No-deal Update

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I commiserate with the Minister on having no holiday while the rest of us were away. I thank him for repeating the Statement, but it begs some serious questions. The whole Statement is predicated on the idea that we must leave by 31 October come what may, whatever the costs, whatever the damage to our security and economy and whether or not we have a deal. It seems that everyone bar the Government knows the costs of no deal, whether on UK citizens abroad, from investors already taking billions out of the UK, Toyota ceasing production on 1 November, food, medicines, arrest warrants, data flows or transport disruption, with chaos in Dover and Portsmouth. All of that is known. Alone among business, commentators and academics, only the Government downplay the risks.

Michael Gove told Andrew Marr that,

“everyone will have the food they need”,

with no shortages of fresh food, but the British Retail Consortium immediately retorted:

“It is categorically untrue that the supply of fresh food will be unaffected”.


The British Poultry Council warned that no deal would be catastrophic for consumers of poultry. Even the Government’s own Yellowhammer paper predicted that fresh food supply will decrease, with reduced availability and choice and increased prices, which will affect vulnerable groups.

What was the reason for Mr Gove’s statement to Andrew Marr? It cannot be that he was telling an untruth, because the Minister is an honourable man. It must be that he cannot understand, so let me spell it out. The fashion industry says that we would lose £900 million. The BMA predicts that leaving without a deal would dramatically worsen NHS winter pressures. The Government’s own assessment sees a possible 40% cut to medicines crossing the channel on 31 October, with significant disruption for up to 6 months, reducing our ability to prevent and control disease outbreaks.

There is more. The Yellowhammer report says that autumn and winter risks, such as flooding and flu, could be worsened by no deal. It says that on exit day, between a half and 85% of HGVs may not be ready for French customs and, with limited space in French ports, HGV flow could halve within one day, the worst disruptions lasting for up to three months. There would be queues in Kent, with HGVs possibly facing one and a half to two and a half days’ delay before being able to cross, as well as disruption to fuel distribution, and passenger delays at St Pancras, the channel tunnel and Dover. This is all from the Government: I am not inventing it.

Law enforcement data and information-sharing between us and the EU would be disrupted and, as there is no data agreement in place, the flow of personal data would be disrupted where an alternative legal basis is not in place.

In Northern Ireland, the Government’s “no new checks with limited exceptions” model from March to avoid an immediate return to a hard border is, say the Government, likely to prove unsustainable because of economic, legal and biosecurity risks, while disruption and job losses could result in protests and road blockages. As today’s Statement says, Ireland will have to impose checks on goods arriving from Northern Ireland, with enormous, irresponsible implications for the peace process.

Gibraltar will similarly see disruption to the supply of food and medicines, as well as delays of four-plus hours at the border for at least a few months for frontier workers, residents and tourists, with delays over the longer term likely to harm Gibraltar’s economy. Those are all quotes from the government paper, not from anyone else. Similarly, it says that Britons in Europe will lose their EU citizenship and can expect to lose associated rights and access to services.

The Government set out all those risks. Indeed, they had the honesty to admit that the poor,

“will be disproportionately affected by rises in the price of food and fuel”.

So why do the Government persist in pursuing a no-deal exit? Going back to Shakespeare, we know that the Ministers “are honourable men”, and “I will not do them wrong”, but they have some explaining to do. They state:

“Her Majesty’s government will act in accordance with the rule of law”,


but they fail to promise to obey the law, and with no deal they fail in the first obligation of a Government—to safeguard the security and welfare of the people.

The Statement talks about “trust in our democracy”. What trust can there be in a Government who prorogue Parliament to avoid scrutiny, who play loose and free with people’s futures and who seek to engineer an election rather than allow Parliament to pass a law? The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reminded us that it is the anniversary of the death of Cromwell, who too became a politician with rather dictatorial ideas beyond his station and was, I think, the last person to get rid of a Parliament that got in his way. I hope that we do not need to be reminded of that in the future.

Therefore, I am not very happy with the Statement but I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact of disruption to transport at Portsmouth on the flow of medicines? Secondly, what is their assumption of the risk of public disorder on exit day? Thirdly, what is the evidence that the Government’s “Get ready for Brexit” communications strategy will actually affect business preparedness, which they admit is currently very low? Frankly, the Government will have to do much better than they are currently doing if we are to be anywhere near being prepared to Brexit in an orderly manner.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I start by noting the fact that, after the welcome move of Dr Phillip Lee MP from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats, the Government have no parliamentary majority, let alone any majority for no deal.

Historians of Brexit will examine as a major theme how a party supposedly characterised by conservatism and caution about change got hijacked by radical and revolutionary forces that would make Marx and Trotsky blush. The marketing by Brexiters has morphed from a promise of sunlit uplands to at least a “smooth, orderly exit”, to the gritted teeth of “no deal is better than a bad deal”, to the reckless and irresponsible promotion of destruction, damage and chaos as an actual goal of government. Phrases such as “Do or die” or “Come what may”, which we heard this afternoon, show the incredibly cavalier attitude of the Government and the Prime Minister, who have no mandate whatever for no deal.

