EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for returning to the Dispatch Box—apparently unbruised by the government defeat of 226—to defend the Statement and Mr Gove’s words in the other place: that, in any negotiation, both sides have to honour their commitments. Had the Prime Minister done so in respect of the withdrawal agreement, he may not have had to face that defeat.

Yesterday’s headlines were, “Talks break down”. As my right honourable friend Keir Starmer said:

“The collapse of these talks is a sign of Government failure.”


He was in fact responding to the Manchester talks, but it is the story of this Government, who could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. They boast, threaten and bluster, but fail to reach a consensus with their counterparts. They set deadlines: a deal by July, then September, then mid-October—all missed. They criticise the EU for sticking to its negotiating mandate, but meanwhile boast that they will not move from their own negotiating objectives. It seems it is only the other side, and not ours, that has to move. They criticise the other side for not discussing legal texts, despite the fact that the EU published its 441-page legal text in March but it took until mid-May for us to do the same. Even then, the UK blocked early talks on security co-operation—security: the most important issue on which citizens rely on their Government.

The former Home Secretary and Prime Minister hit the nail on the head on Monday, pointing out that security was not even in the Statement and that, without a deal, law enforcement agencies would have no access to vital databases. I cannot re-enact her mocking response to the extraordinary answer that Mr Gove gave, but I will repeat his words and leave it to your Lordships’ imagination. He claimed that

“we can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 761.]

That hardly tallies with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who knows a thing or two about security:

“Without the ability to exchange data and intelligence across frontiers, law enforcement will be increasingly unable to cope … Everything from extradition to notification of alerts, crime scene matches and criminal record searches will be much slower, at best.”


Closer to home, Naomi Long, the Northern Ireland Security Minister, stressed the importance of a security partnership with the EU to stop the politicisation of extradition in Northern Ireland, as was the case before the EU arrest warrant.

Mr Gove’s view that we could not possibly, as the price for using EU security systems, also accept its court on the issue of how we use that data seems remarkable for its short-sightedness. Perhaps the Minister can update the House on progress towards a security and data-sharing agreement.

The Government have taken to saying that we had been offered a Canada-style agreement but it is no longer available. In fact, that was never going to happen. The Commission’s February slide on “Geography and trade intensity” never suggested that a carbon copy of CETA was on offer, simply that the same legal form as the FTAs with Canada and South Korea could be used. What is more, the Canada deal contains level playing field measures of the sort the Government now say they will never accept. If they are now willing to go the Canada way, will they also honour the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed and accept a level playing field?

This trade and security deal is too serious for playing games. Last week, 70 business groups, with more than 7 million employees, urged the Government to return to the table to strike a deal. These industries—automotive, aviation, chemicals, farming, pharmaceuticals, tech and financial services—are desperate for their futures and urge a compromise, as this matters greatly for jobs and livelihoods. As they say:

“With compromise and tenacity, a deal can be done.”


Sadly, yesterday’s perfunctory call with Boris Johnson left them disappointed. Some described it as unbelievably disrespectful to the concerns of business. The Prime Minister apparently asked companies to “end the apathy” and get ready, while Mr Gove described our departure as like moving house—a bit of disruption. Of course, it will not be Mr Gove or other Government Ministers who have to cope with a bit of disruption. There will be people losing jobs, consumers paying more for their food, Kent and Anglesey residents finding their roads blocked by lorries and their verges taken up by portaloos, and citizens’ rights at risk. Small business groups have pressed for transition vouchers to pay for extra preparation. I gather that Mr Gove said he would take that back to the Treasury, so perhaps we could know the outcome of that request.

At least they got a meeting. The SMMT did not even get its letter answered. On Monday, there had been no response to its 1 October letter, so perhaps we could be told whether it has now been answered. Meanwhile, the country’s leading transporter of diesel and petrol faces a 4% tariff on the fuel it imports if we do not get a deal. This will affect the industry itself, but it could also mean increased prices at the pumps, possibly up to 3p a litre. The knock-on effects on industry are evident.

Mr Gove was asked by my honourable friend in the other place how much of the £50 million for customs intermediaries had now been drawn down and how many customs agents had been trained. Unfortunately, she got no reply. So, we ask again: how many of the 50,000 will be in place on 1 January?

Finally, what is the status of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service, given that work on its IT system had not even started a few short months ago? The Government stress that businesses need to prepare, but seem unable to demonstrate that they have done their own work. Perhaps we can have an update on that as well.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claimed that the UK was “increasingly well prepared” for what he called

“leaving the EU on Australian terms”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 756.]

Putting aside the fact that “Australian terms” is just a euphemism for no deal, whereby the UK trades on WTO terms and our exports face tariffs and quotas, the cries of pain from business are audible for all to hear. They are far from having the “high hearts and complete confidence” at the prospect of no deal that the Prime Minister expressed—or indeed at the prospect of the skinny deal that represents the height of government ambition.

