European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, some of the speeches have painted on a large canvas. I would like to focus on the amendment itself. I am reminded of a discussion here yesterday about the possibility—perhaps fatuous—of moving this Chamber to York in the name of reaching out to the population of this country. I mention that because, 20 years ago, in the name of reaching out to the country at large, the devolved Administrations came into being. The 20 years in between have offered enough evidence of the fact that you do not just bring things into being; you support and sustain them by developing a relationship that enhances partnership between the devolved bodies and the United Kingdom Parliament. I wish that people on other Benches would realise just how disappointed people in the devolved areas are about what has happened over the last 20 years and the way in which—begrudgingly, as it seems to them—some concessions and developments have come into being. I just wish people could feel that.

I have three children. When they were growing up, as teenagers, the most important aspect of parenthood that we had to learn was the moment when you establish trust. You move away from authoritarian modes of existence with your own children, and you trust them, even when sometimes they make mistakes. It seems to me that, in this amendment, we are asking simply to give visibility to a stance that we could describe as trust; that is the heart of it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, it does not seek to change the provisions of the Bill; it just says that we should trust each other as we go along.

I would be surprised if I am the only one who has had to educate myself, because the new clause proposed by the amendment would, if accepted, go in after clauses that describe the UK-EU joint committee, and it is terribly confusing to talk about the Joint Ministerial Committee in the context of movements that bring that joint UK-EU committee into being. It does not end there, because we are talking about the Joint Ministerial Committee European Union sub-committee. The action we are trying to establish good relations for is what will happen in the discussions with Europe to bring about our ongoing relationship, in the period following the enactment of the Bill. We should therefore remember that we are looking to have these things written into the Bill to apply for a limited period.

My noble friend Lord Howarth is quite right: of course you cannot legislate for the processes of consultation. He went on to say that willingness cannot be legislated for, but unwillingness might necessitate legislation—and there has been unwillingness. There is a lack of empathy. Even the noble Lord opposite spoke about hardness and refusing to accept a position that will create difficulties. That is never in anyone’s mind at all.

I go back to discussions in Committee and the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who said:

“The best option would be to include representatives of the devolved Administrations in the negotiating teams that go to Brussels when the subject for discussion is going to touch on the competence of the devolved Administrations.”—[Official Report, 15/1/20; col. 672.]


If they are going to discuss the competence of the devolved Administrations, is it not fair and proper that those from the devolved Administrations most affected might be there to add their voice to the discussions? Is that not reasonable? Are we not talking about common sense?

We are looking at this in a binary way, thinking that everybody who has a different view is somehow invested with animosity towards the Government. We are talking about bringing out of all this something that stands up and appeals to people on the basis of common decency and fair play. I am happy to rest my case there.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we strongly support Amendment 17, without which the whole nation of Wales could be excluded from preparing for input into the UK-EU negotiations. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, and as the letter of 16 January from the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, to your Lordships sets out—I hope people have now got it—the Government have promised that representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive will be invited to be part of the UK delegation and to take part in any meetings of the joint committee discussing Northern Ireland where the Irish Government are involved.

That guarantee is welcome; I do not undermine that at all. But where is the equivalent recognition that, where the specific issues of other constituent parts of the UK are discussed, they too can be at the table, or at the very least be assured that the JMC on EU Negotiations has been briefed and will feed into Her Majesty’s Government’s negotiating position with the EU? The Government are seen as giving scant regard to the devolved authorities’ interests and legitimate role in the negotiation, which is why a statutory role is needed. As my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon said, the voluntary way has not worked sufficiently well.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: Special Report

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

Understandably, the committee has access to highly sensitive information that allows it to carry out its oversight duties. The reports it produces often contain information that, were it to be released, might damage the ability of those the ISC oversees to discharge their functions. That is why the governing Act allows for a period of time for the Prime Minister to consider the report carefully. That is what is happening at the moment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, what has the Prime Minister got to hide?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I regret the implication in that question: the noble Baroness is implying that the Prime Minister does have something to hide, and I repudiate that suggestion in emphatic terms. The normal processes are being exercised and the report will be published in due course.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an unusual procedure for a Bill. A whole Bill, with far bigger consequences than the Benn Bill—which required only the sending of a letter—is to be taken in one day, at one sitting. And it has been done without a murmur from those—I am looking not just at the noble Lord, Lord True—who found the Benn Bill’s passage so very outrageous. By comparison, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act had one day at Second Reading, three days in Committee, two days on Report and a tiny 10-minute day at Third Reading: 29 hours in all.

Today’s Bill was conceived by the Liberal Democrats and then taken over by the Conservatives—the two parties that pushed through the very Fixed-term Parliaments Act that the Bill now upends for what they see as their own electoral advantages. The Act that they wanted, to prevent a Prime Minister calling an election whenever he or she felt like it, is to be cast aside so that this Prime Minister can call an election at a time of his choosing. Indeed, the Lib Dem Minister who took that Act through this House, resisted attempts to include a sunset clause, which, ironically, would have saved Mr Johnson a lot of trouble, as he could then simply have called the election whenever he wanted. That Minister also ignored the sage advice of our Constitution Committee, which, while unpersuaded of the need to overturn,

“an established constitutional practice and moving to fixed-term Parliaments”,

thought that there should be,

“some form of safety valve”,

to allow an early election.

I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, might have spoken today to explain his volte face, because this Bill drives a coach and horses through the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, bypassing both the required supermajority as well as the unpleasantness of a no-confidence vote—“a political device”, in the words of noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, or “cavalier”, according to my noble friend Lady Quin.

Essentially, in 48 hours, between the two Houses, the Bill repeals the Act, with no forethought, debate or any of the consideration we would normally give to a major legislative and constitutional change. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, urged, we should undertake such a task in a proper and thoughtful way.

However, I guess this unconventional route is only one of the Liberal Democrats’ embarrassments, given that they have, in the words of an arch remainer, “thrown the referendum campaign under a bus”, having triggered the Bill before trying to add a referendum to the withdrawal agreement Bill. Indeed, they have promised that they will use any influence they have after the election to revoke without a second referendum. Those who slogged so long for a referendum must rue the day that they trusted the Liberal Democrats.

