting “Content”.

13:52

[The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as always, I declare my European interests as detailed in the register.

I did not speak in the debate earlier this week, as the details of the new withdrawal agreement were not yet known. They are now known. We have today heard some excellent speeches opposing the new deal and I agree with much of what has been said. However, with considerable misgivings, I now commend the Government for having reached an agreement with the European Union which, if agreed by the other place, will enable this country to leave the EU in an orderly fashion. It always seemed to me, and to many others, that to leave with no deal was the worst possible outcome. Indeed, there is a clear majority in this House and the other House to prevent such a disorderly exit.

Today, we are invited by the Minister to take note of the new withdrawal agreement laid before this House. My own view is that, however imperfect it is—and it certainly is imperfect—it should be supported. It is imperfect in many ways but, in particular, it introduces a different status for Northern Ireland, and this will have consequences for the union. Many noble Lords have explained that—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Reid. There must surely be certain MPs who today regret that they did not vote for the earlier version of the deal negotiated by Mrs May last year.

I have always said that I would have voted for the original agreement and that I would vote for a different deal negotiated by the new Government. It would be churlish not to give credit to the Government for having secured an agreement against difficult odds. However, I deeply regret that on this passage the Government decided to try to prorogue Parliament unlawfully a few weeks ago. Both this Government and that of Mrs May, one has to admit, have too often given the impression that they wished to diminish parliamentary involvement in this most difficult matter. Even if the other place supports the new agreement in a meaningful vote this afternoon, I think it will still be necessary to seek an extension to Article 50. The legislation, when presented to Parliament, will be highly complex and will require considerable scrutiny in both Houses. It would be incorrect to rush through such an important Bill just because of a totemic date and a leadership campaign commitment.

The most important aspect of a withdrawal agreement is that it contains an absolutely necessary transition period, widely recognised as desirable by all reasonable people, but we must be aware that uncertainty will continue. It is only after we leave that the real negotiation can begin. If it has been difficult to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, it will be far harder to negotiate a long-term trade agreement with our closest trading partner, the EU, not to mention our hoped-for new trade agreement with the United States. So we are faced with several more years of uncertainty, which is so undermining for so many investment decisions.

To my great regret, the British electorate decided by a relatively small margin to leave the EU, but it would be completely wrong to pretend that the withdrawal agreement will boost the economy, increase investment, accelerate growth or improve the public finances. Still, I have concluded, with great sadness, that the political arguments for supporting the deal are probably the most important today. We are surely in a place where few would have wanted to be, and we must hope that after we have left, and the necessary general election, the new Government seek not just a free trade agreement but the closest possible economic arrangements with the European Union. That is surely in our national interest.

13:57

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to participate in this take-note debate where we are looking at the, I think, magnificent agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union and its matching and finely written political declaration. Much of the last few years, and certainly the recent months and weeks, have focused on our needs and the European Union—that is, what we feel is wrong. Today, I think we should look at the needs of our fellow member states and, from that perspective, at how Britain has been of use and value to the European Union itself. Essentially, it is in the relationship between France and Germany where our input has been most valuable of all. For 43 years, the UK has been the centrepiece of the see-saw that is France and Germany, on which the entirety of the European Union’s peace and security hangs. The question seems to be: how can we continue to do that from outside?

I personally believe profoundly in the value of co-operation, co-ordination and collective action as far as possible. So why should we feel that we might be better out than in? Britain has a unique capability of global partnerships. I do not think it is right for us to continue to work almost always through the narrow prism of the European Union. Indeed, when one is overseas negotiating for the United Kingdom in different ways, it is very clear that those outside the European Union feel that they can hardly find us because we are covered by this enormous cloak, or cloud, of the European Union.

We have to move ahead, and as we do so we have a heavy obligation towards other member states of the European Union. Why move ahead at all? It is an obligation to our own people. We need no stumbling blocks in our pathways when we seek greater prosperity and peace. Perhaps it is worth recalling, then, that the European Union is a highly sophisticated protectorate and we flourish through free trade. Indeed, listening to others, the chief economist of Germany remarked the other day that Britain would be economically far better outside the European Union, because the European Union’s restrictions were becoming tighter and tighter for Britain’s financial and economic future. We will undoubtedly be better out; I am sure that that is true.

Look at money flows, for example. The SWIFT banking system, which I worked on here, emanated from the United States of America, our major global partner. Look at how the European Union—with the best will in the world and with us assisting, but against the USA’s wishes—has been attempting to find another money transfer system to work with Iran; it simply has not proved possible. We are the internationalists and it is absolutely vital that our key strengths are now used more fully.

Of course, we have the magnificent key strength of the English language. We are tremendous innovators—almost better than anyone. The world wide web is just one example. We have the City of London. Our historic position in the Hanseatic League may be the best model for us to develop for the future, because it is absolutely clear that we are leaving the European Union. I believe that the vote will go through today but if it does not, you will see from the statistics from the various surveys that the tidal wave of the British people trying to leave is unstoppable.

The European Union has not yet finished its project and that is another reason why we should do all we can to help. It still has the Baltic states to pull in and a great deal of internal work to do to get some form of co-operation on its enormous corruption. As we settle into our next phase, I hope and believe that we will support the continent of Europe, mainly, but not only, through the European Union.

I had the good fortune—I thank my country for allowing this—to serve in the European Parliament, the parliament of the Council of Europe and the parliament of the Western European Union, as well as in the other place. I can see that ever closer union is crucial to keeping the peace between France and Germany, but not crucial—in fact, antipathetic—to the feelings of the United Kingdom, which is global and international, and always will be.

Therefore, there is a task behind which we can now all pull: to get on with leaving the European Union. There is no more time left. Colleagues, friends, noble Peers and those in the other place, it is time to act.

14:02

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the speeches of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne. They both bring first-hand experience of the European institutions; I only wish more people who had served in Europe could make those points.

My points are very simple; I will make just three. I would like to rebut the arguments that some noble Lords have put forward regarding the economic impact of this agreement. What should alarm the House, and will cause alarm around the country, is the certainty with which noble Lords assert that in X years’ time— perhaps five, perhaps 10—the damage to households will be exactly £2,000, £3,000 or whatever. When they say that, they must know that it is impossible to economically model at that level of certainty and detail events that are, first, yet to happen and, secondly, unpredictable. There are too many variables in open, capitalist, global economies to be able to model with that level of accuracy.

I will give noble Lords an example. Two years ago, no German car maker could have imagined that Germany, the country with the biggest current account and trading surplus in the EU, would be tipping into a recession this quarter, not because of anything that the German Government or the EU have done, but due to Mr Trump and Mr Xi Jinping’s trade war with each other. I beseech noble Lords to stick to what they can support with evidence, rather than speculating on things that simply cannot be based on verifiable or acceptable methodology.

My second point relates to the people’s choice argument. I urge this House to reflect on the implications of saying that people did not know what they were voting for. Cannot the SNP legitimately use that argument for yet another referendum on Scottish independence? It is borne out by credible surveys that people were clear on what they were voting for. Alas, they were voting to leave.

That argument also undermines a more subtle case for democracy. When people go to the ballot box in an election, they do not know how a Government will come about. They do not know how the Government will implement a pledge. In fact, as 2010 showed, they do not even know which Government they will get. Every election is uncertain until 10 pm on the night. People did not know in 2010 that voting Liberal Democrat would result in high tuition fees, but that happened. They did not know that it would result in a fixed-term Parliament and that their constitutional arrangements would be significantly changed, but that happened.

To look to a third referendum to resolve this crisis is to look in the wrong place. If we must test public opinion, then test it through a general election. Labour should be grabbing that opportunity with both hands, if they truly believe that they are the party that will be able to retain labour and environmental standards. But such is their fear of the ballot box that they will not go there.

My final point is to do with what comes if and after this deal is passed. Noble Lords have thrown all manner of things into the debate that have nothing to do with it, such as chlorinated chicken. It is also asserted that we will take years to resolve a new relationship with the EU. On both points, the withdrawal agreement makes provision for the extension of the transition period. That transition period is a standstill period and nothing will change other than that the EU and the UK will negotiate for the future free trade agreement. Should sufficient progress not be made by June 2020, an extension can be agreed for a further two years—effectively until December 2022. That surely would give sufficient time to complete an FTA when we are starting from a completely equivalent state of regulatory alignment.