The Government have launched a “Time is running out” campaign urging businesses to get ready. But get ready for what? The Government must acknowledge that they are the ones keeping businesses in the dark.

The Road Haulage Association described a meeting with Michael Gove about post-Brexit arrangements last month as “a washout” in which they got “no clarity” on how border checks will operate when the transition period ends. In an interview on Monday, its managing director of policy and public affairs, Rod McKenzie, responding to Mr Gove’s claims, in a Statement, of

“putting in place new IT systems to help goods flow across borders”

and

“giving business access to customs professionals,”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 757.]

said: 

“It’s a bit of a cheek to say that ... It would be fine to accuse people of having their head in the sand and not having done anything if we knew what we had to do. The problem is the Government has spent not just months, but years, failing to tell the businesses that need to make this work what exactly they have to do…they haven’t prepared the IT systems that will make this work … and they haven’t hired enough customs agents to plough through the mountain of red tape that will be created by this new system.’


Then there is business as a whole. The BBC’s business editor, Simon Jack, tweeted yesterday about how business leaders had described a call with the Prime Minister and Mr Gove as “terrible,”

“unbelievably disrespectful to the concerns of business”

and “more of a lecture”, with the Prime Minister accusing them of “too much apathy”.

There is still no clarity as to what the trading relationship will be. The Government need to acknowledge that business does not have the certainty that it needs. Will the Minster retract the absurd claims that businesses have their head in the sand or are displaying apathy in preparing for Brexit? Will he accept that the Government’s current plan is very far from being “oven ready”, as claimed? 

Attentive listeners will detect a bit of a pattern here. It is not just the EU that is getting accused by this Government or their acolytes of being in the wrong. It is business, experts, devolved Governments, mayors, judges, lawyers, the Church, the Civil Service and Parliament—especially, of course, the House of Lords. Gibraltar, Jersey and the Falklands are not exactly brimming with happiness and contentment, either. Perhaps, the Government should examine the mote in their own eye, rather than try to bully, bamboozle and blame everyone else. Their negotiating style has the effect of alienating almost every group they encounter, except, perhaps, rich Tory donors, including Russian ones. 

On security, Mr Gove made the truly astonishing claim to the other place on Monday in response to former Prime Minister Theresa May that security would be better outside the EU. Mrs May was seen to mouth “What?” in response to that astonishing and hopelessly untrue claim. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, tweeted yesterday:

“If UK loses all access to EU systems from 1 Jan, as looks likely, there is no good Plan B.”


The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said: 

“Without the ability to exchange data and intelligence across frontiers, law enforcement will be increasingly unable to cope. Everything from extradition to notification of alerts, crime scene matches and criminal record searches will be much slower, at best.”


I remind the Minister that these people are experts. Mrs May was the Home Secretary for several years who masterminded the process in 2014 whereby the UK opted to stay in all the important EU law enforcement measures. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is a former National Security Adviser; and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. 

If the Minister wants to tell me now what precisely is the 

“variety of methods and arrangements”

whereby the UK

“can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside,”

and which

“can intensify the security that we give to the British people,”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 761.]

then I am all agog to hear what those measures are. Otherwise, I shall continue to think it is the fantasy it appears to be. The Government need to get real, stop blaming everyone but themselves, stop talking pie in the sky and get on with the negotiations like an adult, not a tiresome toddler. 

How does Mr Gove’s claim, in the Statement, of

“the UK’s commitment to upholding all our obligations under both the withdrawal agreement and the Belfast agreement”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 757.]

sit with the Government’s efforts to get the power to abjure them in the Internal Market Bill, with which this House expressed its severe displeasure yesterday?

EU Exit: End of Transition Period

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this Statement in fact sets out an enormous number of costs—costs to Parliament, to business, to taxpayers and to consumers.

First, on the cost to Parliament, we learned of these plans on Sunday, via Written Statements and in the Telegraph, rather than in Parliament. So it is not just York that awaits your Lordships’ House; Coventry is clearly being prepared for both Houses. The devolved nations hardly fare better, despite their responsibility for ports, airports, and human, animal and plant health. The First Minister complained of a lack of engagement with the Scottish Government in developing the new border operating model, and the Welsh Government at one point had mere minutes’ notice of an announcement within their bailiwick. That is no way to treat Parliament.

Secondly, on the costs to business, despite the promise of a deal with no fees, charges or tariffs and no new infrastructure, we in fact face significant disruption to trade from new border checks. This will cost business some £13 billion, let alone any loss of orders and increased import costs, in order to handle 200 million declarations a year. There is real alarm at the state of preparedness across businesses, which are already coping with Covid but have their wall diaries all pointing to the rapidly approaching 31 December. All they are promised is a welter of new red tape.

