European Union: Final Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 26th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I very much remember the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to our debates on the Article 50 Act. As I just explained, a commitment given by a Minister at the Dispatch Box is and remains binding. The noble Lord refers to legislation that is currently in another place and will proceed here. Clearly it is a matter for discussions in that House to proceed, as they may do in Committee and beyond, but the position is clear: there is no confusion about the meaningful votes being offered. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State answered questions on hypothetical issues of what happens in negotiations in the European Union, he gave an accurate answer. He made it clear that we expect to have an agreement by October next year, because that is what the European Union wants. It is what all of us need, so that not only we but other members of the European Union can properly consider their views on that agreement.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we are discovering that the assertion of taking back control of parliamentary sovereignty at Westminster was a myth in the mouth of the Brexiteers, but is it not right that the final say must surely rest with the voters? As the real facts about Brexit emerge, the public should have the right to reflect and think again about whether Brexit suits them. That would truly be respecting the will of the people. A refusal to give the voters a final say would be deeply undemocratic. Will the Government now pledge that they will respect the voters and give the final say to the people?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

We respect entirely that the democratic process means that in a referendum people express their view. More than 1 million more people voted to leave than to remain. We gave the undertaking that we would respect the result of that referendum and, as I gently reminded the noble Baroness the other week, the fact is that the only major party to stand at the last election on the basis of having a second referendum suffered the penalty of almost total loss.

Brexit: Financial Settlement

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 12th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

What a very interesting idea my noble friend puts forward—I hope the EU Commission is listening very carefully. However, he makes the serious point. When we issued the Statement back in July, we made it clear that we will honour our obligations, both legal and moral, to the European Union but also that that is reciprocal. There are obligations from the EU to us, including the valuation of assets. It is a technical matter and part of the discussions. I urge the Commission to get on with the work of carrying out that valuation and considering a fair apportionment of the amount.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the wording of the Florence speech may have been seen as helpful here, but I fear that in Brussels and Berlin it was seen as opaque in its real commitments to the budget hole and obligations such as pensions—where I declare an interest—and future relations. If we are hoping that the European Council next week will at least widen a little the mandate of Mr Barnier to prepare for phase 2, would it not be wise to put some figures on those sums?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, this is a technical matter which will decide the future not only of this country but the rest of Europe. One does not go into that kind of negotiation by just opening the doors of the Treasury and offering a certain number of millions or billions of pounds. What we will do is look very carefully at the paper put forward by the Commission during the summer, in which it set out the list of treaties and the clauses of those treaties and regulations that it says form the legal basis of the money that should be paid by this country. We want to be able to face the British people and say: this is our obligation, this is why we agreed to pay it, and we can justify every part of that money.

Brexit

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, when we triggered Article 50 it was at a time when we had already heard extensive analysis of a range of issues that we knew would be the subject of discussion in reaching an agreement on our withdrawal from the European Union. That includes, as I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box in the past, an analysis of more than 50 sectors of the economy. An extraordinary amount of detailed work has been carried out, which is why we have been able to publish a raft of papers this summer.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister allowed herself to think again about holding an early general election. Why will she therefore not allow people to think again about the advisability of Brexit once they know the facts?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness, who is also a friend, that her party, which stood for that in the last election, got hammered.

Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I was alluding to the fact that there are indeed obligations from the EU as well as obligations from the UK to the EU. As part of that process it will be important to have a valuation of assets.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, in the debate last night, one of the most interesting contributions was from the noble Baroness’s predecessor as Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley. He said:

“We must be honest about the task we face—its complexity and scale. We must be honest about the need to compromise and about the lack of time that we … have to come to an agreement on our withdrawal”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; col. 2431.]


Are the Government going to take his advice?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we listened to his advice when he was a Minister; we still listen to it now.

Update on the Progress of EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am afraid the Government have shown themselves to be insufficiently prepared and, at times, even undisciplined and undignified in throwing insults at Brussels. They have rather squandered the 14 months since the referendum, including an unnecessary court battle to prevent parliamentary accountability and three months on an unnecessary general election.

There have been some steps forward, with the useful publication of the position papers—albeit in recess and given to the media several hours before they were made available to members of the public, including parliamentarians—and the acceptance of a transitional period, although without specifying how long the Government want that to be and with no acceptance of whether it would mean being in the customs union and the single market. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I was intrigued by the reference in the Statement to it not being in either of our interests to run aspects of the negotiations twice. The only way I can see that happening, unless the Minister can contradict me, is if we stay in the customs union and single market during the transitional period and in the long term. There has also been some progress on EU citizens and an acceptance of some role for the European Court of Justice. In July, there was an acceptance of financial obligations from commitments made while we are a member state. These acceptances, however, were all inevitable. It would have been better if they had not had to be dragged out of the Government.