Those who want greater time for scrutiny are right. We should examine every line of every measure that comes before us as we go forward, but go forward we must.

14:07

[Lord Blackwell (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my business interests in the register, but of course, as always, I speak in a personal capacity. I will not revisit arguments that many have rehearsed about whether Brexit was the right decision. That decision has been taken. The issue now is how we move forward. I simply remind noble Peers that, for many, that decision was not simply a crude calculation of short-term economic interests. It was about the wider question of whether the UK was comfortable within the institutional and legal framework of an increasingly integrated and eurozone-dominated European Union as defined by the Lisbon treaty.

Having reached this stage, I believe the most important thing now for both the business community and the country at large is to end as quickly as possible the uncertainty which, as my noble friend Lady Harding said, is doing so much damage to the economy and the business community. Instead, we need to restore confidence in our potential as a country to build a prosperous future as an outward-looking, global trading nation.

Some have argued that, from one perspective or another, this is not the perfect deal. But, with differing objectives, it is inevitable that any agreement has to involve compromise by all sides. I remind the House that this is simply the withdrawal agreement, creating the temporary arrangements under which the much more important terms of our long-term relationship can be agreed. It is time for Parliament and the country to move on to focusing on building that future. I believe we should do so with confidence and optimism about the long-term prospects for the United Kingdom.

The fact is, as my noble friend Lady Nicholson set out, we have tremendous advantages as a nation in taking advantage of the emerging economic and technological forces shaping the world. These are not only the long-standing advantages we have as a global centre from our language, culture, legal system and, yes, political stability. These remain potent attractions for global business and global investment, but we also benefit from the skills and innovation that we have built in the growing high technology sectors—software, fintech, biotech—supported by world-leading universities and a flexible, resilient workforce that has proven its ability to adapt to change. The same is true of many of the other high-value service sectors, which are increasingly the dominant driver of the economy. This creativity and global reach is evident in the success of our arts and media, in the professional services, and in the financial services and the City of London.

Without diminishing the importance of manufacturing and trade in goods to any economy, it is our competitive advantage in these growing high-value service sectors which should give us grounds to be optimistic about our future. However, to allow all parts of the economy to move forward, invest and flourish, we need to end the debilitating impact of uncertainty as quickly as possible, and foster that spirit of confidence and optimism. Therefore, we should now be turning our attention beyond the withdrawal agreement to the more important arrangements for our future relationship with Europe, which will be negotiated over the coming year. I am encouraged that the political declaration sets out the objective of achieving a relationship for an independent UK which fosters continuing trade and co-operation with the European Union. For manufacturers, it sets the objective of a free trade agreement with no tariffs or quantitative restrictions. However, for the reasons that I stated earlier, it is important that we now also pay attention to the arrangements for continued trade and access in services. One critical aspect of that in the political declaration is co-operation on data protection to allow the free flow of data between UK and EU entities, and, for the important financial services sector, the commitment to continue open access through an equivalence framework that nevertheless respects the autonomy of the UK and EU regulators.

It is time we moved forward. I look forward to a prosperous United Kingdom that continues to be a beacon of values in the world as an outward-looking global nation, a nation that we, our children and our grandchildren can be proud of. Let us put our divisions behind us and move on, to create that future together.

14:11

[Lord Puttnam (Lab)]

My Lords, for the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to just two of the recurring fantasies that we are currently forced to listen to. The first is that the country will somehow find itself united under a Government led by Boris Johnson. As even his friends concede, Mr Johnson is an almost uniquely divisive and untrusted figure. While I would argue that remainers tend to be less viscerally unforgiving than their opponents, the idea that the division that has riven this country for over three years is going to be magically healed is surely the one nonsense we can all agree upon—and certainly will when the full impact of unrestrained market forces begins to devastate the lives of those least able to withstand it. Should the Prime Minister succeed this evening, the only winners will be not the people of this country, but Mr Putin, Mr Trump, Mr Bolsonaro and others whose route to success is based on the flagrant exploitation of ignorance and fear. I was taught by my parents that we can be most easily judged by the friends we make.

The second deliberate falsehood that has been peddled is that a confirmatory referendum will inevitably lead to a likely third, fourth or even fifth one. Clearly, this is put about by people who struggle with the English language. Check out the word “confirmatory” in the dictionary, and you will find that it means,

“serving to make an arrangement or agreement definite or valid”.

It is bolstered by words such as “verifying”, “substantiating”, “validating” and “closure”.

I live in the Republic of Ireland, a country that has recovered from a painful birth. Noble Lords will remember that the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty in 2009 but, having secured an enhanced role for small states, then voted to agree the ratification by an overwhelming majority of 67%. Were they right the first time or the second time? The most recent poll, in May 2018, indicated that over 90% of Irish citizens now wish to remain in the EU, and when it comes to people too young to have voted in those earlier referenda, the figure is closer to 99%. That is what I would describe as closure. I have never heard it suggested that having a second and better-informed view can be a bad thing. In fact, it could reasonably be said to be the primary function of your Lordships’ House.

Find me one adult in this country who on 23 June 2016 knew what they were voting for, knew they were voting for the deal being laid before Parliament today. It is quite possible that it will be embraced as the very least worst option. If so, why are those proposing it so afraid of referring it to the people? Are they concerned that misdirected lightning will fail to strike twice? You are damned right they are.

I would simply make one additional point. Should the Prime Minister impose his deal on the country, the momentum could easily encourage him towards a further victory at a general election. In my view, a Boris Johnson Government would be a disaster not just for this country but for every single Member of this House. In that respect, I am perfectly happy to be judged by history. That being the case, I ask any waverers in my own party who later today might be thinking of voting with the Government, and against a confirmatory referendum, to recall a speech made by my noble friend Lord Kinnock in Bridgend on 7 June 1983. It was a speech which led me and many other disillusioned Labour supporters to rejoin the party. To paraphrase my noble friend, if Boris Johnson wins this evening then, under his Government, I warn you not to be vulnerable. I warn you not to be young, not to fall ill and not to grow old. Most of all, I warn you not in any way to need the help of the state, as it is very likely not to be forthcoming.

14:16

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, now there is no excuse for not approving the Prime Minister’s agreement. The new agreement is a big improvement on the previous one. For the first time, we have a deal that truly reflects the people’s vote of June 2016 to leave the European Union. It returns control of UK affairs to where it belongs: the British people. It also places Northern Ireland’s future where it belongs: in the hands of the people’s representatives in Northern Ireland. This is consent in action, a principle which has always been a cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement. Of course, the deal is not perfect for everybody. Each side has had to compromise, and red lines have disappeared—but that is negotiation, the price of an agreement.

The Opposition claim that the deal would result in the dilution of rights and standards in the United Kingdom. I have no idea which document they have read, but paragraph 77 of the revised political declaration says clearly that,

“the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom”,

and,

“maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards”.

That should be good.

Meanwhile, beyond the Westminster bubble, voters boil with frustration at Parliament’s inability to get this thing done. This, as I have said before, is how revolutions start. Yet, inside the Westminster bubble, the Brexit Party’s success in the European elections is forgotten, as if it never happened. Talk about ostriches with their heads in the sand.

Certain Members of both Houses are once again trying to delay and derail Brexit when their duty lies in the opposite direction. They, including those demonstrating in central London today, lay claim to a phoney democratic legitimacy by demanding a second referendum. But, as long as the result of the first referendum remains unfulfilled, the case for a second does not have a moral leg to stand on. Add to that the cost, the aggravation of still further political division and the bitter argument over which question or questions should be asked, dividing friends against friends, family members against family members. Who in their right mind wants to go through that again? Under the camouflage of promoting a confirmatory vote lies the real agenda: to revoke Article 50 and reverse the referendum result. This is what it is all about. At least the Lib Dems have had the decency to come clean.

The fear of no deal at the end of 2020 is new and spurious. How can it be crashing out if the withdrawal agreement is already ratified? This is surely another delaying tactic. The surest way to avoid no deal is to agree to this deal. As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said, we should beware. Jean-Claude Juncker, President Macron and Prime Minister Varadkar have each already fired a shot across the bows of those who favour a further extension of Article 50. Remember that it takes only one member state out of 27 for an extension to be refused and to send us crashing out with no deal. This is the default position, whatever our Supreme Court may have ruled. Remember too that, while we are still members of the EU, EU law supersedes UK law.