The contortions of Brexiters in trying to claim that the narrow leave majority in 2016 knowingly voted for a crash-out Brexit would be laughable were they not so despicable. The real interests of the economy, businesses, workers, citizens, consumers and patients are mere grist to the mill of a dogmatic, ideological obsession. As the TUC’s general-secretary Frances O’Grady has said, a no-deal Brexit will be a disaster for working families. The OBR tells us that the public finances will take a £30 billion hit, and I was interested in all the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I want to pick up one assertion in the Statement—that outside the EU,

“we can innovate more energetically in pharmaceuticals and life sciences”.

That is the total opposite of what the pharmaceutical industry and the research sector have constantly said for the last three years.

To achieve this disaster, the Government are wasting £6.3 billion. Just think what could be done to improve the lives of British people with that money and, for instance, to help the victims of the Bahamas hurricane. After the confusion and then U-turn on the end of free movement on 31 October, can the Minister specifically tell us how the absence of any transition and of a stable legal framework will help not only to ensure the rights of EU citizens in this country, where we already know that there are difficulties with the settlement scheme, but to improve the prospects for UK citizens in the EU 27? It is difficult to see.

The dishonesty of this whole process is shown by the fact that Mr Gove has refused to publish even what the FT called a “watered-down” version of the Government’s Operation Yellowhammer no-deal contingency plans,

“after ministers decreed that the findings would … alarm the public”.

Indeed, but it is a cover-up. It is rare that I applaud the Daily Mail but it has apparently obtained, I think, the whole document—at least an annexe—showing exactly how major disruption will be caused for months. How can a Government inflict that on the country?

The right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg outrageously accused a senior doctor who helped to write the Yellowhammer plan of fearmongering—a typical disparagement of experts—but it is legitimate to ask how many extra deaths the Government expect as a result of a lack of drugs and isotopes. I speak as someone whose husband’s life depends on insulin. Can the Minister please tell us the answer?

The Statement claims that,

“this Government are determined to secure our departure with a good deal”.

The former Chancellor tells us that that is nonsense, and even a story in today’s Telegraph says that it is untrue. As for the assertion that the Prime Minister has received a response from European leaders that they are “ready to move”, that is completely unconfirmed by the new noises coming out of Brussels. President Juncker has told the Prime Minister that the EU will look at proposals,

“as long as they are compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement”.

He added that the EU’s support for Ireland—that is, for the backstop—“is steadfast” and that a no-deal scenario will only ever be the UK’s decision, not the EU’s. The blame game is not working.

Meanwhile—I am coming to an end—I have seen an official document from last week about the work on alternative arrangements. It says:

“DExEU has been considering whether a paper consolidating the findings from all of the advisory groups should be published in late September/early October. However, we and other departments have cautioned against this given the potential negative impacts on the renegotiation with the EU and we understand No. 10 are in agreement that we are not in a position yet to publish anything”.


It is later explained that the complexity of combining all the aspects of claimed facilitation,

“into something more systemic and as part of one package is a key missing factor at present”.

I repeat: that document was published last week.

Finally, on the day after crashing out with no transition, the UK would have to come back to the negotiating table and pick up the bits from an even worse position. How would that improve the prospects of the country in the longer term? I hope that the Government can reassure us that, if the anti-no-deal Bill passes, they will obey it and that they will pull the £100 million being spent on the propaganda—I mean “information”—exercise as it will be unnecessary.

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, I first thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. I see that they have both been well rested over the summer and have returned in a suitably combative mood. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, back to her place on the Front Bench where she deserves to be. She is a worthy opponent and I for one would have been sorry to see her go. I am delighted to see her back.

A number of points were raised. I will first address the comments of both noble Baronesses about Operation Yellowhammer. I said in the Statement, but will say again, that Operation Yellowhammer is a series of planning assumptions based on a reasonable worst-case scenario. It is not—I repeat, not—a prediction of what might happen. It exists to underline government planning; it is a series of assumptions put together through a lot of work by independent experts. It is constantly revised as new information comes to light and new mitigations are put in place. The Cabinet Office’s Civil Contingencies Secretariat does the same thing in a number of different areas—on flooding, for instance. As it is predicted that we will have various flooding events, worst-case scenarios are considered: what they may involve and what we can do to mitigate them. The same thing is done in a lot of other areas that I could mention.

So, that is what it is: we use Operation Yellowhammer for planning assumptions. What is more useful for people is to know how they can mitigate any possible effects of no deal themselves, what changes businesses can bring about et cetera. The noble Baroness quoted a number of pathways from that; it is appropriate to bear in mind that the figures she cited are not predictions but reasonable worst-case scenarios to help us in our preparations to mitigate them.

With regard to food, there are often interruptions to the supply chain of foodstuffs, whether by the various strike actions of ferry operators, fishermen or farmers in France, or because of inclement weather conditions. But the UK food supply logistics chain is solid and robust, and we are, of course, working with the various companies to make sure supplies continue uninterrupted. The same thing applies to medicines: the Department of Health and Social Care has been making extensive preparations. It has contacted every supplier of medicines and medical devices in this country. We have helped them to increase their stockpiles—they already hold considerable stockpiles but we have helped to increase them further against any possible disruption. We have secured additional transport capacity should that that be required, and we are working extensively with companies to ensure there is no interruption.