Thirdly, there will be a cost to taxpayers of £700 million for buildings and staff at borders, including new infrastructure, some at new inland sites. If the ports are not ready in time, any failures could break WTO rules, as we have heard from a Cabinet Minister. There are to be 500 extra Border Force personnel; an IT system not yet tested, let alone introduced; a 27-acre parking lot in Kent bought through emergency purchase of land, the Government having forgotten to tell the local council and, we hear, having to hastily hand-deliver letters to residents on a Friday ahead of work beginning on Monday; and an advertising campaign. We must hope that this will be more successful than the £46 million spent on “Get ready for Brexit”, which the National Audit Office found did not result in significantly better preparedness.

The NAO says that any future campaign should focus on what impact is needed and how behaviour change will be delivered, with resources targeted at activities adding the best value, and a consistent focus on key performance metrics from the start. Can the Minister confirm that lessons have been learned from that earlier exercise—or will just friends of those in the know be used for the campaign, without proper procurement, their USP being more in shared belief than proven campaign ability?

Fourthly and lastly, there is the cost to consumers. I have to say that the Statement’s talk of “significant opportunities” is particularly inappropriate for consumers. As the guidance makes clear, there will be extra documents for travelling, including an international driving permit for some countries; a return to the old green card, or proof of insurance; arrangements for pets needed four months before travel; and continuing confusion around which travel rights will continue. The Government, probably quite rightly, are advising people to get comprehensive travel insurance—more cost to consumers. Of course, there will be much more expensive medical insurance with the loss of the EHIC, especially—I declare an interest—for us oldies, or for those with pre-existing conditions. For consumers it will be all costs and no benefits.

There is no doubt that there was support across the country to get Brexit done, but the Government’s approach has been costly, reckless and disdainful of the views of constituent parts of the UK, of business and of consumers. We see symptoms of chaos and some dysfunction even within the Cabinet. Mr Gove wrote on Sunday:

“Leaving the European Union … is a bit like moving house … Taking back control of the money we send to Brussels means we can spend it on our priorities”.


I have to say that it feels more like a messy divorce, with cash going to lawyers and removal men rather than on the kids.

I have four questions for the Minister. The first is about the advertising campaign I have already mentioned. The second is to ask for reassurance that business will be engaged every step of the way in the design and implementation of IT and documentation systems, and that the devolved authorities will be part of the planning, not mere recipients of information. The third is whether consumer representatives will be similarly consulted. The fourth and last, still in hope, is whether the Government will return to the democratic process of making announcements in Parliament, rather than in Sunday newspapers. Let us have Parliament take back control.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are seeking to put an upbeat gloss on the plans for 1 January, under the strapline, “The UK’s new start: let’s get going”, but getting going anywhere is set to be a very big challenge for both people and businesses. Individuals will lose their free movement, free roaming, free healthcare and freedom to take a pet on holiday abroad at short notice. The Government claim that leaving the EU single market and customs union means that we will,

“regain our political and economic independence.”

It is in fact going to feel like “out of control” rather than “taking back control”.

In the other place on Monday Mr Gove promised

“a free flow of freight”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1275.]

but nothing could be further from the truth. The UK will be moving from a highly integrated relationship with the EU to one in which trading with it becomes much more difficult. There will be customs forms, physical checks, new VAT rules, plant and animal health requirements, export declarations, a lorry park, and a vast new IT system—always a terrifying prospect. This is going to hit businesses struggling with the disruption and economic hit of Covid; perhaps they might just be getting their heads above water by December, at which point they will get hit by the Exocet of masses of expensive new red tape.

The Government have left it until 24 weeks before the end of transition to produce this plan. What have they actually done for the last four years? One sensible move would, of course, have been to extend the transition period, so as to avoid distraction from the pressing issue of dealing with the pandemic, but Brexit ideology, as always, trumped good sense. The complexity facing businesses can be judged by the fact that this government document comprises a dense 200 pages. As the Trade Secretary rightly highlighted in her striking letter of last week, the controls, IT systems and lorry parks will not be ready by the end of the year. This is the real reason they are being phased in over six months. Are we seriously to believe they will be ready by July next year?

Ms Truss urged

“it is essential that my department has a clear view of operation delivery plans, timescales and risks going forward.”

This suggests that the Trade Secretary has not been fully involved in plans for imports and exports. Can the Minister explain this extraordinary state of affairs? Ms Truss also pointed out that if, as predicted, the dual-tariff system is not in place for 1 January

“this may call into question NI’s place in the UK’s customs territory”.

What substantive reassurances can the Minister give us—and, more to the point, the people of Northern Ireland —on this point?