We now at last have an agreement that justifies the name Brexit. It is our duty to honour it without any further delay. I pay my own tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I completely agree that the only way forward is to come together and go for this deal.

14:21

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend, who has just given the House a few home truths. I am firmly in the camp of getting on with it; I am a practical man. I can speak in any depth about only Northampton, but the vast majority of people who approach me there tell me, “Get on with it”. Industry and commerce in Northampton say, “Get on with it”. In particular, the exporters—we have some very good ones there—say, “Get on with it”. So I congratulate the Prime Minister. He has shown vision, statecraft and leadership. Above all, he has shown sheer willpower, because none of this can have been very easy. I say to my former friends in the other place: this is not a time to scupper this deal. This is a time to bite on the bullet and look to the future.

This is a better deal than Mrs May procured. The key is that it allows the UK, as of right, to enter into new trade deals and to negotiate them on our own terms. Once the transition is over, we can set out our own rules, taxes and regulations. We can have free trade agreements, regardless of what the EU wishes. I hope we will have a good trade deal with the EU as well, but I worked overseas for a number of years and there are huge opportunities out there. In a minute, I shall give one example. I do not want to parade this too much, but in 1967 I wrote a pamphlet with my noble friend Lord Vinson and another gentleman. At that time, we were all in exporting. I have one copy left and I shall present it to the Prime Minister when I next see him. It is called Helping the Exporter and had eight key recommendations. I shall not run through them all; there is certainly not time to do so. The headline recommendations were: a close look at the support that the diplomatic corps gives to exporters; a nominated board of trade; business education in exporting; a revamped Queen’s award; and—in my judgment—why not a new royal yacht and fiscal incentives?

The second example is perhaps much more current. I declare an interest as president of the All-Party Group on Sri Lanka. Five weeks ago, I was asked to address the equivalent of the CBI in Sri Lanka—the Organisation of Professional Associations of Sri Lanka—which covers 51 professions and has over 50,000 members. I talked about the future for our country and trade between the two countries. As far as I could see, there were over 250 people there and not a single person against the idea. I got hundreds of business cards and, as a result, a trade and investment conference was held last week, here in the City of London. I thank the government Minister who attended; that was good.

On top of that, the World Bank has just announced that it sees Sri Lanka as a potential emerging trading partner. It is a maritime hub on one of the world’s busiest trade routes, with three world-class ports: Colombo, Hambantota and Trincomalee. Port City Colombo gives the opportunity for investment, and we can be the trigger, as we were with the Victoria Dam in the early 1970s. Above all, when you look at where Sri Lanka is positioned on those trade routes, it is unique in how it can service the entire market of Asia. It already has free trade agreements with India, Pakistan and Singapore. There are no fewer than 3.5 billion people in that part of the world, and here is the hub. Which is the country that has the closest relationship with it? It is this country. There is a massive opportunity here, and I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: for heaven’s sake, let us take it up.

I use that as one case history, but other colleagues here have similar relationships elsewhere in the world. Let us take them up and build for the future.

14:27

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, even if the worst were to happen and the Commons were to reject this new deal, the relationship between this country and the 27 of the EU can never be the same again. There is no going back, and the demonstrators calling for a second referendum have to realise that Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again. There has been too much betrayal of trust on both sides. But now there is a potential new start, on a new footing. I believe it is a healthier one; finally, the EU representatives have realised that we are serious and that there is a life that we can manage outside the EU. Our own democratic processes can return to normal and, no matter how rocky the road ahead, with possibly years of negotiations to come to finalise our new relationship, the boil will have been lanced.

Despite the years of discussion, it is odd that the EU has never asked itself why people in this country voted to leave. Remainers see everything through a prism of economics, no matter how dodgy the forecasts. But given the figures that we have heard, the reduction that we would all suffer if the green agenda were to go ahead swiftly—which would be a good thing—is greater. The losses that we would all suffer were Mr Corbyn to come to power would be infinitely greater than any sums mentioned this afternoon.

Even this past week, the failings in the nature of the Union that have caused people like me to reject association with it have come to the forefront again. Brutal repression of the Catalonian independence fighters in Spain has met with no objection from the EU because it does not want to antagonise Spain. There is blackmail by Turkey, which knows that it can let loose its penned-up migrants and cause chaos on the continent, and the return by elections in Poland of an illiberal Government, who have pledged to defy Europe over migrants, free media, judicial independence and sexual choice. As a member of the EU, we failed to prevent this sort of result, which is inevitable in its empire-building. We have failed to prevent the rise of extremism and the march of violence across Europe, and I hope that in future our voice in the UN and NATO will be raised against those developments without any inhibitions.

I welcome this deal, although I am only too well aware that it contains provisions which cause me great concern, such as any continued jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, a court that is not impartially structured, as we understand courts in this country. I hope that a UK judge will be included in it if it ever has cause to adjudicate on matters concerning this country. The deal before us is the most viable of any, given the self-inflicted wound of the Benn Act, which, had it not existed, would have given the Prime Minister a stronger hand. The Benn Act is a stain on the reputation of draftsmanship, with its glaring errors, which the Opposition were almost proud to overlook in their haste to tie the hands of our negotiators.

The opposition of the DUP is hard to understand and self-destructive. It is Northern Ireland that has erected the hardest of borders between itself and the UK through its backward stance on civil liberties such as abortion and same-sex marriage, through its continuing violence and by trying to thwart this deal. It has always had a special, differentiated place in the constitution—that is nothing new—and, given that the majority of Northern Ireland voted to remain, it ought to be pleased about its new special closeness to Europe. We have to ignore the DUP, prominent only because the previous Prime Minister needed its votes after the last election. It cannot be right that 1.8 million people hold the rest of Europe to ransom. It is undemocratic that the DUP should insist on having a veto over any changes in the arrangements, where the withdrawal agreement stipulates only a simple majority of the Assembly to the continuation of the protocol.

What a warning this is to the proponents of Scottish independence. Have they considered what sort of border they would have in that case with England? Have they ever wondered whether the EU 27 would welcome another secessionist state, given the lack of support for Catalonia?

Another referendum would be even more divisive, ill informed, probably rigged and less decisive; once you have more than one referendum, none has any abiding validity. If leave won again, as I believe it would, we would be in the same position, and if remain won that result would be treated by leavers in the same way as the remainers treated the result of the 2016 referendum. We have the opportunity to move forward in good order and repair relationships with the 27. We must take it today.

14:32

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I draw your attention to my entries in the register and begin by perhaps upsetting a few people. In his speech, which the Leader of the House read out, the Prime Minister said he did not think he had heard a single Member stand up and call for:

“Britain to play her full part in the political construction of a federal Europe”.


Well, in 1980 I joined the Spinelli group in the European Parliament, which was dedicated to drawing up plans for a federal Europe. At that time I was in the Labour Party, which believed in leaving the European Union in its election manifesto of 1983. The Conservative representative there was a Mr Stanley Johnson. Incidentally, the second Conservative representative was Bill Newton Dunn, who remains a Liberal Democrat MEP. We were the three Brits who sat there and, in the end, we got new treaties. We managed to break the logjam. They said, “You can never have a change; it was all set down in 1956”. We broke that logjam, and I am very pleased that we did.

However, the Prime Minister is right to some extent when he says:

“It is true that we have often been a back-marker”,


endlessly,

“trying to block some collective ambition”.

This extends to both major parties that have been in government in that time—I remember the number of arguments I had with Labour Ministers about moving Europe forward. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party have both used office to try to block developments in Europe, and now we are paying for it, because the result of the referendum was the British people saying, “If you don’t like them, why should we?” That is why, if we had another referendum—which I support as the only way to change the decision—I am by no means sanguine that we would get a different result. I think we might get the same result with a somewhat wider margin, but as it is the only way to challenge the decision, that I believe we should do.

Just after the referendum, I was in Germany and met a friend who was a member of the German Cabinet. I wrote down what he said, because it has turned out to be absolutely true—I thought it would be at the time. He said, “You are going to pay and we are going to stick together”. That is exactly what has happened. The bill is for the commitments we made, and the EU has stuck together remarkably strongly.