I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness as it appears that the Labour Party is now in the position of being against everything. It is against a deal, against no deal, against revocation of Article 50, and mostly against a referendum. I know that the job of the Opposition is to oppose but I would like to think that eventually, at some stage, the Labour Party will decide to be in favour of something.

I turn to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I have been called many things in the course of these debates but “Marxist” and “revolutionary” are new ones, if she was indeed referring to me in those terms. It is, however, to the credit of the Liberal Democrats that at least they are honest about their intention to overturn the result of the referendum. Many of us suspect that this is also the intention of the Labour Party but that it has not yet—with one or two exceptions—got around to admitting it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also asked about free movement. Yes, as it currently stands under EU law, free movement will of course end on 31 October when we leave; the Home Secretary will say more about that shortly. With regard to negotiations, the noble Baroness has, as do I, extensive experience in dealing with various EU figures. She will know as well as I do that they have maintained religiously for months that not one dot or comma of the withdrawal agreement will be changed, yet when there is a different attitude from this Government and we make clear that we are prepared to leave anyway, suddenly President Macron and Chancellor Merkel demonstrate some movement. Private discussions and negotiations are continuing but the noble Baroness knows as well as I do that we are seeing some movement. Whether it will be enough we will have to wait and see, but we are working extensively and at pace to try to get a deal that we can put to the House of Commons so that we can leave with a deal. As I have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, that is our preferred outcome, but we have to be prepared to leave without a deal if it is not possible to obtain one.

Brexit: Discussions with the European Union

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

Informal discussions are always going on. The Prime Minister is in Brussels today for the European Council, where she will be having bilateral meetings with several other European leaders.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the various backers of Boris Johnson, such as Dominic Raab and David Davis, have backed him on the basis that we must leave the EU on 31 October. However, in the debate on Monday the putative future Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, refused to give such an absolute guarantee. He thought that leaving on 31 October was only “eminently feasible”. Could the Minister tell us what precisely is the Brexit policy of the person who looks likely to be the next Prime Minister?

[Lord Callanan]

No. [Laughter.]

British Citizens’ Rights

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, on timing, as Members of the House know, European elections were held between 23 and 26 May, and government activity needed to respect the purdah period imposed in respect of them. We are working hard to engage with other EU member states about how citizens’ rights will be protected in all scenarios. There were additional aspects that we wanted to include in the withdrawal agreement, which the EU would not allow, such as reciprocal voting rights, so we are pursuing that bilaterally with other EU member states. We have concluded three such agreements to date.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. He said that in a no-deal scenario, adopting citizens’ rights is far superior to 28 unilateral solutions. In reality, a no-deal scenario is in itself unacceptable as it will bring chaos and uncertainty, and it is outrageous that most of the Tory leadership candidates are championing it in what Rory Stewart rightly calls a “competition of machismo”. The choice should be between a withdrawal agreement and what is actually superior, which is to remain. A lot of the stress and hardship for EU citizens here and British citizens in the 27 is due to the Tory Party’s obsession with keeping no deal on the table.

It is not too late for the Government to do what they should have done three years ago, as many noble Lords opposite recognised, and issue an unconditional guarantee of the rights of EU citizens here. Will they now, even at this late stage, do that and stop making bargaining chips of people’s lives? Regarding British citizens in the 27, will they at least commit to paying for their healthcare until reciprocal healthcare arrangements are reached? To refuse to do so would be a shocking stab in the back for our fellow countrymen.

[Lord Callanan]

We are committed to respecting the rights of EU citizens. The noble Baroness will know that it was one of our priorities in the negotiations. It was the first issue to be concluded. If the EU matched our level of ambition in many areas, there would have been no more problems. We are continuing to pursue this issue. We have already issued, effectively, a unilateral guarantee. We will guarantee citizens’ rights in a no-deal scenario. The rights we have offered EU citizens are, in most cases, far superior to the rights that have been offered by other EU member states to UK citizens.

Brexit: Free Trade Agreement

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

We took the view that both sides would have had to compromise. The noble Baroness cited Conservative leader hopefuls so I will tell her what her leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said at the launch of his European election campaign: that a commitment to leave the EU was confirmed in the Labour Party manifesto and at the party conference. We seek to explore whether that really is the position of the Labour Party.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, this Question is a perfect illustration of the disdain that Brexiters have for expertise—as expressed at one point by a member of the Cabinet, Michael Gove, who dismissed experts—and their ignorance about how the EU and the WTO work. Even at this late stage, will the Government run a training session for Brexit supporters in both Houses, including Ministers, to remedy this deficiency in knowledge?

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

My Lords, I have listened with care to the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the intervention from my noble friend Lord Hailsham. I do not have my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s advantage because I have the misfortune of having trained and practised as a lawyer, so I am in that difficult circumstance. I am confused by the exchanges that have taken place. I draw only one inference from them: this appalling piece of legislation is totally misconceived. It seeks on the one hand indubitably to constrain the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister. That is its main purpose. Now we have amendment after amendment that seek to persuade us that it is only in some circumstances that the royal prerogative should be constrained and that in others it is absolutely necessary because, as the noble Lord just said, the Prime Minister must be able to make use of the royal prerogative when she is involved in negotiations of this kind. It is negotiations of this kind that the Bill is all about.