This Brexit burden will force companies to fill in an extra 215 million customs declarations every year, which Mr Gove’s document acknowledged were “complicated”. The cost for them is estimated at between £7 billion and £13 billion a year; this is on top of huge costs for the public sector. So this is where “our money back” will be going—not on the NHS, but on bureaucracy. Many firms will face the expense of hiring customs agents to complete new border formalities on their behalf. It is estimated that 50,000 of these will be needed, a figure that dwarfs the number of officials in the demonised European Commission.

The Trade Secretary, in her letter to Messrs Gove and Sunak, was worried about tariffs being dodged and asked for

“assurances that we are able to deliver full controls at these ports”—

that is, EU-facing ports—

“by July 2021 and that plans are in place from January to mitigate the risk of goods being circumvented from ports implementing full controls.”

What she is talking about, of course, is the risk of smuggling and fraud; this is an astonishing admission, so what is the answer to how these risks will be addressed?

It is clear for all to see that the promises of “frictionless trade” and “an oven-ready deal” were mere empty slogans. We are seeing what my honourable friend in the other place, Stephen Farry MP, called

“the brutal reality of Brexit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1279.]

It is no comfort at all for some of us to say, “We told you so.”

UK-EU Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Thursday 18th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we should welcome this rare ministerial Statement —indeed, the first since negotiations began—but while I am delighted, of course, to see the Minister, I am surprised that following the PM’s first direct talks with EU leaders since we left the EU, he did not report to the Commons on these, instead choosing to announce the merger of two Whitehall departments.

The Statement before us rehearses old arguments while being shamefully lacking in detail, with more on process than on content. The Statement quotes the WTO director-general as saying that a deal can be reached in a timely way

“if the political will is there”.

It is a shame that it does not give the full quote, in which the director-general suggests that a no-deal Brexit risks extra trouble for the UK during a recession that could be as deep as the great depression. What Roberto Azevêdo actually said was:

“In these circumstances, the less disruption the better, the less turbulence the better. The less turbulence is the closest to where you were before … if you can maintain the degree of integration and relationship that you had before Brexit, it is a less traumatic situation, of course, than if you have to go to WTO terms”,


which would require adjustments that “can be painful”. He said that

“in my view the less changes the better.”

Can the Minister confirm whether Mr Gove had actually read the whole quote before selecting a small part to repeat? Can he also confirm, for all the bluster about not accepting any ECJ role, that trading on WTO terms means answering to its appellate body?

Our concern is with what deal will emerge from the talks. We want the Government to achieve their manifesto promise: no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions, across all sectors. Can the Minister indicate whether that is still the aim and whether he judges it to be achievable? Even a free trade agreement means that we will move from a highly integrated relationship with the EU to one in which trading becomes significantly more difficult. More worrying is the Government’s assertion that they would be content with an Australia-type deal, completely ignoring the fact that Australia does not have a deal with Brussels, so that must be code for no deal.

Tony Barber suggests in the FT that Ministers are trying to disguise the seriousness of no deal by playing on some positive image of Australia as a prosperous, easy-going country, while an FT editorial opines that even

“a bad … trade deal is better than no deal”

—although any deal struck before December will be so modest as to fall short of the comprehensive accord for which the Government had originally aimed.

Some things are urgent whatever is agreed, such as in manufacturing or food, where the trade associations call for special rules to maximise commerce between the UK and the EU. Similarly, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and rules of origin needs sorting urgently.

It is no good relying on advertising. We have just learned of a £4.5 million “shock and awe” advertising campaign to spur businesses to prepare for the end of the transition. Businesses cannot prepare for the unknown. An advertising blitz without substance is yet more money down the drain—perhaps even worse than on the side of a plane. Until they know what tariffs, rules of origin declarations, certificates and checks are needed, how the new borders will work or even where they will be, businesses simply cannot prepare. The reality is that a hard border for physical goods, involving customs duties and checks, probably cannot be introduced by the end of December—hence the six-month leeway the Government have announced, but without any sense of clarity.

Nowhere is this uncertainty more harmful than over Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell the House what talks are taking place with Northern Ireland businesses and others trading across the Irish Sea?

Finally, the Department for International Trade established a Strategic Trade Advisory Group with trade unions, consumer bodies and trade organisations for other trade negotiations. Even at this late stage, could the Government involve these groups now as we enter the new, intense round of EU negotiations?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to question him on the Statement. The Prime Minister wants a “tiger in the tank” Brexit, which is no doubt better than a no-deal dog’s dinner Brexit, but was described by European Council President Charles Michel as a “pig in a poke”. Given farmers’ fears that they are going to be sold down the Swanee, the use of so many animal metaphors is interesting.

The alarm in the farming community and among consumers ought to cause retreat from the gung-ho, “let them eat chlorinated chicken” approach to the prospect of a US trade deal, which requires the sacrifice of our current EU standards of food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare. Worryingly, however, the Government are reported to want to enforce this by undermining the EU system of protection of specialist local foods—Cornish pasties, Melton Mowbray pork pies and so on—known as geographical indications, presumably to keep the US happy. There is obviously a tussle going on in government about food standards and protections. Can the Minister tell us the exact current state of play?