We now face three problems. First, we will be weaker economically. On the so-called trade agreement, seven of our top 10 export markets are members of the European Union. The eighth is Switzerland, which is to all extents and purposes a member of the European Union. The next is the United States of America—we know how difficult it is to get trade agreements with it—and the 10th is China, where we probably need the European Union’s strength to negotiate a decent trade agreement anyway. That is why we will be weaker economically because we will not have the EU behind us.

We will be weaker in terms of stability. People have mentioned the upcoming referendum in Scotland. Let me draw your attention to an interesting phrase from the Spanish Government when talking about Catalonian succession. They said: “We can only recognise secessionist Governments if the secession has been done in a proper legal manner”. In other words, if Scotland leaves the UK in a proper legal manner, it will be able to join the EU. If I were a Scot, I would think that was a very big incentive.

Finally, I turn to the strategic challenge. I was in the European Parliament at the time of the Falklands War. We had to push very hard with the Spanish and the Portuguese, who at the time were negotiating for membership, to keep them onside. They were very likely to have taken the Latin American point of view. We kept them onside—I see my good and noble friend the Duke of Wellington nodding, because he played a part in that at the time. We have kept them on side on Gibraltar, where there has been lots of provocation over the years. But we will not have the diplomatic clout of the EU when we run into trouble. Let us bear in mind that our military forces today are much weaker than they were then.

It will be a very bad day for Britain when we leave the EU, I make no secret of that. It is probably the biggest disaster of my political lifetime.

14:37

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests and immediately pick up one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Balfe. He referred to the image in the opening statement of Britain as a kind of back-marker, always trying to stop things happening in Europe. That is indeed how we have approached a range of issues in Europe, neatly summarised as Britain’s diplomacy being to drive in the fast lane, but very slowly, with everyone else flashing their lights behind us.

We indeed approached a range of European negotiations in that spirit, but that is not the only way in which we acted in Europe. Often, Britain took a lead in projects that were in our interest and consistent with our economic objectives. For example, European trade deals were heavily influenced by British requirements and a British agenda, and we pushed them forward. It will be very hard for us, as a much smaller economic entity, to secure as much as we did when we were shaping the agenda of such a large bloc.

Similarly, the single market was a great British project led by Margaret Thatcher. There are noble Lords in the Chamber now who played a crucial role in those great Thatcherite economic reforms. As the economists work out the value of privatisation and trade union reform, our membership of the single market and the competitive pressures it created is up there as one of the drivers of our economic success. It was a great Thatcherite project.

There was another project: that of John Major, successfully completed by Tony Blair, to deliver peace in Ireland. In the passionate speech of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, we heard from the Lib Dem Benches the authentic voice of unionism, expressed with power and emotion.

The reason why this is not a happy day for many of us is that we see two great successes—the promotion of the single market and the securing of peace in Ireland—as under threat. Of course, as a remainer, I realise that that exposes us to the charge of bad faith—that is, were we ever going to respect the result of the referendum? In a way, that was the challenge put by my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton when she asked how we could have made it so hard. Briefly, I want to explain how I think things have gone so wrong. One reason is that the red lines drawn in the Lancaster House speech were very different from the Brexit proposition in the referendum. That suddenly narrowed our options and meant that the single market and the customs union, which many people had assured us we would be able to continue as members of, post Brexit, were suddenly no longer acceptable. As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out, there was also this diplomatic disaster: instead of negotiating our future economic relationship alongside the departure terms, we conceded, stupidly, that these should be sequential and that we should leave and subsequently negotiate. It is those types of mistake that have hardened attitudes on both sides.

It was not predetermined, therefore, that we would have the difficult three years that we have had, nor that many of us would conclude—as I have reluctantly done—that, once a final proposition is before us, we need to put it back to the people for a confirmatory vote to be sure that that is absolutely what the people thought they were voting for when the original referendum was held.

I hope that the Prime Minister’s deal makes its way through both Houses. I thought that the tone of his speech this morning and the way in which my noble friend the Leader of this House presented it—that is, talking about the interests of the different parts of the country, with the 52% and the 48%—was the right tone to adopt. If that had been the philosophy for the past three years, taking account of both the votes in Northern Ireland, Scotland and London and the clear preferences of the business community, we would not be in the position that we are in today. The tone was very welcome, and the only logical conclusion from the approach set out is that there should be a confirmatory referendum.

14:42

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister and his negotiating team on concluding a revised deal that many said he never wanted and many said he could never achieve.

The deal presents the House of Commons with a difficult decision. In its favour is the powerful point that to approve it would complete at least the first stage of Brexit, satisfy the public that Parliament is capable of deciding the central issue and present business with a degree of confidence as to what the future will look like. Against it is a range of arguments too familiar to bear repetition but with some new additions specific to this text: the aspiration for a merely standard free trade agreement with the EU, underlined by the downgrading of the level playing field from “binding treaty commitment” to “political declaration”, will cause other, less benign impediments to arise; the forms, permits, authorisations, licences, approvals, certificates and local representatives that will be required by exporters, transport operators and manufacturers; the revival of discriminatory and non-discriminatory host state barriers to cross-border service providers such as myself; and local requirements for migrants abroad, ranging from healthcare eligibility to driving tests and the transport of pets.

It would, in short, take us back to the days before my former boss, Commissioner Lord Cockfield, set fire to a thicket of precisely such red tape when he planned the completion of the internal market; a fine example of British influence in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has just said.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, in his elegant speech, said that Northern Ireland will have a unique opportunity to participate in the single markets of both the UK and the EU. At the moment, we all have that opportunity, and there will be a cost in losing it.

Other imponderables arise from the new text. In relation to Northern Ireland, there is the practicability, or otherwise, of the new and highly complex customs arrangements that are envisaged, perhaps permanently. More profoundly still are the possible consequences, to which several noble Lords have averted, for particular industrial sectors, not all of which, so far as I can see, have yet produced their own assessments of this deal. There are consequences for the economy as a whole, and most significantly of all, for the place of both Northern Ireland and Scotland in our union.

Nor do I find it as easy as some have done to say that the obvious answer is a people’s vote. That may yet turn out to be the only possible answer, but some will continue to see it as illegitimate. The political road that would have to be followed to achieve it will not be to everyone’s taste, and the public, as a number of noble Lords have said, are not in the mood for further delay. But it is precisely when others are impatient that it is most important for us to do our job methodically and well.

We in this House pride ourselves on our careful scrutiny of even quite small things. We expect the proposals that come before us to be costed and accompanied by impact assessments. Even inconsequential Bills are subject to careful assessment in Committee. Treaties are normally laid before Parliament for 21 days under the CRAG Act. We even have 14 days to decide whether we want to keep a dishwasher. Yet no impact assessments or technical explanations have been provided of this agreement, notwithstanding its extraordinary significance for our economy, our rights and even the continued existence of our union. The House of Commons has been given one day to review the withdrawal agreement, and nor has there been any proper time for our committees to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill, which will surely be a substantial document with profound constitutional consequences.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, we are here on a Saturday not because of a real emergency but because of a manufactured one. Let the letter be sent as a sensible precaution, one that is also required by law, and the necessary consideration be given—speedily, but without cutting corners—to the agreement and the Bill.

I have a final point. If the withdrawal agreement is approved on this or some future date, let us all, whatever our views, resolve to accept it and make the best of it.

14:47

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this agreement and hope that it will be accepted by Parliament, even though it contains elements that I find very difficult to swallow. I want to address one specific criticism which has been made repeatedly of it: that it leads to a free trade agreement that is inferior to an agreement based on a customs union. All I would ask those who make that criticism is to explain why Switzerland and Norway, both of which have free trade agreements with the EU, are not pushing to convert them into customs unions, and why Canada and Mexico, which have free trade agreements with America, are not pushing to have them converted into customs unions. If the superiority of customs unions was as manifest as countless noble Lords have suggested today, surely there would be movements in those countries towards them.

I want to revert to a point made in what has been in many ways the most powerful speech in this debate so far, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at the beginning. He said that what is at stake is trust, and he is right. Can the people trust their parliamentarians and do parliamentarians trust the people? If we do not agree this deal today and postpone once again the decision with the clear intention of frustrating Brexit by a second referendum or by revocation, I fear that the answer to both of those questions must be no. If we forfeit the trust of the people because we do not, in Churchill’s words, “trust the people”, we will wreak terrible damage to the fabric of our body politic.