The fact is that the Prime Minister will be involved in negotiations about the date on which we exit the European Union, the conditions in which we do so and any terms that might be sought by the European Council to limit the extent to which we might be able to act in accordance with the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister will be engaged in negotiations of that kind. She ought to be able to exercise the royal prerogative when she engages in those negotiations, as the noble Lord said a moment ago. This ludicrous Bill, which seeks in part to restrain the royal prerogative and then to subtract from the extent to which it constrains it, is wholly misconceived and should never reach the statute book.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I could assist the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to see this situation in a different light when it comes to the European Council on Wednesday: as a happy blend of parliamentary accountability and government flexibility. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the combination of Amendments 5 and 7 supplies both legal and practical certainty. They perhaps take away the complication that might be in the minds of the Council on Wednesday night about what happens if the Prime Minister proposes or agrees to a different extension to what is being discussed in the other place.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is also right that there could be some discussion about the difference in wording between Clause 1(7), about a proposal, and a scenario of agreement by the Prime Minister at the European Council. We need to remember that the specific context that is being addressed by Amendment 7 is envisaging what happens in those negotiations at the European Council. Like the noble and learned Lord, I look forward to the response from the Minister—

[A noble Lord]

It is not the Minister.

[Baroness Ludford]

Perhaps if noble Lords listened to the end of a sentence they would understand what the speaker was saying.

I look forward to the response about the wording which the Government have apparently discussed regarding an amendable Motion if there is no deal on Thursday, as well as to the response from the Bill’s sponsor, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I think we should remember that there is no precedent, no parallel, to the situation in which we have found ourselves in recent weeks. As we said at Second Reading last Thursday night, a group of very courageous Members from both sides of the House, and from minority parties, came together to fill a vacuum. After that, the Prime Minister made her welcome overture to other parties, something that should have been done after the general election when we lost our majority.

That changed the situation. Nevertheless, I believe that those who promoted this Bill were entirely justified in so doing. We have had this welcome development from the Prime Minister, so it is entirely sensible that the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should be accepted by this House. They give the Prime Minister, in this, the ultimate hour—because that is what we are talking about—the freedom to be able to negotiate on Wednesday. It would be manifestly absurd if she did not have that freedom.

We should accept these amendments. I think they improve the Bill. I very much hope that those in another place accept them in the spirit in which they have been moved, and then, perhaps, we can all move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention. I am most obliged to him as a lawyer for backing up my case—and doing so for free. We should treat the amendment very seriously. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. We have not heard a squeak from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who is apparently the midwife responsible for the Bill.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, our position is similar to that of the Opposition, as outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We on these Benches would of course normally want to uphold the affirmative procedure; after all, we fought hard for it in the EU withdrawal Act. However, we are in exceptional times and it would be absurd for us to get to the end of the week with procedure having got in the way of good legal order.

[Lord Faulks]

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness was inclined to agree with the removal of Clause 2. Indeed, she said so on the basis that the process could be done “expeditiously”, as was done when the date was changed from 29 March to 12 April. Has she changed her mind?

[Baroness Ludford]

I was reflecting the position and view of my colleagues in the other place. As I said, in principle, we prefer the affirmative procedure. However, I would also prefer to avoid the catastrophe of no deal. Therefore, it would be ridiculous for us to get to the end of week and be prevented from amending exit day by the inhibitions of procedure. I take the point that negative procedure can be prayed against but that risk is relatively minimal.

It is true that Clause 2 is headed, “Procedure for ensuring domestic legislation matches Article 50 extension”. If the Article 50 extension has been agreed to, it is in EU law. I remember the Government being slightly coy two weeks ago in acknowledging that EU law trumps domestic law. Our amending exit day to accord with the date of an extension is an essential tidying-up exercise in domestic law; otherwise, discordance between the two dates leads to uncertainty. It is essential that exit day accords with the Article 50 extension.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

The noble Baroness was rather dismissive a moment ago about the inhibitions of procedure. Is this whole Bill not designed to put such inhibitions in place? That is what we are discussing. That is what it is all about.

[Baroness Ludford]

I have talked about the specific context. If we get to the end of this week, it would be absurd for us to be prevented from preventing no deal because of the need for an affirmative resolution. That is a very specific scenario which justifies the negative procedure in this case.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, a few days ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, while hurrying us along, said that she was prepared to sit right through the night and that breakfast would be provided. Our Easter Recess has been removed for the time being. I and, I am sure, all noble Lords are quite prepared to sit on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or whatever it takes.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support the Bill and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for taking up the mantle of introducing it in this House. I also thank Members of the other place, the right honourable Yvette Cooper and the right honourable Sir Oliver Letwin. I was distressed to hear the attacks being made by Members on the Benches opposite on Sir Oliver Letwin because, as far as I am concerned, these colleagues of ours in the other place are doing a great public service.