It is worth noting that Mr Gove used the term “comprehensive” about the deal sought. That, at least, is part-way to the notion in the political declaration, which was “ambitious” and “comprehensive”, and seems to improve on the stance adopted since February of minimalist objectives for a skinny deal. Is there a dawning recognition, even in No. 10, that unless it makes more of an effort there could be no deal, which in a reverse of previous insouciance it now wants to avoid? Also, perhaps it realises that a comprehensive deal is actually easier to negotiate, because it gives room for mutually acceptable trade-offs.

The EU is preoccupied with Covid and its proposed recovery plan. The UK economy shrunk by 20% in April and will be in no condition whatever to cope with a no-deal shock to business and jobs at the end of the year. It finally seems to have begun to scare No. 10 that the potential disruption—to manufacturing supply chains in areas such as cars and aerospace, to produce supply chains in medicines and food, or to Northern Ireland in particular—might make it somewhat unpopular, on top of its bad ratings, not least from Tory MPs and voters, for its handling of the Covid pandemic.

I think it has begun belatedly to realise that the public is unnerved by buccaneering in government, which is why we have seen in the last few days—coinciding intriguingly with the Brexit summit—a series of dead cat distractions such as the abolition of DfID, a new royal yacht and a union jack plane. I love cats, so I somewhat regret that popular phrase. It seems to be trying to disguise a preparedness to make concessions and compromises in the talks with the EU to maintain suitable British access to its market and programmes. Can the Minister comfort me and confirm that this is the case?

All things are relative in Brexit, since nothing can be as good as EU membership—but with that caveat I welcome what I perceive as a shift. Maybe the Government will even realise that if the “sunlit uplands” of Brexit are so great, the fact that a shock and awe media campaign is needed to prepare for it will strike British citizens as pretty odd.

David Frost told our EU Committee:

“As a policy decision, the Government’s view is that the benefits of having regulatory control … outweigh the cost”.


Has this Government’s obsession with sovereignty led them to forget Mrs Thatcher’s understanding, which she enunciated 45 years ago, of the necessity

“to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units”?

This insight is also true of effectiveness in fighting crime. It would be bizarre if a Government from a party that lauds itself for upholding law and order refused to guarantee continuity in upholding European values of data protection and human rights in order to ensure access to EU crime-fighting databases and effective extradition.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister can give me some hope that developments this week mean that the Government recognise the need to ditch the symbolism of an empty kind of independence in favour of meaningful access to EU markets for British businesses, including farmers, and solidarity with the EU in upholding European values.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Hansard)
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure why the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, singled me out for mention. I think that I must figure in his worst nightmares—which obviously delights me.

He referred to it taking three years to get the withdrawal agreement approved, but I remind him and the Benches opposite that the failure to approve it sooner was due largely to the refusal of Brexiters to support previous efforts. We remainers do not accept responsibility for Brexit or for the negative consequences that it will entail. We have played our part responsibly in trying to improve the process and the outcome of Brexit, as we have on this Bill.

I am glad that this House was not bullied or intimidated, and that it has improved the Bill. In better times, the thoughtful contributions that we made would have received a more respectful response from the Government—I agree, for once, with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—but the Government were dogmatically determined to refuse any positive improvement to the Bill. So here we are, and we will see what happens in the months and years to come.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Well, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has enjoyed this. He has certainly given us some fun on occasions.

The purpose of this debate is to handle Commons “consideration” of Lords amendments. However, as I watched the Commons—after just 60 minutes of debate on what this House had considered with such care—eventually overturn all our five amendments, it was hard to take the word “consideration” seriously. More accurate, as I watched, tweeting as I went, was the reply that I received to one of my tweets from someone who identified themselves only as DeepblueBoy. It read, “That’s democracy for ya!” I guess that it was his way of saying—in line with No. 10’s view, I imagine—“We’ve a majority of 80, so we simply don’t need to heed the House of Lords.”

I regret that. I regret it for the four vital issues that we had raised, covering safeguarding the union with the devolution settlement, safeguarding the independence of our courts and judiciary, safeguarding EU citizens’ residency by giving them a document, and of course safeguarding vulnerable, unaccompanied refugee children. Because we take our constitutional obligation seriously, and part of that is to offer MPs the opportunity to give serious consideration to the issues that we have raised. And the issues that we had raised and sent to the Commons would not have delayed Brexit by one second, would not have affected the working of the Bill or the withdrawal agreement, and did not run counter to any Conservative election promise.