But that is not all. We and the Liberal Democrats had prioritised removing any chance of a no-deal exit from the EU. They have now handed this possibility to the Prime Minister. He may not get the WAB through Parliament before 31 January, given that we will now lose six weeks of legislative time with the election, swearing in, the Queen’s Speech and its debate—and I look forward to the answer from the noble Earl when he replies to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about the earliest date of our return. We now risk a crash-out at the end of January or at the end of next year, if the Prime Minister takes us out at the end of the transition period without an agreement. Well done, Liberal Democrats; I bet a glass is being raised to you in No. 10. As it happens, we are confident that there will be no such outcome, that it is Labour who will have the keys to No. 10, and we will put an end to a no-deal exit.

As for the Government—in case noble Lords thought that this was all about the Liberal Democrats—we know why they want an election. National debt is rising; the true figures of their preferred deal are appearing—£70 billion over 10 years, we hear today from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; a winter NHS crisis beckons; schools are still on short measures in some places; Northern Ireland has been sold short, and Johnson rumbled on that; and, vitally, the impact of a hard Brexit has yet to be felt, or even the arguments over it, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said.

So the Conservatives, for electoral advantage, which the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was meant to prevent, want an election while the fruits of their ham-fisted policies have yet to bite. I urge them not to be complacent. The public might just see through them and grasp why they are being sent out to polling stations in the run-up to Christmas. It is not really to “unclog” Parliament, the Commons having given the withdrawal agreement Bill a Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Smith said, had there been a decent programme Motion, which needed only for the Prime Minister to swallow his pride over the totem 31 October date, he could have got the withdrawal agreement Bill through well before 31 January, and negotiations on our future relations with the EU could have begun.

Of course, the Government might feel complacent because they know that they may not be playing absolutely fair. Having an election before we have sorted out the regulation of targeted digital campaigning will probably play into the hands of a certain Dominic Cummings. I am not saying that it is the dark arts, but I know that it is neither transparent nor regulated, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam made abundantly clear. When he responds, the Minister needs to spell out what steps the Government and the Electoral Commission will take to ensure a fair and open contest.

For Labour, we look forward to being able to take our challenge to the Government to every street, village, town and city of the country. We will show what damage the Government are risking—to the car industry, to farming, to the environment, to consumers and to our vibrant service sector—with their approach to Brexit. We will highlight the impact that their policies have already had on the poor and disadvantaged, on those living with debt and insecurity, on those dependent on social services, on working families torn between jobs and paying for childcare, on students graduating with massive debt, on young couples no longer even able to dream of owning their own house, on people on zero-hours contracts, on the elderly finding it hard to see a GP or dentist any time soon, and on teachers and nurses who, at the end of the month, cannot find the money for any luxuries after years of pay restraint.

It will become clear over these coming weeks that the Prime Minister is not a man who can be trusted. He owes no loyalty even to his own MPs, let alone to society. He is a man with only one person’s future at heart, and that is his own.

I confess that I never wanted a winter election —I hate cold dark mornings and early sunsets—but I want the chance to rid this country of this Government. So here’s to this Bill—and the election that it now brings.

Prorogation Recall

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have not had access to that paper. My noble friend Lord Callanan will give an update on Brexit preparations and take questions on those matters this afternoon, so I suggest that the noble Lord puts his question to my noble friend.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The noble Earl said earlier that we would come back for a Queen’s Speech on 14 October, which would give sufficient days to discuss this important issue. However, No.10 was yesterday briefing that, should the elected House of Commons have the audacity to take over business in the other place and put through a Bill, an election would be called—unusually—on a Monday, 14 October. That would probably mean that we would not sit for about a week after that. Does the noble Earl think that that would be sufficient time to discuss Brexit and all its implications?

[Earl Howe]

I do not want to sound glib but let us see what happens. There are strong reasons for the parties in the other place which are very exercised on these matters to show restraint. I think that the Prime Minister would say that he would be the last person to want a general election.

Leaving the European Union

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, but with some sadness—worse, alarm—at the Statement. It is not simply that it is Groundhog Day all over again. It is not even that it is a cut and paste job on earlier versions, with the faux descriptor of being a “new deal”—which I think would make Roosevelt gag. No, it is that this Government have lost the ability to govern. In truth, that was evident right from the start, from the 10 December cancellation of the meaningful vote—and then, more obviously, with the 230 defeat, followed by the embarrassing 149 defeat on a second try, and then by 58. One wonders what it takes for the Prime Minister to hear.

In truth, after that first 230 defeat, the worst for any Government in modern parliamentary history, the Prime Minister should have resigned or been visited by those apocryphal men in grey suits. When a leader loses their flagship policy by such a margin, and loses the support of the Commons, normal parliamentary custom requires a change at the top—particularly because that defeat was of the Prime Minister’s own making.

When she moved to No. 10, many of us imagined that she would try to implement the referendum by crafting a departure deal that was as good as it could be for the country and had the approval of the Commons. Just in case that did not happen, we ensured that any departure agreement would need Commons approval—good in itself, but vital with the country so divided on this issue. Perhaps innocently—especially when Keir Starmer was made a Privy Counsellor—I imagined that the Government would engage with the Opposition to shape the sort of deal that would be acceptable across the House.

After she lost her majority in 2017, I was even more sure that Mrs May would work on something to win over a divided House—and we were always clear about what that would take. Indeed, my right honourable friend Keir Starmer spent many hours in Brussels discussing the parameters of what might be acceptable to the EU 27, so that none of our demands would be unacceptable to them. In speeches and interviews, he offered up options to bring Parliament and the country together. They were all ignored, including in last night’s last-minute letter to my right honourable friend Jeremy Corbyn. They were ignored by a Government who cannot even hold their own party together, never mind the country or Parliament.

So we have this sorry sight today: a speech made first not to MPs but to PwC—whose strapline, by the way, is:

“To build trust in society and solve important problems”.


Perhaps it should have given some advice to the Prime Minister, for her speech yesterday was rejected within minutes by her own side before the Opposition had even seen the text—and now we hear that some of her own Ministers will not vote for it. Indeed, I gather that there are letters going in to try to oust her straight away, while the ConHome website is urging people not to vote Tory tomorrow if she is not on her way out by the end of today—the day before an election.