We need this Bill as an insurance policy against a no-deal Brexit. Even though the Prime Minister has said that she intends to seek a longer extension, it is essential to give the House of Commons a role in that process; namely, mandating the Government and ensuring the accountability of the Government to the House of Commons so that it can take proper control of the process, which is what has been wanted by all sides over the past three years. We should not be in a situation where this country slips off the cliff edge of no deal either through intent or by accident. I am afraid that the Prime Minister has blown hot and cold on no deal, so there is an issue as regards the confidence and indeed the trust that we can have that the policy will not flip-flop. We also need to ensure that the Prime Minister goes on pursuing a straight course.

The impact of no deal would be very severe. We have heard that from the CBI, the TUC and from the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill. We have heard about a 10% increase in food prices, a possible recession, customs delays and bankruptcies among businesses.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, are these not the same people who warned us, when we voted three years ago, that pandemonium would break out? Further, are not some of them, like the CBI, the same people who said that we must join the euro—and continue to say that as well?

[Baroness Ludford]

I think that the noble Lord is somewhat out of date. There has been a serious impact on the economy. As a result of the Brexit vote, we have lost around 2.5% of GDP, even though we are still in the EU. We are down by around £600 million a week.

As I was saying, there are already shortages of medicines, and that will get worse. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not with us now, suggested in a debate we had a couple of weeks ago that I was wrong to draw attention to the problem of people not getting essential medicines. These stories continue to appear, and they are very real. The NHS has not stockpiled everything because some medicines such as short-life isotopes cannot be stockpiled. It is therefore irresponsible to contemplate no deal. There would also be effects on our security and on Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has talked about the issues as regards the Northern Ireland border and possible direct rule.

Last night, Mr Mark Francois MP said in the other place that the Bill is a “constitutional outrage”, a phrase which was echoed by some speakers to the amendments to the Business Motion this afternoon. What in my opinion would be a constitutional, political, economic and social outrage would be for a Government, any Government, knowingly to inflict avoidable damage on their own citizens through a catastrophic and damaging crash-out from the European Union; hence the need to make sure we avoid a no-deal situation. This Bill assists in that process.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a question of weighing the short-term inconveniences against the long-term picture? The whole point about the long term, given the appalling economic record of the EU, is that our economy is likely to grow much less while we are part of the EU or closely related to it than if it is free.

[Baroness Ludford]

That is not the consensus of reputable economists, who all say that we will do worse outside the EU. Some of those who say that we will be fine under no deal are not the vulnerable people who will suffer in a crash-out situation. They do not have millions stashed away.

Clause 2 would enable exit day to be changed by the Government subject only to the negative procedure. We agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it would be better if the clause was removed from the Bill. We dealt expeditiously with the change from 29 March to 12 April in the statutory instrument, and there is no reason to think that we would not be able to do so again if required. It is a domestic law issue; if we get an extension, it is not a question of whether we are in the EU but a question of necessary housekeeping, and it can be done.

I do not want to go on about a people’s vote, but the noble Lord, Lord Howard, referred to the will of the people. It is time to update our knowledge of the will of the people. Three years on, it is not reasonable or reliable to rely on what a different electorate said in 2016. We hope and expect that the Prime Minister will seek an extension, but she should use that extension to get an update of the verdict of the people.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Will the noble Baroness comment on whether she is satisfied that the drafting of the Bill is watertight and will guarantee that, if it is passed in this way, there will be no way for the Government to escape the implications of their responsibilities under the Bill?

[Baroness Ludford]

It would take a braver woman than I to say that it is watertight. I do not know whether there is anything behind the noble Lord’s question and that he knows something that I do not, so I will rely on the better legal minds which will follow to answer that question. However, I have no reason to think that the drafting has not been carefully looked at.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot resist rising to support this statutory instrument. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has already mentioned, last May a very sensible cross-party amendment was carried convincingly by this House, tabled by myself, the noble Baroness, and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Hannay. Therefore it had complete cross-party support. It was very unfortunate that the Government did not accept it. It was carried here but rejected in the other place.

At the time, the Government stated that they had no intention, under any circumstances, of seeking an extension. However, when first tabled in the other place, the original Bill—subsequently an Act—did not include a date. I fear that the date was only inserted at the behest of the European Research Group. We in this House argued that there was no point in putting in a date when it might have to be changed in circumstances which none of us could, at that moment, foresee. Now that the Government have agreed an extension with the European Union, clearly this statutory instrument must be passed. The Minister has already explained the legal chaos which would be created, now that it is agreed with the European Union, if the exit date were not to be changed in our domestic Act of Parliament. I hope the Minister will accept that point when he winds up.

Although the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was a co-signatory with me, I very much regret that I am unable to support her amendment to the Motion. We all have our views about the way the negotiations have been handled and the excessive delays which have occurred, but at this point, we really need resolution, and we must pass the statutory instrument. I hope the House of Commons will, in the next few days, reach an agreed position. If I was there, I would still support the Prime Minister’s deal. Should that not carry, I hope some alternative proposal comes forward. At this moment, we must have clarity for our citizens and our businesses, and, in my opinion, we must support this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this statutory instrument as a necessary measure to prevent confusion and uncertainty, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, have said, if the Government had listened to this House when it advised against putting in a fixed date, life would have been considerably easier. Both 29 March and the constant reiteration of the commitment to no extension were ideological fixations. Now, two of those are down out of three. I am looking forward to a Government U-turn on a people’s vote. That would make the trio.