So I regret the damage done in those four areas. But I also regret it, as I think I have just heard from my noble friend Lord Howarth, for what it says about the new Government—that No. 10 has decided not to listen, whether to the devolved authorities, to experienced judges and senior officeholders, or to other experienced Members of your Lordships’ House. I will just point out—my noble friend Lord Liddle told me this; I had not done the numbers—that in all the votes that we had, the Conservatives had a larger vote than the combined votes of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Benches. So this was not a political divide; that side of the House still outnumbers us. It was, of course, with the all-important independent Peers that these results were won—an important consideration.

If this is to be the pattern of this Administration, breaking what I think are the conventions, including the recognition that in a bicameral system legislation is meant to be a dual responsibility, then I fear that we are in for an unfortunate time. Let us hope that this is a one-off as a result of the recent election and that normal service will shortly be resumed so that this House can play its full scrutiny role, secure in the understanding that all differing views will not simply be cast aside. As David Davis MP recognised in the other place, there was even a consensual way forward on the CJEU issue, crafted so carefully and expertly, as we would expect, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It would have made sense for the Government to have swept up that solution without even having to give credit to anyone but one of their own. It was not to be, but I hope that they will now take up his new, generous and learned offer.

For now, the Government will have their way. In future, I hope that dialogue and compromise will once again be possible, perhaps even—who knows?— with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, perhaps in a different guise.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a time for both thanks and regrets. Both are heartfelt and serious. We have a lot for which to thank the Ministers—all five of them, I think—as well as their Whips. They have kept to their script, given us no surprises and worked with courtesy and information to enable the process to proceed smoothly.

The Bill team has performed above and beyond normal expectations. Second Reading and three days in Committee in one week, and two consecutive days on Report, is not what they are taught when they go to the “managing a Bill” lecture. We thank them.

On our side, the team has been stellar. It includes my noble friends Lord Tunnicliffe—near silent but businesslike—Lord McNicol, Lord Murphy, Lord Bassam, Lady Smith, Lady Thornton and Lady Jones and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, with, as ever, Dan Stevens and Ben Coffman behind the scenes. They are a magnificent troop.

However, our regrets are also sincere. Despite the arguments set out across the House, not simply on these Benches, the Government have turned a deaf ear to improvements to the processes in the Bill; to safeguarding the independence of the courts; to pleas for reassurance from EU citizens; to requests from the devolved authorities—we have heard the results of not listening there; and, indeed, to the needs of refugee children. And now we hear that the Government will use their majority to overturn all four of our reasonable, and reasoned, amendments.

We do not lay that on the Ministers in this House but on their masters—or perhaps even their servant—elsewhere. For the moment, as Ed Murrow would say, “Good night, and good luck.”

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank everyone involved in the Bill: Ministers, the Opposition, the Cross-Benches, the Bill team and other officials, the clerks and other staff of the House and, as the Minister mentioned, the committees of the House, which provided us with such useful and timely reports. Of course, I also thank the many colleagues on my own Liberal Democrat Benches—too numerous to mention—who have taken part in the Bill’s proceedings, as well as my leader and noble friend Lord Newby, my Chief Whip and noble friend Lord Stoneham, and our adviser Elizabeth Plummer who is, quite frankly, indispensable to us.

Clearly, we would have preferred not to have had this Bill. We on these Benches continue to think that Brexit is a bad mistake and that the UK will, sooner or later, re-join the EU. We feel that this Bill has been improved by the detailed scrutiny and votes in this House that I believe we were entirely right to deliver. We have improved the Bill in two major areas: first, respect for people—the rights of EU citizens and child refugees—and, secondly, respect for the law and the constitution regarding the courts, judicial independence and the devolution settlement. We hope that the other place will consider those carefully, but I am bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has just said. I strongly believe that we have given value for the many days of work we have done on the Bill. I just wish that the Government had been in listening mode.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is now not in her place—spoke earlier about our seeking reciprocity with regard to children. I assume that the same is true as regards reciprocity for UK citizens abroad and EU citizens here. Thus far, the Government have singularly failed to negotiate successfully to secure the same rights for UK citizens as they have now to work, live and move across the EU. It is true that they can continue to live and work where they are at the moment at the end of the implementation period, but UK citizens will then lose their current right to move elsewhere across the EU—something that is, as we have just heard, at variance with the right of other EU citizens. Therefore, they will be disadvantaged compared with their fellow workers who are EU citizens already here, be they researchers, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, artistes, mentioned by the noble Earl, translators, interpreters, freelancers or a number of other specialist staff who tend to move around because of the nature of their jobs. Under the agreement so far reached, they will only be able to live, stay and work in one of those 27 countries but will lose their freedom to move elsewhere.