So my question to the Leader is: where do the Government go from here? Why do they not have the confidence to put their deal to the public if they believe it is so good? Will she confirm that the Government will heed the Commons vote of 13 March, categorically rejecting no deal in any circumstances, as referred to in the Statement? Will she take back to the Cabinet this House’s vote against any no-deal exit and remind her colleagues of the strength of that view? Will she personally undertake to respect the view of this House—the House that she leads—on that, and vote against any such no-deal proposal within Cabinet, whether it is one led by Mrs May or by anyone else?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is now the 16th time that we have debated the Prime Minister’s deal and what to do with it. Each time we have done so, the Prime Minister has claimed that she has made some new, bold, improved offer for which she begs our support. But each time she does this—and this time is no exception—she is simply putting lipstick on a pig. It remains a pig and everybody can see it is a pig. That is why, as is clear from the comments of DUP and Tory MPs, this latest attempt is doomed to failure like the rest—almost certainly by a bigger margin than the third time that she failed to get it through the Commons. This is hardly surprising.

I will not weary the House by taking your Lordships through all 10 of the Prime Minister’s points; I will take just two. First, there is the legal duty to try to conclude alternative arrangements to replace the Irish backstop by December next year. This refers to technical means to ensure that there are no physical checks on the Irish border. But we know that no such technological solution exists—and certainly nothing that could even remotely be put in place within 18 months. So this promise cannot be fulfilled, as the Prime Minister herself must know. It is a straightforward deceit, and one of the many reasons why her proposals will be rejected by the Commons.

Secondly, there is the promise of a vote on a confirmatory referendum. I am obviously delighted that the Prime Minister now sees a referendum coming down the track. But the idea that she has made a new concession by saying that MPs will be allowed to put down an amendment on the issue, which presumably she will oppose, is neither new nor a concession. When we put down an amendment to the withdrawal Bill calling for such a referendum, we did not ask for the permission of the Leader of the House or the Government. We just did it, and the Commons has the ability to do it to the withdrawal agreement Bill, with or without government approval. So this alleged concession is a nothing, like all the rest.

Tomorrow, we are having a proxy poll on Brexit. We obviously do not know the results but we can be pretty confident that those parties which are clearly advocating leaving the EU, on either hard or soft terms, will not get a majority of the votes. I am sure that the Leader of the House will be grateful that it is a secret ballot. That way, we will never know how many Members on her own Benches vote for other parties. We know that it will be a considerable number.

This election will demonstrate the state of public opinion on Brexit, but it will also dispel the scare stories that having a national public debate on the issue would lead to civil unrest and possibly violence. A couple of milkshakes have indeed been thrown, but this campaign has been conducted like all campaigns in this country. It has been very largely civil, respectful and thoughtful. Yes, there are many people on both sides who are angry, and I have met a fair number of them in recent weeks. But they recognise that the way to deal with this issue and their anger is to vote and not to punch somebody on the nose. There is no evidence whatever that a further referendum would lead to any different method of proceeding. To suggest that it might is both irresponsible and desperate. I therefore invite the Leader of the House to disassociate herself from the Statement by the Prime Minister today about such a referendum unleashing “forces”—not specified, but clearly designed to make our flesh creep. They do not make my flesh creep, because they are simply another attempt to scare people into denying the electorate another say.

Just as the Prime Minister’s deal has not changed over months, neither have the options facing the country. There are only three. It could accept the deal and leave the EU on that basis; it could leave the EU without a deal; or it could decide to retain our membership, prosperity, security and influence by remaining in the EU, by asking the people to confirm that way forward.

It is now six months since the Prime Minister reached the current deal, and it is increasingly clear that failing to get a decision is a very costly exercise. It is not just the ridiculous £4 billion wasted on no-deal planning. Ask steelworkers in Scunthorpe today whether this delay, this inability to get an agreement in the Commons and this failure to give people a say are having an impact on people’s lives.

We can wait no longer—not for another improved, new, shiny, meaningless offer from the Prime Minister, not for a leadership election in the Tory party and not for a general election. Tomorrow’s vote will demonstrate that the country remains starkly divided on Brexit, but it will also demonstrate that there is no majority for Brexit on any terms and that the demand for a people’s vote to get us out of this Brexit nightmare cannot now be stopped.

Business of the House

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To move that Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages this day.

Business of the House

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Further to the resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons, that:

(1) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill to be taken through all its stages this day; and

(2) Standing Order 39 (Order of Business) be dispensed with to enable that Bill to be considered after the motions on Economic Affairs Committee reports in the name of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, unconventional times call for unconventional measures. What are these times? The country faces the possibility of an exit from the EU without a deal; a disorderly exit that nobody wants. The Prime Minister does not want it, business and the CBI do not want it, the TUC does not want it, the House of Commons does not want it, and your Lordships’ House voted against a no-deal exit by a majority of 169. But the eventuality remains a risk, as we are constantly reminded, because that is the default legal outcome unless something else happens. That legal default—a crash-out no deal—would mean no transition period, the immediate introduction of tariffs, complete uncertainty for British citizens living in the EU 27, no European arrest warrants, security concerns and dire consequences for industry, to say nothing of the implications for Gibraltar or the island of Ireland.

We have received a Bill from the House of Commons that makes something else happen, and we are about to give it a First Reading. It would ensure that there is a legal requirement on the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50 period to prevent that default legal outcome coming to pass. However, the Bill, passed by the elected House, can have effect only if we deal with it today, so that it can receive Royal Assent in time for the EU Council to consider the application for an extension. To fulfil our duty to deal with a Bill sent by the Commons, we have to handle it today.

This is in compliance with the view of your Lordships’ House on 28 January, when we called on Her Majesty’s Government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that sufficient time be provided for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any proposition that had commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons. That Motion was passed with a majority of 152.

The Commons has passed this Bill. It has expressed a clear view that no deal is unacceptable and that the situation is urgent. Regrettably, the Government failed to honour that Motion published by your Lordships. They should have tabled the Motion I am about to move, to facilitate and expedite the will of the elected House. Today, the Government still will not listen to the Commons—or to this House, which has voted to facilitate any Bill from the Commons. That is not leadership. The Government have lost the support of the Commons, and now refuse to follow your Lordships’ Motion.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Sit down!

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I believe the conventions of the House, to which the noble Lord used to adhere, mean that it is my decision whether to give way. I have decided not to.