During the referendum, the leaders of both sides promised that they would implement the decision that Parliament had decided the British people should take. At the start, David Cameron said:

“When the British people speak, their voice will be respected, not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another … referendum”.


That is sort of a promise; enough mention was made of it throughout the campaign. Right at the end, on the night of the referendum itself, Paddy Ashdown said:

“I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it be by 1% or 20%”.


I wonder if he is turning in his grave when he sees the position adopted by his party now.

At the subsequent general election, both major parties promised to implement that decision, and 85% of MPs were elected on such a manifesto pledge. The three parties that did not make such an unequivocal pledge saw their share of the vote decline. I do not recall any of those who now say that the referendum was only advisory, can be revoked or should be subject to a second vote telling the electorate that during the referendum or the subsequent election.

It has been made clear that many simply do not trust the British people because they had the temerity to ignore the advice the elites, the great and the good gave them, and they reached the wrong decision in the referendum. As Bertolt Brecht put it,

“the people had forfeited the confidence of the government and could win it back only by redoubled efforts”.

Those who call for a second referendum want them to redouble their efforts to understand the case they rejected before.

Arch-remainers criticise this agreement because it leaves the British people responsible through their elected representatives for deciding what, for example, our employment and environmental legislation should be. Apparently, they have greater faith in the European Parliament, institutions and peoples, which they believe either cannot or will not change what they think is the right form of legislation on these issues.

I simply cannot imagine that the British people would support anyone or any party proposing to make their jobs less secure or to desecrate our green and pleasant land. In areas in which Britain has been free to diverge from EU legislation, we have used that freedom to create a higher level of job security, less unemployment and more people in work than most continental countries. In practice, any divergence from the European Union will be not to reduce protections but to streamline regulation, make it less burdensome and avoid it becoming a barrier to entry or to innovation. We are more likely to legislate to achieve desirable outcomes and less likely to prescribe specific processes that, although intended to benefit workers and the environment, do not have those outcomes. That is the feature of much of European law. I am glad we will have the freedom to set our own regulations and tariffs if this agreement goes through.

14:52

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to hear so many thoughtful speeches today, and I have—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, counselled—listened as well as heard. As a former professional dancer, I feel obliged to try to help the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with his dance analogy, but I fear it may not be possible, without three legs, to do one step forward and two sideways without some element of double-crossing.

In our first take-note debate I gave my version of a speech, echoed by other noble Lords, noting that the UK’s future success, the viability of key business sectors and the livelihoods of the people they employ depended not on the bulky withdrawal agreement but on the series of “best endeavours”, “should” and “aim to” that punctuated the slimmer, non-binding political declaration. Some 10 months later, this pair of documents could well offer an apt political metaphor: the one in the background, despite having no legal status, is the one we need to pay attention to.

In comparing November’s political declaration with today’s, it would be easy to miss the differences. As the Institute for Government’s helpful explainer confirms, much remains the same. Both display the same lack of ambition on services, despite their contribution to the UK economy. Both promise to end freedom of movement, despite its importance to sectors such as health, social care, creative and cultural, and the obvious truth that closing the doors to our one country means shutting down for future generations the freedom to live and work in 27.

Mr Johnson’s deal is, for the most part, Mrs May’s deal. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, from a position of expertise, confirmed that the substantive text is unchanged. It did not take long for social media to post its memes with the rueful observation, “We are all Theresa May now: an idea suggested by a woman is ignored, until it is proposed by a man”. I am aware that this comment may be fully appreciated only by noble Baronesses in your Lordships’ House.

But the differences are there. The aspiration is now for a free trade agreement, not frictionless trade. Gone is the ambition for a shared customs territory and close regulatory alignment to form “a bridge” to the long-term relationship. The intention for dialogue at “parliamentary level” on the direction of the future relationship is replaced with the weasel-wordy “at appropriate level”. Level playing field provisions are downgraded from the legal status of the withdrawal agreement to the non-binding political declaration.

With so much distrust built up over Brexit, it is hardly surprising that there is reluctance to trust areas like labour rights and consumer and environmental standards to a political declaration with no teeth; or to believe the Chancellor when he says that there is,

“no need for a new impact assessment”,

on this deal, because, in his words, November’s is “still out there” and,

“anyone can look it up”.

So, it is fortunate that the research unit, UK in a Changing Europe, has done the work to compare the potential economic impact of this deal with that of Theresa May’s. Under May’s deal, based on the reduction in trade alone, it predicts that income per capita would be 1.75% lower than under the status quo. The equivalent figure for the Johnson deal is 2.5%. Add in the knock-on effect of reduced trade on productivity and the per capita GDP figure reduces further, down 4.9% for May’s deal and 6.4% for Johnson’s. Take into account the negative impact of restricted migration on the economy, and the reduction could be up to 7% over 10 years.

I am aware that those are only predictions, but they are based on standard economic modelling and the best available information, and major industry sectors and trade bodies also believe that this deal is worse for the economy than the last one. So, I ask the Minister, is this a new deal, or is it not? If it is, where is the impact assessment and the time for proper scrutiny?

Today, the decision rightly rests with the other place, and its Members must use their best judgment to decide whether this deal serves the interests of the whole of the UK. I hope that they will not be influenced by the latest of what I have to admit are brilliantly judged slogans from Mr Johnson’s team. This generation cannot sell out the next just because we have had enough. “Get Brexit Done” plays on the understandable fatigue of the public, but it rides on a false promise that it will all be over on 31 October. No: this is where the real work begins, to say nothing of the work involved in reuniting a nation split down the middle.

“Get Brexit Done” may be a neat slogan but, as with its predecessor, “Take Back Control”, the reality is not so simple. As Mario Cuomo memorably said:

“You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose”.

14:57

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, like all politicians, I am used to my words becoming out of date extremely quickly, but I do not think that I have ever been in a situation quite as awkward as this. I gather that, if I can announce it to the House, the Letwin amendment has been carried, so I am not sure where we stand. I am sure that the Minister or the Leader of the House, when the throngs return from the theatre where it is really happening to this B-list theatre, will be able to understand the way forward. I will cut my remarks short because they are obviously less relevant.

The last time we spoke about Europe, noble Lords opposite, with some support from the Cross Benches, were absolutely convinced that the Prime Minister did not want a deal—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was of that opinion. They said, “This is all a pretence: they do not want a deal. What they are trying to do is provoke the EU in order to reject the deal”. Well, that at least is one conspiracy theory that has been proved totally wrong. The Prime Minister got a deal, proved everybody wrong and delivered what people regarded as undeliverable.

I personally would have voted for Theresa May’s deal, but in many ways this one is an improvement. The UK will be completely free in terms of an independent trade policy. The direction of travel towards a free trade agreement is much more explicit than in the previous deal.

I recognise that it is not a perfect deal, and I sympathise with and understand some of the disquiet that the DUP feels. However, my noble friend Lord Howell made a very important point early in the debate when he said that the protocol referring to Northern Ireland will not come into effect until the end of 2020—and, indeed, as the Prime Minister indicated, it is possible that it might never come into existence because it might be folded into the free trade agreement. There is also the point that Northern Ireland could stand to gain very much from being in the customs union of both the EU and the UK.

Given that the Letwin amendment has been carried, I am sure that we will have much more extensive debates. One of the themes that has been very persistent from the Opposition, and I am sure will be made more of today, is their worry about deregulation, which my noble friend Lord Lilley touched on. I confess that I am little puzzled that the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, are quite so anxious about this and talk all the time about Singapore-on-Thames. The Government have repeatedly said that they want to maintain the highest standards of employment rights and environmental regulation. Any Government wanting to get elected feels the weight of public opinion. I am not a supporter of Singapore-on-Thames as a concept, but it beggars belief that anyone should believe that the whole corpus of millions of words in the acquis communautaire in Europe is incapable of alteration or improvement or that it is somehow not outdated or unnecessary. Having the freedom to choose whether to diverge or not to diverge is a logical consequence of Brexit. There is no logic to leaving the EU and being bound by laws that one does not have the freedom to alter.