There are still, however, several impractical red lines and there have been some rather backward steps. The Home Office has sent letters to a significant number of EU nationals threatening them with immediate deportation, which hardly makes for good mood music for the negotiations, apart from being obviously distressing for those individuals. We have had a repeat from the Prime Minister of the “no deal is better than a bad deal” mantra, which we had hoped had been put to bed. There was an agreement on the sequencing of the talks; now that acceptance is put up in the air again by the Government. We understood that the Government had accepted the principle of the financial liabilities; now all that is also being challenged.

This fickleness and lack of reliability is fomenting some distrust of the Government. It makes it much harder for the EU to agree a linkage between the elements of the Article 50 divorce arrangements and the future relationship. For instance, if the Government would state the period of transition they seek, the status, in terms of the customs union and the single market, and what continuing contributions they propose to make in respect of that status, that might facilitate an agreement on the liabilities or the existing commitments. If the Government said that they wanted to stay in the customs union and the single market, that would at a stroke resolve many of the worries over Ireland we are in the course of debating this afternoon.

While the Government rather go round in circles, businesses are having to make relocation decisions now, affecting jobs, the pound drops and the economy slows. The Government keep reproaching the EU for not coming up with concrete suggestions for flexible solutions, but if the Government cannot specify what end goal they are seeking, how can we expect Brussels to come up with flexibility to fit what the Government want? It is Catch-22.

It was suggested that the customs solutions put forward in the paper about three weeks ago were innovative, but they were not practical or thought through, and even the Secretary of State called them blue-sky thinking a mere couple of weeks after the paper was published. That hardly gives a good solid basis on which Brussels can engage with those suggestions. If the Government have a strategy, as opposed to a series of delays, reactive statements and outbursts, will they share that strategy with Parliament and the British public? Are we not secondary to an audience of the ideologically obsessed hard Brexiteers in the Tory party’s ranks and outside them who are not happy? I see that Arron Banks is trying to unseat Tory MPs, including Amber Rudd. Perhaps that accounts for the Prime Minister repeating the “no deal” mantra. It is unhelpful and petulant to raise, even as a possibility, a chaotic, “falling off a cliff-edge” Brexit. Will the Government level with Parliament and the public and be honest about the fact that, as we are proposing to leave the EU club, the UK cannot expect to retain the full benefits of club membership? We cannot have our cake while eating it. The fact that they need us as much as we need them is untrue, and we need to compromise. It is up to Britain to set out in detail its preferred destination and how to get there. As one journalist put it:

“The departing ship is watched”—


by the EU—

“with both sadness and concern, but there is no rush to take on its navigation problems”.

Will the Government please tell us their proposed destination and how they are going to navigate?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The strategy of this Government is clear, straightforward and pragmatic. It is to ensure that we build a deep and special partnership with our closest neighbours and allies which is of benefit to the people of the EU 27 and the UK after we leave. This is the most momentous form of negotiation that I have experienced in my lifetime. It is a privilege to be at the Department for Exiting the European Union and to see the hard work that has been going on to deliver that path towards a successful legal decoupling while still remaining closest friends. Considerable progress has been made. I thank both noble Baronesses for their contributions and their questions and I will seek to amalgamate my answers to cover them.

The nature of negotiation which has been carried on by this country over centuries has varied from being on the battlefield in Tudor times against some who are now our dearest neighbours, Portugal and Spain, to negotiations, a matter of finding methods of agreement of convergence—not dictating, saying that we will agree to this only, but setting out reasoned proposals. That is work that has been done. There is going to be no delay. The department has been working with other departments across Whitehall to look at the ways in which we can publish our proposals and give options for the negotiations. That is clear in the customs paper, which proposes two options, one a highly streamlined approach which would ensure that the customs arrangement works as well as can be done with modern technology, and the other a new customs partnership with the EU. I heard what the noble Baronesses said about the fact that the Secretary of State has pointed out that there are problems in some of those, because there are always problems in finding new ways to deliver customs agreements, but they are not insuperable. That is why the pace of the negotiations has been deep and fast. Michel Barnier and we have made it clear that we are ready to make even more dates available for negotiations, if that is helpful, because we want to continue to make the progress that has already been achieved.

There is more to be done; that is absolutely right. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the Irish Minister saying that the Northern Ireland paper needs a lot of work. We agree, but we also say that we have made great progress, and Ireland agrees. We have received congratulations from Ireland about the progress that has been made. The summer papers are not vague. They provide a basis for negotiation, not for dictation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about our position on a transitional agreement and implementation. Our position is set out clearly. From having carried out all the consultation with business—not only those businesses based here but international businesses—and consumers, we appreciate that there could be different lengths of time that different organisations and businesses need to achieve movement to a new relationship with the EU. Therefore, it is only by carrying out our negotiations with the European Union on our future relationship that we can finalise how long that implementation period would be. We have been clear that it will not go beyond the date of the next election.