Therefore, it is vital that we raise this matter higher up the Government’s negotiating aims. This is urgent as well as important. It is time that the Government did more to defend their own citizens’ interests rather more robustly than they have succeeded in doing thus far.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I just want to add briefly that the wording in the amendment reflects the wording in the White Paper of July 2018 on the future relationship. I do not know whether that White Paper has become “paper non grata” under the present Government but it talked about a framework for mobility providing reciprocal arrangements, which is broadly what the amendment refers to. That is what we want to hear about—a framework for mobility.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, prompted me to think. To the extent that we have EU citizens with settled status, assuming that they do not feel that they have to seek British citizenship, they could be working on a research project based in the UK and, because they will retain their EU citizenship, they will be able to travel around 27 countries. However, the UK citizen may well not be able to do that, so will be second class compared to a work colleague who is an EU citizen and has a passport from one of the EU or EEA countries, unless a mobility framework with reciprocal arrangements and rights encompasses the ability of those UK citizens to work across the EU 27. Therefore, it is relevant to UK citizens living here but of course also highly relevant to UK citizens living in the EU 27. Many face difficulties in getting their residence finalised in an EU country but a lot are also very worried that they are losing their ability to work across borders. The fact is that nothing can be as good as EU free movement. The same applies to the security partnership —nothing is as good as EU membership. Therefore, we are trying to approximate as far as possible what we have at the moment, even though it falls short of that, but a key point is encapsulated in the final words of the amendment, which are:

“including the ability while resident in one state to work with ease across borders.”

My other point concerns pensions, pension uprating and healthcare arrangements, which are absolutely crucial to UK citizens in the EU 27. This is hugely important for the UK economy and for individuals—whether they are EU citizens or, perhaps even more, UK citizens resident here and resident in the EU 27 —who need to be able to move around where their work takes them.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 6th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has been here for what has been a most extraordinary experience. There are some people not in the Chamber who we should also thank. Those in the Public Bill Office and the Printed Paper Office have enabled us to deal with the Bill in an unusual way. They have worked, along with the doorkeepers, above and beyond the call of duty. On our side, to be personal for a moment, we have had in our office Dan Stevens on the content and Ben Coffman keeping our wits together. I know that it was bad news for noble Lords moving amendments that they are so effective, but for our side it was great, and I use this moment to thank them. The work of my noble friend Lady Smith and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has been superb over this and I think the whole House will thank them for what they have been able to do. We thank the Minister, of course, and I think we are going to hear from him.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I second everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said and I add my own thanks to all those who have co-operated so well to ensure that the Bill has passed successfully, especially the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I thank my leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, and my Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Stoneham. I think we have had an excellent experience in the passage of the Bill.

No-deal Update

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

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.

Brexit: Article 50 Period Extension Procedure

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Well, I think we all feel rather sorry for the Minister, who has, after all, said again and again that we will leave on 29 March and now knows that we will not—and that is because of the Prime Minister’s failed strategy of running down the clock to get her own way.

We are told that, if the Government are allowed to table the existing deal yet again in the Commons and it wins approval—the Speaker has just suggested that he is not minded to permit a third meaningful vote without a substantial change to the deal; we hear that perhaps we will have to prorogue and then come back—they will apply for an extension to 30 June.

The more likely eventuality is that the Government will fail to get their deal agreed and thus request a longer extension, such that we will need to participate in the European Parliament elections. Given that returning officers must publish notice of the poll by 12 April, with the Government announcing the date beforehand, can the Minister inform the House which date is planned for these elections, whether the Electoral Commission is geared up for this and when purdah will commence?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I think the Speaker in the other place will tonight be a national hero for—

Brexit: Negotiations and No-deal Contingency Planning

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I welcome him back, though I regret that, while we were all at the seaside, his Government—as is clear from the Statement—have failed to provide a workable path through the morass of negotiating objectives. To quote Bloomberg:

“As politicians dither, Britain’s economy is taking a hit”,


with Brexit costing 2% of economic output, even before we have left.

During a summer of government squabbles, I spent time watching how fast lorries could load on to European ferries at the moment. I then went on to feel the effect of the falling pound, while hearing about the likely lack of Danish sperm—I kid you not—portaloos along the M20 and the ending of the EMA pharmaceutical approvals for our Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Meanwhile, I was reading Charlie Clutterbuck’s Bittersweet Brexit, though I have yet to find the sweet bit.

Meanwhile, back here, we have a plethora of groupings, mostly within the governing party. There is Better Brexit, Stand Up 4 Brexit, the ERG’s “Hell, any sort of Brexit”, David Davis’s “I won’t vote for Chequers” Brexit, Boris Johnson’s “diddly squat” Brexit, the Leave.EU members in the Conservative Party’s Brexit, an alternative Best For Britain Brexit, Macron’s “blind Brexit” or perhaps a Europe of concentric circles, a “half DExEU staff leaving” Brexit or even a “jump off the cliff” Brexit. These sound funny, but this is serious stuff. What is clear is that, 44 days before the October summit, Chequers will not fly. We said so at the time; we said that it ignored services, failed Northern Ireland and was logistically unworkable. We now know that the EU will not accept it, but neither will the House of Commons, where there is simply no majority for it.