We are sympathetic to the sentiments in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I cannot improve upon what she said about the unfortunate way in which the negotiations have been conducted. This is not the place to go on at length about that, but the mess we are now in was predictable and, indeed, predicted. We agree that it would be very odd if the Government said that while they felt instructed by the people, they defied the will of the House of Commons, and indeed, as we have had cause to say before, they refuse to get an update on the will of the people from 2016—which, of course, amounted to only 37% of the people. All the indications are that views have evolved.

The Government have allowed themselves multiple bites at the cherry, as MPs have, but will not allow the people even one chance to rethink. That is very arrogant. We on these Benches would of course want to add to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, by ensuring that whatever version of Brexit comes out as the top preference of MPs should then be put back to the people, for them to have the final say on whether they support it or wish to opt to remain.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is having some fun today, expressed himself astonished yesterday that,

“the Prime Minister can go to a meeting in Brussels and, suddenly, what is in statute is completely irrelevant”.—[Official Report, 26/3/19; col. 1719.]

It is not quite like that. MPs voted for an extension to Article 50 and, for once, the Prime Minister did what the House of Commons told her to. She requested an extension, which became the European Council decision of 22 March. Since we are therefore still in the EU until at least 12 April, EU law is supreme over domestic law. That is how it works. I felt an intervention coming somehow.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The point I was making was that the Prime Minister went to Brussels and made a request, which was refused. She was offered two dates and signed away the effect of the legislation without coming back to Parliament and asking it to express a view. I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that that is an extraordinary constitutional position.

[Baroness Ludford]

I think the noble Lord’s quarrel is with the Prime Minister.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Yes.

[Baroness Ludford]

It is that, rather than with anything I have said.

I noted that while on Monday there was an insistence from the government Benches that this decision by the European Council represented international law, at least by yesterday things had moved on somewhat when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred to EU and international law. I am, however, puzzled by her insistence that the European Council decision and the UK’s agreement to it constitutes a binding agreement in EU and international law. It seems to me that that decision is simply a binding legal act under EU law, to which the UK is now and at least until 12 April subject. It just seems to be difficult for the Government to straightforwardly acknowledge this, presumably for political reasons.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will speak to the issue that he raised yesterday about the legality of the two alternative exit dates and I will leave that to him. From these Benches, we can accept the convenience of needing only one statutory instrument, and not potentially two, to cover both the scenarios envisaged in the European Council decision.

Finally, I want to ask about the position on the European Communities Act. I cannot remember whether I asked this yesterday or the day before. The Explanatory Memorandum to the present regulations says:

‘“Exit day’ is the day by reference to which provisions of the 2018 Act, including the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 … take effect or come into force”,


but that is not my understanding. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act says that the repeal of the European Communities Act takes effect on exit day. My understanding is that an SI is needed to bring that into force; indeed, the briefing from the Library says:

“This provision of the EUWA”—


namely, the repeal of the European Communities Act—

“has not yet been brought into force”.

So even beyond exit day, unless there is an SI to bring into force the repeal of the ECA, the ECA will continue. Can someone explain how that interacts with these regulations? Even if you change exit day, do you still need an SI to bring in the repeal of the European Communities Act? I look forward to the clarification which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, who is looking impatient, will be able to give me.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and I thank him for addressing the legal question I raised yesterday. I am satisfied that these regulations are valid; the legal issue is whether exit day is specified in the statutory instrument when it refers to two possible dates. I agree that that is so: it is specified, and for this reason. It seems to me that the purpose of the power to amend the date of our exit, as expressly stated in Section 20(4)(a) of the 2018 Act, is to ensure that domestic law on exit day is consistent with our treaty obligations. This SI accurately implements in domestic law the current treaty obligations in the light of the extension of the Article 50 period. Unhappily, that still involves more than one possibility as to the future, and the SI accurately reflects the reality under EU law.

There is a risk that a court might take a different view on the validity of the SI; I would not expect it to do so. I am, however, surprised that Ministers did not adopt the simpler, risk-free option of specifying 12 April as exit day, since they have ample powers further to amend exit day if appropriate. That is especially so when there is a third possibility recognised under the EU decision to which the SI refers. The EU decision says that if the withdrawal agreement is not approved by the House of Commons by this Friday, the Article 50 period is extended until 12 April. It adds:

“In that event, the United Kingdom will indicate a way forward before 12 April 2019 for consideration by the European Council”.


If that occurs, and if agreement is then reached on the way forward, it may involve an exit day different from either 12 April or 22 May: that, of course, would require another SI.

I understand that the noble and learned Lord, the Advocate-General for Scotland, will be replying to this debate for the Government. I have a question for him which builds on the question put at the end of her speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. As a matter of domestic law, exit day is highly significant under the 2018 Act for various purposes, but one of the central functions of exit day is given accurately in paragraph 6.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Section 1 of the 2018 Act repeals the European Communities Act 1972 on ‘exit day’, whilst the saving and incorporation of EU law into domestic law (known as “retained EU law”) … take effect on and after ‘exit day’”.