We, rather than the Government, had to table this Motion, which would allow us to take all stages of the Bill today and add it to today’s agenda. However, it is not just the Government who are failing to respond to the decision of the elected House. We see on the Order Paper seven amendments to my Motion—all, it must be said, from Peers who have been very open and honest about their desire for, or at least their acceptance of, a no-deal departure. However, rather than just voting against my Motion, which is the correct way to halt proceedings if they have support across the House, they have chosen to try to delay the Bill so long that it can have no effect, and so thwart the decision of the elected House.

Some of those Peers have even, at the very last moment, found themselves in absolute need to speak on a really interesting Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the report Making Tax Digital for VAT: Treating Small Businesses Fairly—the very small businesses, presumably, that wrote to me saying, “Whatever we want, it is not no deal”. But just before 6 pm last night, once they knew this Motion would be here today, they found themselves suddenly seized of the need to add their names to the speakers’ list. I have a list of those who added their names at the very last moment.

What we are seeing today, in addition to those seven amendments and to more people wanting to speak later to put off the Bill, is a small group of unelected Peers in an unelected House trying first to stop us considering the Bill today, and then trying to talk it out. No doubt they are seeking to go through the night to halt the Commons’ desire to prevent no deal. They cannot win this by the strength of their arguments or through support, but only by those tactics.

I and my friends will be here all night. I have discovered that breakfast starts at 7.30 am, and am taking orders now. If that is what it takes to do what the elected House of Commons has asked us, that is what we will do. For the moment, I urge the House to respond to the cross-party Bill which has arrived here, having been passed with urgency in another place, and, in this time of national uncertainty, do what we are appointed here to do—to consider in a timely fashion any legislation sent to us. We should agree to pass it in time for it to have an effect. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has spoken with a good deal of sense. My understanding is that the usual channels had formally agreed to finish this Bill on Monday, and that that arrangement was withdrawn yesterday. The noble Baroness is shaking her head. I have 19 years’ experience of dealing with process and procedure in this House. One abiding rule is that once you do not involve the usual channels, it all goes wrong. That is exactly what has happened today.

I know the noble Baroness is about to speak. Can she explain why it is so urgent that we sit virtually all night to pass this Bill? We could do what all the precedents set have done, and have the Second Reading today and finish the remaining stages at the beginning of next week, asking the usual channels—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and my noble friend the Government Chief Whip—to organise it. That would get rid of the nastiness that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to. It would make for a far more rational debate, and the Bill would be completed—I recognise there is a majority for the Bill in this House—in plenty of time for whatever else happens next week.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we are actually dealing with the amendment on whether we should have a committee report. I draw the attention of the House to the speech Mr Steve Baker gave late last night in the Commons. I do not know why I should pick on him at this particular moment—

[Lord Newby]

He is here.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Oh! I had not noticed. Mr Baker was looking forward to the Bill coming to your Lordships’ House, in the,

“fervent hope that their Lordships will examine this Bill line by line”,—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1217.]

and give it good attention. The hope was that we would get on and deal with the Bill, and that is what this Motion is about.

However, I speak now to only the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True. He asked me why I did not take an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I was moving a Motion: normally, you move a Motion, then people stand up and ask questions and points of order, and at the end one comes back with the clarification. That seems to be the correct way to do it.

On the particular issue of whether we should have a committee, we have a committee report on this Bill. Even if we did not, the point of committees is to assist this House, not to stand in the way when something needs doing. Their members are also Members of this House, and can therefore give their very wise—and often learned, in the case of the Constitution Committee —advice directly to the House. We can do it then.

The important thing I want to raise, because I was not able to on the last amendment, is the idea of how awful it was that we were moving this, rather than the Government. As I said at the beginning, it should have been the Government who brought the Bill to the House, because that was what the House had passed before. We are doing it because that was not done. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that it is normally the Government who table Private Members’ Bills. Yes, but they failed to do so. We will do it when they do not. The Leader of the House is obviously in a difficult position—

[Lord Robathan]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I think I will continue, if the noble Lord does not mind.

[Lord Robathan]

Again?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Yes, again.

[Lord Robathan]

I have a point of clarification.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am sure the noble Lord does, but I would like to answer the point that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House made some time ago, which I have not been able to answer. She is in a difficult position; I understand that. She is a member of the Cabinet and of the governing party, but she is also the Leader of the House. In the absence of a Speaker with authority—although we do have a very authoritative Speaker—she also has to consider the whole House’s interests. It would have been her responsibility in that role to have brought forward this Bill as it was voted for before.

We have talked about a “constitutional monstrosity”, “tearing up the constitution” and “constitutional vandalism”. We are asking that this House considers a Bill sent to us by the other House. Is that “constitutional vandalism”? As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, this country faces a national crisis. The people in the Gallery—I am sorry that there are some there, because I am quite embarrassed that they are watching us—must wonder what on earth is happening when, at a time of national crisis, we are debating not the content of the Bill or the issues that have been raised by some speakers, but whether we should even consider the Bill today. This is out of order. In fact, I think it is shameful that this is being done. I find it shameful that the Government are helping on this.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I think the noble Lord has spoken quite enough. We have heard from him; I think we know his views. We should not still be debating the content of the Bill, because we have not got on to it. We want a Second Reading. We can vote against the Bill if we do not like it; that is the democratic way of dealing with a Bill that you do not like. But to try to talk out the ability of us even to take the Bill is an abuse of process. I will not support the amendment to my Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True.

[Lord Robathan]

Since the noble Baroness does not like taking interventions, I will have to make a speech. It will be a very brief one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we have had two speakers in favour of the amendment. I repeat two things I have said before. One is that the best advice is that we should all have a cup of tea. I second that one. The other is that, as I said at the beginning, if Members are against the Motion I tabled that we should hear the Bill today, the correct course is to vote against my Motion. Tabling a series of amendments where every speech has been against my Motion, rather than in favour of the different amendments, just shows that if this is not a filibuster, it is a technique to spin this out. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who said that it was incorrect of certain people to move the closure Motion. That is partly because the device of having umpteen different amendments was a way of arguing against my Motion rather than the amendments being correct and useful for the sake of the House.

Various people may have moved the closure Motions, but I remind the House—the House does not need reminding because Members were all here—that every one passed by the will of your Lordships’ House, not by that of those who moved the amendments. If noble Lords did not want the closure, they would have voted against it. In fact, the Motions were all passed by 2:1.