One thing seems certain from the carrying of the Letwin amendment, which is that we will get more pressure on the issue of the second referendum, which has already been extensively canvassed in the debate today. Regardless of whether one favours leave or remain, I believe that a second referendum would be a profound mistake. We have been told again and again that we should not use the word “betrayal”, so I shall not, but it is difficult to know precisely what word one should use otherwise to describe the 17.4 million people who constituted the majority in a democratic vote in which they were told repeatedly that the decision would be made by them, not by Parliament and not by the Government. We all know that the second referendum device has been the tried-and-tested practice used by the EU to reverse the result of any referendum that went against integrationist treaties. We saw that in Ireland, Holland and Denmark. Mr Barroso famously remarked in 2005 that the people,

“must go on voting until they get it right”.

I am afraid that the word “confirmatory” does not alter the reality. It would be a terrible—the word I must not use—of the 17.4 million people.

One of the oddities of this debate has been how the remain side has concentrated entirely on economics. It has never mentioned the political direction in which Europe has been going. It was never mentioned in the referendum and has not been mentioned today. I wonder whether that side really believes that remainers knew what they might be voting for in the referendum. We have entered a new period of uncertainty with the Letwin amendment being carried. No doubt all sorts of amendments will be attempted. I hope that we will persist with this deal. I hope that we will see it through to the end. We need to end this uncertainty. It is time to settle what we thought we had settled three and a half years ago.

15:03

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has just said that remainers do not admit that the EU is not just an economic project. The European Union has always been a political project. The memorandum presented to Harold Macmillan in 1961 made it very clear that it was in our political interests to join the European Economic Community and that the Washington Administration were strongly of the opinion that Britain should do so. In Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s speech moving the Second Reading of the European Union accession Bill, he also spelled out that there was a political dimension to it. It was never the case that we were never told that it was more than just a common market. This is a peace project. It is how we deal with our neighbours, and it is important that we do deal with our neighbours.

This has been a long debate. I have listened carefully but have found it extremely difficult to hear any positive arguments for the deal. The arguments are mainly of exhaustion—“let’s get Brexit done”—or that there is too much uncertainty and at least this will end it, or that at least it is better than no deal. Another argument is, “It’s not too damaging economically. Well, it’s a bit damaging but not as damaging as some of the economic forecasts have suggested”. So what are the Government promising us that we will gain in return for these economic costs, whether they are modest or severe?

Here, I fear that we enter a looking-glass world in which facts and evidence are turned on their head. I heard Jacob Rees-Mogg on the radio yesterday saying that leaving the EU with this deal will strengthen the UK. No one in this debate has agreed with that idiotic remark. Many of us are deeply concerned that this is the beginning of the break-up of the United Kingdom. It takes us towards the potential reunification of Ireland, and certainly it takes us further towards the independence of Scotland. As the son of a Scot and as someone who has a son currently living in Edinburgh, this is a matter of personal, as well as national, concern.

We are told that we will regain sovereignty over regulations and standards but it has not been explained why that is so important. We are also assured that we want not to lower any of the standards but to raise them. However, perhaps we want to raise them idiosyncratically so that we have different good ones compared with those of the European Union and America. Why that is so important, the Government have totally failed to explain.

The Prime Minister says in his Statement that,

“the greatest single restoration of national sovereignty in our parliamentary history”,

is part of the aim. I much prefer what was said by Geoffrey Howe—a man I much admired on the Conservative Benches—when he talked about the need for Britain to learn how to share sovereignty and how we would hold on to greater influence over our own affairs if we learned to share with our natural friends and partners. After all, we do not control our future prosperity. That lies in the hands of companies such as Hitachi, Nissan, Tata, Mercedes-Benz and Airbus, with their headquarters outside this country. When, and if, we leave the European Union, we will discover whether they are willing to stay committed to this country. If they move out and if foreign investment dries up, we will be in deep trouble and the economic assessments will prove to have been too modest in their gloom.

Then we are told that we can negotiate our own free trade agreements to our greater advantage. With whom? With India, China, Russia and the United States? Would the United States be more generous to the UK than it has been with the EU? That looks extremely unlikely. The world is at present moving away from free trade, as is the United States, and we in our turn are moving away from the world’s largest free trade bloc and single market.

Then we are told that leaving the EU will free us from bureaucracy. We have heard about the need to have new rules of origin, VAT receipts and refunds, and customs checks. That is a substantial extra collection of bureaucracy on cross-border trade. The withdrawal agreement and the future framework talk about a Joint Committee with a range of specialised committees that will manage our new relationship. We will need very large numbers of extra officials to manage those, as well as doubling the staff in our bilateral embassies because we will no longer be able to negotiate multilaterally in Brussels.

I want to turn to the future framework. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, that there has been a remarkable lack of attention to this document, although it is extraordinarily important. The Prime Minister has offered us no coherent vision of the future relationship. Someone has to look at this to see where we are going. One hundred and forty-one paragraphs of the political declaration cover a very wide range of issues, including data protection; participation in European programmes on science and innovation, culture, youth exchanges and education development; the European Neighbourhood Policy; intellectual property; family law co-operation; transport; energy; fishing; global co-operation on climate change; sustainable development; health and epidemics; foreign policy, security and defence; the UK contribution to joint defence operations; intelligence exchanges; whether we have access to the European Union Satellite Centre; space co-operation, about which it says very little because we have not got very far; cybersecurity; illegal migration, counterterrorism; et cetera. That is all to be negotiated, ideally by December 2020. That is not going to be very easy, but it is at least the intention.

There have been references throughout the debate to our aim of negotiating a Canada-minus as our future relationship. Canada is 4,000 miles away from the European Union, and the European Union is not Canada’s major or dominant trading partner. Britain is much more like Switzerland, so we ought to look at the Swiss relationship with the European Union for the future. Switzerland is after all surrounded entirely by the EU. England is currently surrounded only on three sides by two sea borders and a land border with Ireland and, if and when Scotland joins, it will be surrounded on all sides by an EU border.

There is an uncomfortable dependence for Switzerland on the European Union, with freedom of movement a particularly delicate issue on which the Swiss have had a number of referendums but have still failed to agree on their full relationship with the European Union. There are 140 bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland, negotiated with a good deal of pain and much effort over the years. For the last five years the two sides have been attempting to negotiate a wider framework agreement, which is not yet concluded. If we think we can negotiate a comparable framework agreement in 14 months, we are asking an awful lot and assuming that it is going to be much easier than for Switzerland. The Swiss have particular concerns over issues like pharmaceuticals and scientific collaboration, because they have some extremely good universities, and I am told that the European Union is already being more difficult with the Swiss because it recognises that the concessions that it gives to Switzerland will be concessions that the British will also ask for. So the Swiss sit outside EU negotiations, struggling to modify their impact when they have already been agreed, and then accept that they cannot change them. That is the illusion of sovereignty and the reality of subordination.

I think we also recognise that we are facing a wider crisis of our political and constitutional system. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, hinted at this. Major issues have come up in this debate in the last two years about the relationship between Parliament and government and between government and the law and the courts. We have a Government without a majority and an Opposition without a credible leader, so it is also a crisis of our two-party system. We have an entrenched two-party system in which, if the Government fail, a credible Opposition are supposed to be there to take over, unlike the situation that we have now.

The loss of popular trust in Parliament, the parties and the institutions is something that should concern us all very deeply. We have talked a bit about the crisis of the UK, with Scotland and Ireland potentially leaving. I also feel, as someone who lives in the north of England, that England would be left with its own internal crisis as the manufacturing north would suffer much more from its exclusion from the single market than the financial-services south, and the gaps in terms of regional and individual inequality would widen further.

I read an article two weeks ago that said we should not entirely forget the fate of Argentina, one of the world’s most prosperous and rapidly growing countries in the early 20th century, which fell prey to populism, disintegrated economically and politically and has never recovered. That is an apocalyptic view of where England might end up, but we need to look very carefully at where we are going. The Prime Minister has not told us where we are going, because he does not think like that. He thinks about what we do tomorrow, not the week after.

This is not a good deal, but it is better than no deal. It may be time to reconsider as such. We need to think about resolving not just Brexit but the deep regional and social inequalities of our own union; about our constitutional framework and the weakening of it that we have seen over the last two years; and about the framework of our democracy and what we mean by democracy. We cannot begin to resolve these things without both an election and a confirmatory referendum.