Various provisions of the 2018 Act were brought into force under Section 25 of that Act when it was passed. Those provisions include Section 20, which defines exit day and confers the power exercised in this statutory instrument to amend exit day. Also commenced and brought into force when the 2018 Act was passed were Sections 8 to 11 and other provisions which confer powers on Ministers to make regulations such as those we have been scrutinising in recent weeks. There have also been more recent commencement regulations, such as SI 808/2018, which provide for the bringing into force of other provisions of the 2018 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

Does the noble Lord accept that the Prime Minister went to Brussels because the House of Commons, which is accountable to the people, voted for an extension?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Indeed, it suggested to, or instructed, my noble friend the Prime Minister to go to Brussels and ask for an extension, but we got two dates and diktat about what we had to do about them. That is a completely different proposition. I do not suppose that we will get another coalition Government but I must say something to the Opposition Front Benches, which may take pleasure in what is happening in the other place. A group of Conservative MPs has, extraordinarily, handed power to Jeremy Corbyn and the Scottish nationalists and worked with the Speaker of the House of Commons, in breach of convention. Today, at the other end of the building, the Executive is the House of Commons. Indeed, such is its enthusiasm for this new state of affairs that it has extended this situation until Monday—and there is nothing to stop it doing so until Tuesday or Wednesday. Moreover, it is reported that that same Speaker—again, against convention—is preventing the Prime Minister bringing her deal before the House of Commons again because it has been considered before, yet the Cooper-Boles amendment gets presented again and again. I rest my case: we find ourselves in an unpleasant place, which has come about because of a conspiracy by remainers.

Brexit: Petition to Revoke Article 50 Notification

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

Of course we respect everybody who signed the petition. It is indeed an impressive number of people, but the noble Baroness was a member of the Blair Government when 750,000 people marched against the Iraq war. We know the result of that. In this country, we have government by the ballot box and by Act of Parliament.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, how can the Government keep parroting that the will of the people is the same as it was three years ago when the electorate has changed, nearly 7 million people expressed themselves on the march, the petition wants to stop Brexit and polls consistently show a remain majority? If the Government really respected the people, would they not ask them for an update on their views?

[Lord Callanan]

We have explored this issue many times in response to the noble Baroness. We respect the result of the referendum, which was the largest participatory democratic exercise ever carried out in this country, and we are committed to implementing that result.

Brexit

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I intend to be relatively brief. I hope I will be, not just because it is getting late, or because I have nothing new to say—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, teased me for saying that in our last debate—but because a lot has changed. It would take me a very long time to get out of my system what I really feel about the incompetent and partisan way that this Government have behaved in the last three years—with their red lines, their appeal only to leave voters, and their prioritising of unity within the Tory party, which does not seem to have been a great success. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who said that all of this has brought us to a state of national humiliation. We are in big trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, said.

One reason that I do not want to go on at too much length is because I agree with so many who spoke earlier in this debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Lord Hannay, Lord Kerslake and Lord Ricketts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I was struck particularly by the mention of patriotism and of the colleagues of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It reminded me of the 97 year-old veteran who was at the march on Saturday. If I recall correctly, one of his tasks in the war was digging people out of the bomb-hit city of Coventry, but his conclusion from his wartime experience and the medals that he was awarded was to say “never again”. We must have the European Union to build peace, security and prosperity.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, that fear of splitting the Conservative Party has been the guiding force over the last three years. Obviously, not being in the Tory party, I can only empathise, rather than share the pain that must be felt by relatively reasonable people within that party. The complete loss of Cabinet collective responsibility has been the most dismaying. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly highlighted the existence of a party within a party—the ERG. Obviously, if we had a decent electoral system, those people would have to stand under their own banner and not that of the Conservative Party.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, highlighted, Saturday was a great day. It was good-humoured and well behaved; there was not a single incident that required the attention of the police, just like in October. Those commentators who said the mood was slightly different from that in October were probably right. It was very serious and determined, as well as enjoyable.

I was interested to hear Mark Field MP, who is a Minister, say that he could envisage supporting the revocation of Article 50. Perhaps that has to do with the high level of support in his constituency for the petition. Cleverer people than I have analysed those figures for all the constituencies; no doubt, there will be some very thoughtful MPs looking at those figures. In many cases, the number of those who signed the petition is greater than the majority that MPs enjoy.

The Prime Minister is showing contempt for both people and Parliament. She keeps invoking the will of the people but refuses to check whether, nearly three years on, with 1 million people marching, 5.5 million people petitioning to revoke Article 50, and polls showing a majority support for remain, their views have evolved. She allows herself so many bites at the cherry but she will not allow voters a single reassessment, which is quite arrogant. She also said she will take no notice of indicative votes, which continues her high-handed attitude towards the House of Commons. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and as my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham both stressed that the 2016 referendum result is not a mandate for what is happening now on Brexit. No one could possibly have wanted to arrive in this situation. It should not be a problem to ask voters whether this still represents their views. Surely the people’s vote has to be between whatever deal MPs agree and remain. To those who say that no deal would need to be on the ballot paper, I ask this: what is no deal? What does it consist of? How do you describe it? I really do not think that that is a runner.