On the previous amendment, we heard about the tyranny of the elected House and that we have a despotic majority, all because we want the Bill heard in this House in a timely manner. It is surely best for this House that we do not continue with lots of speeches about all the amendments that are actually only about my Motion. It would be very nice if we could get to my Motion, so that those who really object to what we are trying to do, which is to get the Bill heard in this House, can vote against it. Let us see what is the will of your Lordships. For the moment, I suggest, without moving it formally, that we move to the vote on this amendment, and I urge the House to decline to agree it.

[Lord Lilley]

My Lords, I respectfully follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. The simple truth is that almost everyone who has spoken, with the exception of her, has said that this is purely about constitutional aspects and not about Brexit. I agree with her that it is about both. I am a new boy, so I shall deal briefly with the constitutional aspects of this procedure. As a new boy, I knew one thing about this House: it has the power to make the other House think again. I have enormous respect for that power, and it is a power exercised only after due consideration.

As Secretary of State for Social Security for five years, I used to introduce a lot of legislation. Almost invariably, it would get through the lower House with very little amendment or change. It would come to this House and the next day, my officials would come to me to say, “Very sorry, Secretary of State, the Lords have gone and amended your legislation”. Initially, I tended to be shocked, horrified and angry, until I looked at the changes which this House had made. I cannot recall a single occasion when I did not, on inspecting those changes, accept them either in whole or in part, in spirit or in letter. This House does a good job in making that House think again, but it can do that only if it takes time to consider things and brings all the available expertise it can provide itself and acquire from outside.

It seems that the one reason we should not take this all in one day—the reason we have not taken Bills all in one day in the past—is that, by taking it over two or three days, we give time for outside experts to make representations to us. I know this House brings to bear enormous expertise, but it also has enormous contacts outside, which it draws on in that interlude between Second Reading and Committee and between Committee and Report. If we deny ourselves those interludes, we deny ourselves access to that expertise and the ability to make the high-quality changes, reforms and suggestions to the other House to make it think again, which I certainly found enormously valuable when I was down there. That is the central issue that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as acting Prime Minister for the day, will respond to in due course.

By way of exculpation, I will also explain why I endeavoured to raise a point of order with our Lord Speaker. I was referring to paragraph 29 of the Standing Orders of this House, which says:

“No speaking after Question put … When at the end of a debate the Question has been put, no Lord is to speak save on a point of order”.


I have since discussed it with the clerks and the Lord Speaker, and they are inclined to think that that needs rectifying, since elsewhere it says that no points of order are allowed. Perhaps in ancient times, when this was first written, “point of order” had a different meaning. I have not been here long enough—I was certainly not here in 1674, when this rule was first adumbrated—to know why. Of course, the whole rule that there should be no debate after a Question has been put was adumbrated back in 1674, so it may be that in rectifying this we will find that there can be a little debate, discussion or explanation as to why a noble Lord should want to truncate and prevent debate in this House, the whole purpose of which is debate. I put that forward to explain that I was not endeavouring to be out of order but to follow the rules of the House, as they had been drawn to my attention.

But this is not about just constitutional issues; it is about Brexit itself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out. She said that the only justification for doing what we are doing—for not abiding by our normal procedures, allowing proper discussion or allowing expertise from outside to be drawn into it—was that prolonging it increases the risk that we leave in what she calls a no-deal Brexit: on WTO terms, with all the mini-deals that have been agreed between us and the EU. She considers that a disaster. I consider that a far greater disaster would be to set aside the will of the people, as solemnly requested in a referendum, with a promise repeated by all the leaders of all the parties and all our former Prime Ministers that, whatever the decision, they would implement it.

[Lord Lilley]

I entirely agree. It is quite reasonable to have a referendum every 45 years, which is the time we had to wait before this second referendum. People’s opinions change over time. Back in 1975, I campaigned for us to remain in the EU. I was young and inexperienced. I was recruited for the campaign to keep Britain in Europe by a particularly beautiful girl, who is now my wife, so I plead that one’s opinions can change—as hers and mine have—with experience. We all have more experience now than we had three years ago of the sort of organisation we are dealing with in the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, the former Governor of the Bank of England, has said, that is what we should be thinking about far more than the niceties of a withdrawal agreement.

One thing is certain. During the referendum campaign no one asked, “Would you like to vote to ask permission to leave?” That is like a primary school child putting up their hand in the classroom and saying, “Please, miss, may I leave the European Union?” That is a nonsense. We voted to leave. The Prime Minister of the day said that if we left, we would leave on WTO terms. I want to argue that that is not too frightening. On the contrary, although it is not the best thing—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Is the noble Lord addressing himself to the words of the amendment?

[Lord Lilley]

I am—just as she did. Initially she said that she was addressing all the amendments with the argument that if we did not leave now, there would be a problem. I am arguing that if we—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I said that we should deal with this Bill in time for it to have effect. That was the point I made—that if we did not deal with the Bill before we ran out of time, there was no point in having it. I did not go into the issue of Brexit.

[Lord Lilley]

On the contrary, the noble Baroness is rather forgetful, because I noted down the five points she made about what would happen if we did leave with no deal. They were about citizens’ rights, tariffs and industry; I have forgotten the other two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Constitution Committee. I would like to make a brief intervention. Thanks to the sterling efforts of the committee, our learned clerk and our legal adviser, Professor Mark Elliott, overnight we were able to produce a brief report, which I want to refer to, because it is mentioned in this amendment.

The report was very much a rushed attempt. In the early hours of this morning I sought to rewrite parts of it, but the clerk explained to me that, sadly, my rewriting had been blocked by the spam filter on his machine. Therefore, I thought I better just add a couple of words to explain. The Constitution Committee has always sought to advise the House on fast-track legislation. Indeed, there are one or two Members of the House who served on the committee when it produced the 15th report in the 2008-09 session, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards. I would like to see a little more reference during the course of this debate to the fact that we warned people that fast-tracking should take place only in exceptional circumstances. It behoves everyone in this place to demonstrate that these are exceptional circumstances.