15:15

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we may not have had the excitement of the vote at the other end, but this debate has showcased this House at its very best in the quality of the speeches and the sheer scope and depth of experience. We heard from a trade union leader; a filmmaker; a former Lord Chancellor; a former Lord Chief Justice; permanent secretaries; journalists; three Earls, two Viscounts and a Duke; a plethora of senior politicians, including half a dozen former Conservative Cabinet Ministers; notable leaders from entertainment, charities and business; and a Bishop, academics and lawyers. They know of what they speak. They have tentacles into these worlds and a real grasp of the demands and working of the myriad services, industries and enterprises that create the wealth and well-being of this country.

What your Lordships have overwhelmingly said is that this deal is bad for the economy, bad for living standard, bad for citizens, consumers, and workers, bad for the environment, peace and security—and, crucially, bad for our union, the United Kingdom. It is notable that many of those arguing the contrary gave reasons such as, “It’s time”, “We need to get on with it” or “This has taken long enough”, or they spoke of “ending uncertainty” and “fatigue”. Hardly any said that it is a good deal.

The Government’s aim for our future is to end the level playing field and our close relationship with the EU. As my noble friend Lady Smith indicated, paragraph 25 of the original political declaration, which committed the UK to considering regulatory alignment with the EU, has simply disappeared. Similarly, legally binding commitments, including the non-regression clauses, have been erased from the withdrawal agreement, along with the other items outlined by my noble friend Lord Liddle.

It is clear that this new, “true blue” deal is all about deregulation. That is presumably why the ERG is now supportive, as my noble friend Lord Whitty suggested. Business has never called for deregulation; most industries want a level playing field, otherwise they themselves can be undercut by cheap competitors either here or elsewhere in the world. The undercutting is always about standards and quality, paid for by consumers, employees or the environment that we leave for our children.

We should heed the warning from the Food and Drink Federation that this deal is,

“a backward step in terms of … frictionless trade with the EU. It also sets us on course for regulatory divergence from our largest overseas market on … food safety … and quality”,

which will,

“increase costs for businesses and consumers”.

No business wants more red tape, which rules of origin mandate. Indeed, I am afraid it is more like purple tape, with the blood and sweat that tend to go into complying with those requirements, even assuming their particular components meet the 51% rule.

We also do not want deals that not only sell our workers or consumers short but fail to promote human rights in other countries. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, spoke of this a few days ago, and warned us not to forget it,

“in the rush to make new trade agreements”.—[Official Report, 3/10/19; col. 1869.]

This is not a people’s deal. With the end of free movement, we lose some long-established rights. The unenforceable political declaration talks about,

“visa-free travel for short-term visits”,

but obviously not to work or to stay. It says only that it will “explore the possibility” of facilitating cross-border travel, while consideration will be given to addressing car travel across borders—presumably a reference to whether our driving licences will be valid. Meanwhile, for separated families there is only the promise to “explore” possible judicial co-operation over matrimonial and parental responsibility matters.

Crucially, even the positive aspirations in the political declaration are non-enforceable. Indeed, perhaps they are not meant to be enforced, with John Baron MP, having been reassured that if the trade deals are not successful by December 2020 we could leave on no-deal terms. Those extreme Brexiteers might still get their way, unless we include our aspirations for the future relationship as binding commitments in the withdrawal agreement Bill—effectively, the negotiating mandate or the objectives for the talks along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

We cannot support this deal, with its lack of guarantees, absence of an economic impact assessment, inadequate time to scrutinise, undermining of the UK’s single market by having differential VAT and tariffs between Northern Ireland and the rest of our single market, and its agenda for deregulation and the loss of rights and protections. But there are other questions that must be answered about its ratification under the CRaG Act by 31 October. Indeed, that itself is a manufactured date linked to the Prime Minister’s political credibility and his election plans, rather than for the good of the country. But perhaps now that the Letwin amendment has been passed, it might give us a breathing space to at least do some of the due diligence for which your Lordships’ House is so renowned.

Even if agreed, the deal would have only a really short transition period—14 rather than 24 months in which to negotiate the future relationship, which, I am told, takes years not months, and then to give ports, businesses, retailers, suppliers, HMRC, citizens, farmers and everyone else time to implement whatever new agreement is made. Although I have to say, given the Government’s disastrous record in reaching agreements, they will probably forget that others need time to then make the necessary adjustments.

Who knows how the withdrawal deal will be overseen via the Joint Committee, or how its appeal system will work? These questions have been posed by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and by the EU Committee, as raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, today—unanswered at the time and since, yet vital for the role of Parliament on this and on any trade deal.

The costs of withdrawal are high and serious, making,

“the country substantially poorer than it would otherwise be”,

and, as yesterday’s FT said, with, “immense … constitutional implications”, which:

“In any normally functioning democracy ... would be subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny—if not a confirmatory vote by the ... public”.


There are at this moment tens of thousands of people outside here demanding such a confirmatory vote.

Jacob Rees-Mogg described the referendum as a “joyful decision”. Perhaps it was, for those with money, savings, an expensive education and the financial resilience to weather short-term storms. But for those whose jobs are on the line, those in Northern Ireland who will see a dotted line between them and Great Britain, consumers offered lower-quality goods with reduced redress when things go wrong or dearer food for their growing families, and manufacturers coping with expensive component imports, tariffs on their exported goods and complicated rules of origin procedures, this might not feel like a joyful decision.

The huge decision today is not ours to take. It is, rightly, for the Commons, rather than the Government, and for MPs who represent their constituents and who are answerable through the ballot box. However, the real decision—should the Commons vote yes—should be for every elector, for it is not MPs but they who must live with that final decision, and so they should take responsibility for it. Nothing will quickly heal the division that Brexit has brought to our nation, but a parliamentary decision to sear our relations with the EU in such a way as that proposed in this deal would certainly not heal the division.

We believe that this proposal has fatal flaws, and that we should have the opportunity to take that view to the people, for them to decide whether it is worth the risk to all of our futures, especially for those generations still too young to vote.

15:25

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to close this historic debate on behalf of the Government. Before I get on with the main content, it is important to say that, as my noble friend Lord Lamont announced in his speech, the House of Commons has passed the Letwin amendment. Following the vote, the Prime Minister addressed the other place. For the benefit of noble Lords who may not have heard him, he said that the best thing for Britain and Europe is for us to leave with this new deal on 31 October. He went on to say that he will not negotiate a delay with the EU and neither does the law compel him to do so. The Prime Minister will tell the EU and member states exactly what he has told everyone for his 88 days as Prime Minister: further delay would be bad for this country, for the EU and for democracy. Next week, the Government will introduce the legislation needed for us to the leave the EU with our new deal on 31 October. The Prime Minister—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords—

[Lord Callanan]

I will complete my remarks, then I will take an intervention. The Prime Minister said that he hopes our European colleagues will reject delay and, if they do, that honourable Members will change their minds and support this new deal in overwhelming numbers.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I am grateful to the Minister. I followed his words carefully. The Prime Minister has said that he will not “negotiate” a delay with the European Union. Can the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister will send a letter requesting an extension, as he is obliged to do by law?

[Lord Callanan]

As I have said a number of times, to the boredom of noble Lords, we will of course abide by the law. The requirement—

[Lord Oates]

My Lords—

[Lord Callanan]

Can noble Lords have a little patience? I have not completed my remarks yet. We will comply with the requirements of Section 1(4) of the Benn Act to the letter. Does that answer the noble Lord’s question?

[Lord Oates]

Yes.

[Lord Callanan]

Okay. The number of Peers who have contributed to this debate, on a Saturday—

[Lord Pannick]

As to the letter, does the Minister mean that, by midnight, the Prime Minister will send the letter as listed in the Benn Act in the terms set out in the Schedule?

[Lord Callanan]

I mean what I said. I want to go no further than that.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Callanan]

The requirements of Section 1(4) of the Benn Act will be complied with to the letter. I am not going to take any more interventions from the noble Lord on this subject. I have addressed it many times. No matter how many times noble Lords ask me the same question, they will get the same reply, so I am not sure that there is much to be gained by carrying on.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Is the Minister going on to say what will happen in the Commons on Monday and whether the meaningful vote is due to be put there again on Monday?