If Brexiters are so sure that leave would still win—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that if it did, that would be the end of it, perhaps for a generation—they should have no problem holding another referendum. What are they afraid of? We need a long enough extension of Article 50—for four or five months, say—to allow a people’s vote.

I believe that a lot of leave voters were protesting against the system in 2016, and most of that protest had nothing whatever to do with the EU. I do not deny that immigration was a factor, although three years on it has become less of a factor. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green, that any consideration of continuing free movement must be looked at in the round, along with the fact that British citizens are being denied free movement and the opportunities they expected to have, particularly young people and those who wanted to retire to, for example, France or Spain. It is a two-way street and we need to look at it entirely in the round, as well as reflecting the huge contribution that EU citizens make to this country, not just economically but socially and culturally.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, that we need to focus on post Brexit, but we might define that term differently. I mean that, even if it is only clinging on to nurse for fear of something worse, we should remain in the EU; I think he means we should exit and then deal with all the other problems. There are so many crucial needs in this country. One of the tragedies of the past three years is how all our energy, capacity and thinking have been taken up by Brexit. I feel that myself. When I left the European Parliament, I was really hoping to do things other than EU affairs—I do have other interests, as it happens—but this has been a straitjacket from which it has been difficult to escape. But of course we will have less money to pursue those other things, whether it is social care, decent housing, better skills training or youth services. Talk to anybody in the area of knife crime and you will learn that it is not just the police but the lack of money for schools and youth services which is totally undermining the ability to deal with that terrible problem. By post Brexit, therefore, I mean once the country has liberated itself from this disastrous exercise.

I apologise that I have not been as brief as I thought I would be. I am grateful that the Prime Minister confirmed that the extension knocks out the 29 March date. She may be right that there would be legal confusion about the UK’s ability to implement EU law, but we would still be in the EU because of the European Council decision on the extension. Can the Minister confirm that in fact the repeal of the European Communities Act under Section 1 of the EU withdrawal Act has not been brought into force yet, the same as the repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Act? An SI is needed for that, and that SI has not gone through, and so the European Communities Act is still in force.

I am also pleased that the Prime Minister’s announcement today, on 25 March, marks the anniversary of the treaty of Rome. There seems to be something significant about this coincidence. Can the Minister clarify the categorisation of the European Council decision as “international law”? Surely it is EU law, unless I have missed something.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not in fact ruled out no deal. I am afraid that that is an illustration of her tendency to be not entirely straight and somewhat manipulative. On one side, she said that no deal had been ruled out but on the other that it had not. She said, “Let me be clear”, then was nothing of the sort. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, needs to clarify whether she really meant that no deal could be chosen only by an affirmative process.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Cormack, reminded us that no deal would have a catastrophic effect. One thinks particularly of people with serious medical conditions such as epilepsy or cancer or who are having dialysis, who are terrified. You see this all the time on social media. Some of them are unable to get their supplies now. What will happen is frightening. It is unbelievable that any Government would impose this fear and anxiety on their citizens.

[Lord Lilley]

Did the noble Baroness not hear me read out the assurance from the Department of Health that there would be no interruption of supplies? Why is she indulging in this disgraceful scaremongering of vulnerable people?

[Baroness Ludford]

I follow people who report their own experience of going to the pharmacist and finding already that they cannot get their supplies. I am sorry, but whatever assurances the Government give, I am personally at the point where I believe the individual patients rather than the Government.

We need a longer extension to be able to hold a people’s vote. If we have to participate in European elections, that is fine with these Benches. I would not be entirely surprised if some legal political fix will eventually be found because everyone is ignoring the opinion from the European Parliament legal service that says that we must hold European Parliament elections but if we do not it will not invalidate the legality of the new European Parliament. That seems a straw in the wind that might point to a different solution. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Brexit: No-deal Preparations

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

Well, of course we have been endeavouring to find a deal acceptable to Parliament. We have spent two years negotiating it. But I repeat that it is the legal default, and until there is another deal in place, or another decision is taken, we will continue to prepare, because that is the responsible thing to do. I remind the Labour Party that it voted against the deal we have negotiated, and so far we have seen no constructive suggestions from the party as to what would replace it. I think Labour has said that it agrees with the withdrawal agreement, while continuing to vote against the deal.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

First, can the Minister tell us why the Government are not pursuing the route they said last week that they would follow, notably in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lidington. He said that if Parliament had not agreed the deal by today, a long extension would be sought. Is not the Prime Minister siding with the Brexiters and sticking with her over-the-cliff strategy, rather than trying to avoid it?

Secondly, the Government say that any agreed extension would not change the legal default of leaving the EU without a deal, presumably on 29 March. Surely if there was an extension, we would remain in the EU under EU law. If there was no SI to change the exit date, we might lack a domestic legal framework to give effect to our EU membership obligations. Can the Minister confirm whether my legal understanding is correct that since EU law is supreme over domestic law, we would still be in the EU if there is an extension?