We also sought to emphasise the need for effective parliamentary scrutiny. We set this out in our report. However, as a member of the Select Committee, I would have preferred far more time to get into more detail. I therefore refer the House to a brilliant analysis of this Bill by Professor Mark Elliott, Public Law for Everyone. Before we proceed any further, we should be aware that this is, in a number of respects, a defective Bill, and we have to be very careful how we proceed.

It was acknowledged in the other place by Oliver Letwin—the previous acting Prime Minister, before the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, took on the role—that there were drafting difficulties. He explained that it did not really matter very much because these would be dealt with and considered,

“in the Lords stages of the Bill”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1064]

Therefore, we must ensure that we have enough time to look into those defects. Trying to take all the stages of this Bill in one day, which is what the noble Baroness would have us do, may lead to us enacting defective legislation.

I am very grateful to the Printed Paper Office for making available our report, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards. I hope noble Lords will look at it before we proceed very much further with the Bill. It is necessary reading if we are to undertake this unusual attempt to fast-track a Private Member’s Bill.

We identified a key constitutional principle, as set out on page 8:

“The need to ensure that effective parliamentary scrutiny is maintained in all situations. Can effective scrutiny still be undertaken when the progress of bills is fast-tracked, even to the extent of taking multiple stages in one day?”


We went on to say that another fundamental constitutional principle was:

“The need to maintain ‘good law’—i.e. to ensure that the technical quality of all legislation is maintained and improved”.


We then asked:

“Is there any evidence that the fast-tracking of legislation has led to ‘bad law’”?


We as a House have to ensure that we do not enact bad law as a result of fast-tracking. That is all I wanted to say.

As I explained in a previous debate, I object to the idea that there should be a second referendum when it was the second referendum that created this problem in the first place. I do not want to stray too much, but I was the chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe in 1975, and I fought hard in the first referendum and fought hard again in the second referendum. I say to every Member of the House, whatever their strong feelings on this issue, for heaven’s sake, please do not let us have a third referendum. Let us get this sorted out. Let us respect the result of the second referendum but make sure that we do so by passing good legislation.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I think it was in about 1975 that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I first met, which just shows how long we have both been around.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

And you haven’t changed a bit.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

It’s the way he tells them.

Two interesting and different things have just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, who very honestly confessed that he hoped the Bill would never reach the statute book—let us be clear; that is what all this is about—as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who says, “I want it done properly”. To some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, may achieve his aim without having to put his amendment to the vote. His amendment says only that we should not go into Committee,

“until at least 24 hours after”,

the Select Committee on the Constitution has published its report. That was done at 11 am today. Given the way we are going, I think we are going to meet his target: it will be 11 am tomorrow before we go into Committee, so he may have achieved that without having to put it to the vote.

What we know is that no matter how much we want, ideally, to have time to do this legislation properly—in the “as normal” sense—we are not in normal times. It is simply no good putting this off so that by the time we get through it, and have had very clever people getting it right, it is too late. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says about there being things in the Bill that we may want to alter but spending time now on whether we consider the Bill, and how we deal with it and the need for corrections, makes it less likely that the Bill will end up in a proper state. Without having to do so officially, I hope that we can move to vote now on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I think we can reject it because it actually will be 11 am before we get into Committee.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Question be now put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I appreciate that the hour is late and the House is anxious to get on with Second Reading. This is the first and, I suspect, the last time that I shall say, “God bless the usual channels”. I think that this is a sensible arrangement in the circumstances, since the debates on my committee reports would certainly run to two hours; with apologies to those who put their names down to speak in them, the Chief Whip, in a moment of weakness, promised me a decent slot as a replacement in the future. I therefore withdraw my Motions so that we will have time for Second Reading.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Taylor for their reports. We may feel that we have worked hard in this Chamber today, but a lot of work went into those and into making them available to the House. I also thank the 250 Members of this House who have, again and again, turned up to support this Bill and give it what we should give it, which is a Second Reading. Also, for reasons that a lot of people behind me will know, I record particular thanks to my noble friend Lady Smith, who is here today and has just voted for us. We can explain that to others afterwards, but it is particularly good that she is here today. With that, I beg to move my Motion.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, in the Statement that the Chief Whip just made, he said that he expects subsequent stages to be concluded on Monday. Given the proceedings we have seen all day today, is he giving a guarantee on behalf of the Government that they will be concluded on Monday?

[Lord True]

My Lords, if I intervene perhaps I might help the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. My interventions in this debate, as they were last week, were simply on procedural grounds. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion so that we do not have a precedent for such a Motion on the Order Paper. We have an agreement in the usual channels. We have an undertaking that we will complete Second Reading today and all other stages on Monday. I can speak only for myself, but I welcome the agreement in the usual channels. It is how we should have proceeded from the start. I will not table any amendments on the Order Paper for Committee or Report, in the spirit of co-operation that there is in the House. I ask the noble Baroness to consider, in these circumstances, whether she should not withdraw her Motion so as not to create the precedent of a Motion being forced, because I would feel obliged to divide the House on principle against it. I thank the usual channels and those wise heads on all sides of this House who have come to this agreement. Let us get on with Second Reading and, as we have just heard, consider the Bill properly on Monday. Everybody will want to get this Bill considered with dispatch. Looking around the House, I do not see any noble Lord dissenting from that. So I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the Motion.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I think the noble Lord was trying to be helpful. Unfortunately, without my Motion we would remain unable to deal with more than one stage; we would have to use the normal intervals between them. Therefore I am afraid that we do need my amendment to the Standing Orders to do that. Therefore I wish this Motion to be put to the House.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, Back-Benchers have a right to speak as well on this matter. I have sat through every minute of today’s debate and have seen the filibustering tactics of some of the Members opposite. The Government Chief Whip said that he expects the subsequent stages of the Bill to be concluded on Monday. As he knows, they have to be concluded by a certain time. Is he giving a guarantee that they will be concluded by that time? Otherwise, we will be double-crossed again.

Business of the House

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

I do not believe that any part of Parliament should be bypassed by an exceptional Motion in that way, nor do I believe that your Lordships should lightly give up these scrutiny protections. Encouraged by what my noble friend has said, I ask her not to press the exceptional Motion, which will provide further precedents for the future, but to await tomorrow’s consideration and report by the Joint Committee and, if need be, we can proceed with the business later tomorrow or on Thursday. I really think it is unnecessary and high-handed to have laid such a Motion in the circumstances that my noble friend has set out when the committee is meeting tomorrow to consider the matter anyway. I beg her to reconsider her Motion and beg to move my own.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a particular pleasure for me, and people behind me will understand why: I was brought up on Citrine’s ABC of Chairmanship, and we are dealing a lot with Standing Orders and when it is appropriate for them to be suspended. I never thought I would revert to that book in your Lordships’ House.