[Lord Callanan]

It is a fast-moving situation. Seriously, I have been trying to conclude my remarks while listening to what noble Lords have been saying and trying to get updates on what is happening in another place as well. I believe that the leader of the House of Commons has addressed this matter but I do not want to say for certain. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is looking at her mobile and she might have more up-to-date information than I have.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

We understand that it might be on Monday, but I think that the letter will therefore already have arrived in Brussels by the time the meaningful vote is taken on Monday.

[Lord Callanan]

I will take the noble Baroness’s word for that. I have not been updated on what has happened in another place. If noble Lords will permit me, I will go on to the main thrust of my remarks.

I reassure my noble friend Lord Bowness that all the legally required documents were laid in the paper office and that additional copies are available on GOV.UK. I hope that resolves his queries.

[Lord Bowness]

I am grateful to my noble friend for referring to that point but will he acknowledge that there are other documents to which I referred, which might well have been helpful and are in fact government papers?

[Lord Callanan]

I think it best if we have a conversation outside the Chamber on which different documents my noble friend is referring to.

For more than three years, this House has examined Brexit in great detail, as correctly observed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in his excellent speech. I pay tribute to the work of noble Lords and the many committees of this House which have looked at the EU withdrawal process. I will do my best to address as many of the points raised today as possible.

The deal before us today is a deal which ensures that we take back control. Along with my noble friends Lord Baker and Lord Howard, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I commend my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on securing it. This is a good deal. It ensures that we take back control of our laws, our borders, our money, farming and fishing policies and trade without disruption. It also provides the basis of a new relationship with the EU, based on free trade and friendly co-operation. I completely agree with my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lord Caithness, Lady Pidding and Lady Noakes that we now need certainty and no delay. As the good people of Northampton told my noble friend Lord Naseby, we should get on with it.

My noble friend Lady Harding was completely correct when she said that leadership is about making decisions and getting things done. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft also correctly highlighted, this is the deal that many said was not possible nor desired. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, told us only last week,

“there is no desire for a deal. It is all a ruse”.—[Official Report, 08/10/19; col. 2009.]

Yet here we are with a deal, only 87 days after the Prime Minister took office.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lord Howell, spoke about what this deal means for the island of Ireland. The old deal was rejected because it tied us to a divisive and undemocratic backstop; indeed, in the many debates we have had I recall that many noble Lords’ criticisms of it centred precisely on those issues. That backstop, included in the previous Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol, kept the whole of the United Kingdom in a single customs territory with the EU. This would have required the UK to continue to align with EU tariff rates, therefore the UK would not have had a fully independent trade policy. This would have prevented us securing new trade deals with the rest of the world. The new deal abolishes the backstop entirely.

The provisions in the new protocol ensure that an open border is maintained on the island of Ireland and, most importantly, it upholds the Belfast agreement. Northern Ireland will have access to the single market but also be part of new UK trade deals, which we intend to negotiate around the world. Crucially, these arrangements will be dependent on the consent of those affected by it: the people of Northern Ireland themselves. In our view, this is essential to the acceptability of arrangements under which part of the UK accepts the rules of a different market.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

With regard to part of the United Kingdom now having to comply with rules made by a foreign entity, what representation will those people have over those rules?

[Lord Callanan]

Of course they will not have direct representation, which is why we want to see that there is ongoing democratic consent to these arrangements from representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised the issue of customs. Before I address her point, I am sure that noble Lords will want to join me in saying how good it is to see her back in her place. We will leave the EU customs union as one United Kingdom. The UK will be a single customs territory, with control over our independent trade policy. The new protocol also explicitly sets out that Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom’s customs territory. The EU’s administrative customs procedures will apply in Northern Ireland, in order to make sure that goods destined for the EU comply with the correct process. No tariffs will be payable on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland unless those goods are at risk of moving on to the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about compatibility under Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. Section 55 is not a barrier to the withdrawal agreement. The agreement is clear that Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the UK’s customs territory.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised the issue of regulatory alignment. The new protocol establishes a single regulatory zone on the island of Ireland. This involves Northern Ireland aligning with a limited number of specific EU regulations. The UK Government will always be committed to protecting Northern Ireland’s position in the UK’s internal market. The new protocol explicitly enables the United Kingdom to maintain the guarantee that businesses and farmers in Northern Ireland will continue to have unfettered access to the rest of the UK market—which is something I am sure noble Lords will welcome.

Looking ahead, we have also negotiated and agreed changes to the political declaration, as noted by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Birt. This will provide a framework for an ambitious future relationship with the European Union. We have removed all references to the backstop from this political declaration while setting out our clear intention to pursue a future relationship with a comprehensive and balanced free trade agreement at its core, alongside agreements on security and wider areas of co-operation. It ensures that the United Kingdom will take control of its own regulatory affairs. Our commitments to the level playing field will be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship. This will prevent unfair competitive advantages and uphold the current high standards in areas such as employment and environmental standards.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords—

[Lord Callanan]

I think I am about to predict what the noble Lord is going to ask me, if he will just be patient.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Foulkes, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of workers’ rights. The UK has a long and proud tradition of leading the way in workers’ rights, where we have always set a high standard. We recognise that Parliament wants to see these hard-won rights protected and not weakened by our departure from the EU, and we are happy to ensure that this is the case. Both the public and parliamentarians should be in no doubt that, as we leave the EU, we will maintain and increase these protections via both the withdrawal agreement and future legislation. As the Prime Minister set out in the other place earlier, we will bring forward measures to protect workers’ rights in the withdrawal agreement Bill. If I have not addressed the noble Lord’s point, I will take his intervention.

[Lord Liddle]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. In addition to the point about workers’ rights, my intervention was to ask the Minister whether he will put in the Library a letter that explains to Members of this House, in very clear terms, the difference, in terms of the economy and free trade objectives, between Mrs May’s political declaration and the current one. As I pointed out, I think some of them will have a significant economic impact, and it is the duty of the Government to explain to Members of this House what those differences are.

[Lord Callanan]

I will certainly write to the noble Lord outlining the changes to the political declaration and place a copy in the Library for other Members.

We will also be working hard to secure trade deals with other international partners. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that while we explore these new trading opportunities, we will not dilute the standards for which British products are world renowned—and, as the Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions, nor will our NHS be on the table in those negotiations.

The political declaration also provides for a security relationship that will enable the UK and the EU jointly to combat the shared threats faced by our citizens, domestically and abroad. This revised deal further makes it clear that participation in defence co-operation will always be the sovereign choice of the United Kingdom.

Of course, this deal does not consist just of these changes. We are offering a deal that not only removes the anti-democratic backstop but, more broadly, maintains our strong commitment to citizens’ rights and to a transition period, which gives welcome stability to businesses both in the UK and the EU, and also lays the foundations for us to commence negotiations for an ambitious future relationship. Noble Lords will have noticed, I am sure, that Article 184 of the withdrawal agreement requires both sides to use best endeavours to get this legal text agreed and implemented by the end of 2020. Both sides are committed to making preparations for an immediate start to the formal negotiations and to approach these in good faith. Noble Lords should know—I think I outlined it last week—that we are preparing for these negotiations and we will work with Parliament as well as a wide range of partners, including, of course, in the devolved Administrations, to ensure a successful outcome that delivers in the interests of all parts of our United Kingdom.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked about the Government’s approach to the Joint Committee. I can confirm that it will be underpinned by full ministerial accountability to Parliament, and that the Government will continue to discuss with Parliament and its committees the appropriate ways to achieve this.

It is late on a Saturday afternoon and I will not seek to detain the House any further. We have heard many diverse views on the deal. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I also pay tribute to the House authorities, officials and my private office for making preparations so that we were all able to sit today. The deal that we have debated is one that will deliver the result of the 2016 referendum and ensure that we can leave the European Union on 31 October in an orderly and friendly way. The deal honours the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom; it ensures that the future of Northern Ireland will be decided by the people of Northern Ireland; it provides the foundations for an ambitious relationship with the EU founded on a comprehensive and balanced free trade arrangement; and it allows us to get Brexit done and leave the EU in two weeks’ time. In doing so, we can focus on the people’s priorities, so that the country can come together. I commend this deal to the House.

Motion agreed.

Brexit

Saturday 19th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:43

Tabled by

[Lord Callanan]

That, for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, this House takes note of the statement laid before the House on Saturday 19 October titled “Statement that the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union without an agreement having been reached under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union”.

Motion not moved.

House adjourned at 3.43 pm.