With regard to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about publishing Treasury analysis, I say that it is not usually published. It is for government use, but I have made it clear before that we have carried out analysis of more than 50 sectors, and we will publish the list of what those sectors comprise. We continue to consult business and consumers, and I am very pleased that I am able to be part of that.

With regard to the devolved Administrations, we have throughout made it clear that it is essential that they are engaged at every stage. Whether it is the JMC—the next one is in October—person-to-person phone calls or visits, as carried out by my honourable friend Robin Walker this summer, they continue. He visited the Crown dependencies as well. It is not a matter of leaving it for meetings; it is a continuing conversation.

Throughout all this process we want to be in a position where, by setting out in our papers the implications of leaving the European Union but maintaining a strong trading relationship, we enable us and the EU 27 to avoid running negotiations twice. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to this and asked whether this would mean that we would be staying in the customs union and the single market in the implementation period. That is not the answer to having a transition and implementation period. We are seeking a negotiation to see what that period would look like. It is does not mean that we stay in the single market with all the ceding to others the right to make decisions about our destiny.

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that we had challenged the principle of financial liabilities. No, we have not. In fact, we have maintained that we accept that there is not only a legal basis for the EU and us having to ensure that there are liabilities that need to be met but also a moral responsibility. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made that absolutely clear in his press conference last week with Michel Barnier. But we do not hand the keys of the Treasury to the Commission. What we do, on a friendly but rigorous basis, is to work through with it, challenging the legal basis but also beyond that, the calculation of what should be paid and how and when. That, again, is woven into the nature of our future relationship with the European Union.

This has been a hard-working summer for all. I do not believe that Peers simply disappear into the ether and do nothing, and I know that many noble Lords have already read the papers and discussed them. I put on record my particular thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for agreeing to have conversations with me during the Summer Recess on these matters. It is only by doing that that we can deliver what this country needs.

Brexit: United Kingdom-European Union Parliamentary Assembly

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Absolutely right, my Lords, but in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Soley—although my goodness, he does not need me to defend him—it is a fact that the Government simply cannot under the rules of the European Parliament take any action on this specific matter. As for the generality of my noble friend’s comments: absolutely right.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, thoroughly disagreeing with the previous question, is not the European Parliament, however much mocked in this country, showing the mother of Parliaments just what parliamentary control looks like in the modern era? Its ability to veto the Brexit deal means that the other institutions have to front-load information to the Parliament, so there have been seven position papers, as against one from our Government. Unfortunately, parliamentary scrutiny in the Westminster Parliament is still rather unstructured, despite many promises. We have things to learn from the European Parliament.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it is recognised by countries around the world where I have visited as a Minister in the Foreign Office that other Parliaments have much to learn from the strength of scrutiny in this House and another place, and indeed, through our Select Committees, as well as the way in which the Chambers work. With regard to scrutiny of papers, I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the European Union Select Committee yesterday that further position papers are expected shortly.

Brexit: EU Institution Relocations

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 6th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as this country goes into the light of being able to decide its own future and laws, we will continue to press hard for the stability and the economy we have had heretofore. That also means we will press hard to continue the safety of products in the medical and life sciences world. The locations of agencies in themselves do not determine the future health of our economy or the safety of our products. What will determine that is achieving that deep and special relationship with the European Union. That is what we shall do.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is it not apparent to all except extreme Brexiteers that the retention of a decent trade relationship with the EU is dependent on regulatory co-operation? That means a role for EU law and the European Court of Justice. Certainly, Jeremy Hunt and Greg Clark recognised this in the case of pharmaceuticals. When will the Government put the economic interests of this country before an absurd fetish and prejudice against European judges?

Brexit

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their 2017 manifesto commitments, what are their criteria and specific objectives for Brexit; and how they intend to forge a deep and special partnership with the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, the objectives for our partnership with the European Union are as the Prime Minister set out in her Lancaster House speech on 17 January, the White Paper of 2 February and the Article 50 letter. Supporting our exit from the European Union is a cross-Whitehall effort. We are conducting negotiations in a constructive manner to ensure a strong and prosperous Europe with the UK as its closest partner.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. The Government have reportedly dropped their cake-and-eat-it approach to Brexit negotiations, but freelancing by individual Ministers is creating an even more dizzying pick-and-mix confusion. The fisheries, financial services and pharma sectors are getting this treatment as well as cars. What, if any, coherent partnership framework—the word mentioned in the manifesto and the Queen’s Speech—is all this fitting into? Is the Prime Minister actually in charge?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, yes, she is, which is why she has formed a series of Cabinet sub-committees to consider the full range of issues—some of the crucial issues, as the noble Baroness pointed out, that this country needs to address as we leave the European Union and as we look at the implementation period. Our overall objective is to ensure that there is no cliff edge and that we have security for all those practising business, whether agribusiness or financial services. That is why this is a true cross-Whitehall effort. It is not easy, and it is not necessarily the way Whitehall has worked in the past—but it does now.