Standing Orders, by their nature, are not laws of the country. The fact is that they can be suspended exactly because the times are exceptional. I agree with what I think was the implication of my noble friend behind me: the situation that we are in is not of this House’s making but is because of a failure of negotiation by someone else. In fact, the SI we are discussing still does not have one date on it but two, though no doubt we will make those comments when we debate it.

For today, though, there is a different issue before us: the certainty that is necessary, particularly for lawyers and courts but also for businesses, citizens and everyone else. The situation at the moment, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, is that the agreement reached with the EU may not be exactly what the Prime Minister wanted but it does move the date on which we will leave the EU. It was made with agreement because, under Article 50 of the treaty, the change of date can be made only with the agreement of the member state. So it was our Government who agreed to the change of exit date; it is not something that has been imposed on us but something that our Government accepted. The date to which the exit will move will be in either April or May, as is allowed for.

The important issue is that we will not leave this Friday, but at the moment we have an Act of Parliament that will come into effect then. All the statutory instruments we have passed and all the other changes come into effect at 11 pm our time on Friday. If we fail to deal with this, we could have a situation where we will still be in the European Union till at least 12 April and completely controlled by all the rules we have been part of, but the Act and all the statutory instruments would also be in force. We would have two lots of laws on our statute book at the same time, which would cause a lot of confusion for business, citizens and anyone needing to act by those laws. They could be laws on the environment, the health and safety of animals, consumer rights, workers’ rights, or all sorts of other things. This raises an issue about the importance of bringing absolute clarity to domestic law. The case being made is that it would be impossible to do this if one particular committee had not looked at it. This is a committee whose members have not been addressing us—they have certainly not addressed anyone on our side of the House—to say that you cannot meet without our committee’s views. We have not been inundated with views from those committee members, which I think is significant.

The committee may meet tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, gave a look which asked whether it could alter its meeting. Maybe it could, but it has its rules. It knows the situation and the seriousness of it. The point is, it does not publish until Friday morning. The alternative is that we do not take this tomorrow, but reassemble on Friday, after we get the report, and do it then. That seems one way that we could have input from the committee. If your Lordships’ House really wants to come back on Friday and do it then, it should obviously support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True. If the committee, of which he speaks so highly, is content and has not brought representations, it would be completely in order. Our other committee will have done its work this afternoon and we should suspend Standing Orders, as has been recommended. We will not support the noble Lord, Lord True, should he push to a Division.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I seem to remember that we had quite a lot of debate in this House about the inclusion of the date of 29 March in the legislation. It astonishes me greatly to find that the Prime Minister can go to a meeting in Brussels and, suddenly, what is in statue is completely irrelevant. However, I do not propose to say anything about that because I strongly support my noble friend Lord True. Unlike the noble Baroness, he did not address whether we needed to change the date, and the reasons for changing it, but rather the procedure of our Standing Orders, which requires a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for whom I have enormous regard, has suggested that perhaps we should sit on Friday to see the committee’s report. That sounds a bit like the tail wagging the dog. There is an issue under our Standing Orders that we should receive a report from the committee. Reading the Explanatory Memorandum, I note that the United Kingdom sent a letter dated 22 March from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the EU. If he could write a letter to the EU, why could a letter not have been sent to the chairman of the joint committee, inviting it to meet to discuss the matter and report to this House? This may sound like a rather pedantic point—

European Council

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as we are about to have a debate, I think it would be useful for me to keep my comments for when I speak in that debate.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the same applies to me.

Leaving the European Union

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement on Brexit, which is clearly high on everyone’s agenda. I have sat beside my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon on previous occasions when she has rightly described the Government as, “living in the moment ... managing to get through another week …providing less clarity rather than more … failing to give any confidence that the PM knows where this is going or, more worryingly, ploughing on towards the cliff edge”. Indeed, as my noble friend has said, it seems that each week MPs are told to expect a meaningful vote the following week, only for it to be delayed again and again. Today, 31 days until our planned departure, this is even more true.

In fact, the most significant of the Prime Minister’s words were those briefed to journalists on her plane to the summit; namely, that there would be no meaningful vote in the Commons tomorrow but that again it would be delayed until 12 March, 17 days before 29 March, and even then with no guarantee that her deal would pass muster there. So, on 27 February, more than a month after the 21 January date in the withdrawal Act by which the Government should respond in the event of a deal not being possible or not being ratified, Mrs May still has not allowed the Commons a meaningful say on the next steps. It is the Prime Minister’s new date, that of 12 March, which changes the dynamic of Parliament and Government. That is because the Government seem to have given up their ability to govern and, as we heard over the weekend and last night, there are Cabinet and other Ministers who are prepared to resign or defy the Whip to end this footsie with a no-deal threat. They are right to insist that Parliament has to put an end to this reckless nonsense of threatening our own economic future—a sudden departure from a massive trading bloc into the unknown territory of WTO terms of trade with new tariffs and formalities as well as costs to industry—simply so that the Prime Minister can try and pull her recalcitrant ERGers into the government Lobby.

It was perhaps the threat from these Ministers and the likely success of the Cooper-Boles-Letwin amendment that forced today’s undertaking to ensure a vote such that we could,

“only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit”,

consent in the Commons. However, the undertaking is only to exclude departure on 29 March without a deal. It does not rule out the continued threat of a no-deal departure altogether. Indeed, the Prime Minister explicitly said that a subsequent Article 50 extension,

“cannot take no deal off the table”.

All she is promising is a temporary parliamentary block on no deal prior to reinstating it as a continuing threat during the months ahead. This will not do. Both this House and the other place have made it clear that this should never be our departure route. It is damaging and madness to contemplate otherwise, as many of her ministerial colleagues in this House and in the Commons know full well.

Moreover, businesses are clear: whatever the end outcome, they need time to plan and adjust. A no-deal outcome with no transition period simply does not allow for that. The cost to our citizens living in the EU could be enormous as their driving licences could be worthless in months, their health cover end, and their residency and employment status change. As the government analysis released at 5 pm this evening makes clear, a significant proportion of critical no-deal projects are not on track. It also says that despite the publication of no-deal guidance, a large proportion of businesses and citizens are not adequately prepared. In particular, food businesses are unprepared, with concerns that consumer panic will exacerbate any shortages. There will be a more severe impact in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain and potential gaps in data flows without an adequacy decision. The report’s conclusion is damning, saying that,

“the short time remaining before 29 March 2019 does not allow Government to unilaterally mitigate the effects of no deal.”

I have to say that the word “irresponsible” is too mild a term for the Prime Minister’s refusal to take no deal completely off the table.

Such is the stalemate—and worse, the crisis—in government over Brexit that tomorrow Labour will ask the Commons to vote on our alternative for a deal. We will remind the Government that of the 432 votes cast against the deal, only a minority were Conservative, focusing on the backstop. The Opposition’s 300 votes against the deal were about the political framework’s inadequacies. Yet the Prime Minister has sought only to buy off the Tory rebels, dismissing these other major concerns about our future relationship with the EU. So we will seek to do what the Government have failed to: win cross-party support for a closer relationship with the EU after Brexit. Should that fail, when the Government return to Parliament, be that on 12 March or next week, Labour will support a call for a public vote on Mrs May’s deal since in its unamended form it risks our country’s economic prosperity, internal security and global influence in a way that Parliament by itself must not be given the freedom to allow to happen.

Your Lordships will know that we preferred Parliament to oversee the Article 50 process and for the Government to craft a future relationship with the EU to maintain growth and prosperity which could command support in the Commons and the country. They have spectacularly failed to do so. And if the Government cannot command the confidence of Parliament on this issue, they should go back for a new public mandate.

We face testing times. Whatever the outcome in the Commons—to accept or to block no deal—legislation will, as has been said, be required with great speed, at the very least to change by SI the exit date to allow for an Article 50 extension. But more than that, other legislation is likely which, because of its importance, demands careful unhurried scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House therefore give her support to an extension of Article 50? We know that Cabinet responsibility seems to have broken down, so let her break free and give us that understanding. For the sake of business as well as for our own sake, will she allow that extension, and guarantee that there will be no attempt to fast-track vital Bills to make up for the shameful delay caused by the Government’s own failure in negotiation?

Will the noble Baroness also commit to allowing proper time for scrutiny and debate, and for consultation with relevant stakeholders on the detail of legislation? And will she take back to the Prime Minister our view that until no deal is ruled out, not just for 29 March but permanently, we will have little faith that she is putting our country ahead of her party.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The first interesting thing about it is the insight it gives us into the state of the negotiations between the UK the EU. We are told that they are “focused”, and “making good progress”, that they are “constructive” and “positive”, and finally that they are “continuing”—which is all sort of mildly encouraging. But following the passage of the Brady amendment a couple of weeks ago, the Government went back to Brussels to try to get amendments to the provisions relating to the backstop in one of three ways. The first was a time limit, the second a right for the UK unilaterally to withdraw from it, and the third was the development of so-called “alternative arrangements”, which would render the backstop unnecessary.

Of these, the EU made it clear from the start that Nos. 1 and 2 were non-negotiable, which left only No. 3 —alternative arrangements. The Statement is very clear about where negotiations on alternative arrangements have got to. The Prime Minister says that we have,

“agreed to consider a joint work stream to develop alternative arrangements … This work will be done in parallel with the future relationship negotiations … Our aim is to ensure that, even if the full future relationship is not in place by the end of the implementation period, the backstop is not needed because we have a set of alternative arrangements ready to go”.

The Prime Minister has therefore accepted that no concrete progress whatever will have been made on defining any alternative arrangements before 29 March. This means that, of the three possible ways of dealing with the backstop in a manner that would be acceptable to the Conservative Party and the DUP, none will have been achieved when the next meaningful vote takes place in a couple of weeks’ time. The only logical conclusion, given this failure to achieve anything, is that the Government will again lose a vote on their deal. It is against this background that the remainder of the Prime Minister’s statement needs to be judged.

It is crystal clear that the Prime Minister’s hope was to get to mid-March and, despite having failed to make substantive changes to the backstop, attempt to scare MPs into voting for a deal they do not support, by threatening them with crashing out of the EU a mere fortnight later if they rejected it. Faced with the Cooper-Letwin proposal, which would in those circumstances defer the withdrawal date, and a rebellion of Cabinet and more junior Ministers, she has today bowed to the inevitable and said that if the Commons voted against her deal and against no deal, she would put a further Motion to the House of Commons providing for an extension to Article 50.

The Prime Minister has said that the key votes will be on the 12 and 13 March at the latest. Why “at the latest”? Does the Prime Minister think there is any chance whatever of having an agreement with the EU that she would be able to bring back to the Commons next week? Whatever the exact timing, and whatever our concerns about the somewhat convoluted approach being proposed by the Prime Minister, that is a welcome recognition by her that the Cooper-Letwin Bill would otherwise pass, and that there is a majority in the Commons to extend Article 50. The challenge with which our colleagues in another place have to grapple is whether they trust the Prime Minister’s word or whether they want the assurance that the Bill would have provided. I believe that Oliver Letwin is happy to accept the Prime Minister’s assurance, but I am a bit unclear as to where Yvette Cooper has got to on that. We will just have to see how events pan out.

In any event, the Prime Minister’s principal argument —indeed, her only argument—against such a Bill is that it would tie the Government’s hands and have far-reaching constitutional implications. By this she means that the Commons would take back some control of the way in which it organises its business. Will the Leader of the House accept that for many of us, this seems a positive development, not a constitutional outrage?

If there is no Cooper Bill, it is highly likely that the Prime Minister’s Motion to defer Article 50 will pass on 13 March, but this is only phase 1 of getting out of the mess we are in. As Sarah Wollaston put it earlier today in responding to the Statement, we are only talking about:

“a short gangplank added to the cliff edge”.

Phase 2, and the only way of breaking the deadlock, is to put the Government’s deal to the people for their final decision, with an option to remain in the EU if they believe that that would be better for our economy, security and influence. Today the Prime Minister did a U-turn on extending Article 50. We now wait with eager anticipation for her next U-turn: to give the people a vote.