So, please, no more nonsense of just “some risks” to no deal. And, please, let there be less money wasted on preparatory work which is somewhat otiose. We need a deal that can work. It is time that the Government got honest and ruled out no deal once and for all. It is time that the Prime Minister ended the uncertainty for UK citizens in the EU and for EU citizens here and made firm commitments not just “when” the agreement is “signed”, as in the Statement that the Minister has just read out, but now.

I agree strongly with the No. 10 spokesperson who said:

“What we need at this time is serious leadership with a serious plan”.


But that is not what this Statement provides. Indeed, a survey in the Conservatives’ most marginal seats showed that three-quarters are dissatisfied with the Government’s handling of Brexit—they clearly have judgment.

It is time for the Prime Minister to ditch her red lines and get real. If we want trade to thrive with our nearest neighbours, if we want to continue inward investment as a path into European markets, if we want to continue free flow of our food and agricultural products and if we want a border-free Ireland, we have to be in a customs union with the EU and we need a deal on services. We also have to recognise that while the withdrawal agreement has only—“only”—to win the approval of the Commons, the European Parliament and the European Council, the subsequent trade deal will need the consent of every member state, their various parliaments and assemblies. That will mean us negotiating a deal to win their support. Closing off doors now, with unrealistic demands, will mean only U-turns down the line.

It must be evident to this House that the Government must change course and propose a credible plan that can command the support of Parliament, protect jobs, the economy and the environment, avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland and be acceptable to our partners. The Statement that the Minister has read out gives us no confidence that that is the way that we are going. The Government have six weeks to get this right. More of the same will not do. So will the Minister pledge not just to listen to his hard-Brexit friends but to seek to navigate a way forward that can win parliamentary and EU endorsement?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the DExEU website today displayed a rather apt message:

“We’re experiencing technical difficulties. Please try again later”.


That perhaps sums up the incoherent, divided and irresponsible position—or, rather, positions—of this Government. That the Trade Secretary could on Sunday dismiss the Chancellor’s forecast of the need for extra borrowing of £80 billion by 2033 while staying in post shows the Prime Minister’s utter, weak inability to impose rationality or discipline on her Government. The Chequers plan is a dead parrot, so the important question is: where do the Government go from here? I would like an answer and I think that Parliament deserves an answer, as do the people.

The Statement claims that the no-deal notices, of which we expect another batch, “prioritise stability”. The way they seek to get any continuity at all in the event of no deal is, in fact, by relying on a series of mini-deals to prevent the absolute disaster of grounded planes and the absence of crucial trade. The Government are saying, “Please, Brussels, can you rescue us from our absurd no-deal threat?”

There will be a particular set of 5 million people who will be badly hit by no deal: the 3 million EU citizens in this country and the 2 million Brits in the rest of the EU. The failure to give a unilateral guarantee two years ago—which would have been reciprocated, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said at the time—is creating an agonising limbo of anxiety and depression. Meanwhile, Brexiteers are moving assets or citizenship to other EU countries.

To get a little personal, I do not know whether the Prime Minister gets her glucose patches—on which I can comment, as she is commendably open about them—from abroad, but my type 1 diabetic husband gets his glucose sensors and insulin from elsewhere in the EU. There are many other people with medical conditions who are vitally dependent on such imports. That a Government could calmly contemplate upsetting such a flow and creating distress and potentially worse is breath-taking in its dereliction of a basic duty of care.

The prominence of no-deal planning seems to fulfil a number of purposes, all of them within the Tory party. It is a sop by the Prime Minister to the hard Brexiteers, who positively want this outcome, and a warning to the “chuck Chequers” brigade to accept Chequers as somewhat less bad. There are two things that it does not do: it does not put pressure on the Brussels negotiators and it does not inspire confidence in the public—on the contrary.

There is this sentence in the Statement:

“While it is not what we want, a no-deal scenario would bring some countervailing opportunities”.


This is obviously a bone thrown to the ERG faction. What exactly are the “countervailing opportunities” for small businesses losing their export markets, or patients losing their essential medical supplies? The no-deal scenario means lots more costs to businesses, higher prices for consumers, an avalanche of new bureaucracy—such as pharmaceutical companies having to register medicines twice, showing that EU red tape ain’t got nothing on Tory red, white and blue tape—and more taxpayers’ money spent on quangos and civil servants, stockpiling and so on.

Panasonic and Muji are but the latest companies to announce that they are moving their HQ across the Channel. We face this dire outcome because the Tory Government have proved totally unable to deliver a workable or tolerable Brexit deal. Indeed, not only do they provide absolutely no reassurance about how to resolve issues between the UK and Ireland in the event of no deal, they actually advise businesses and individuals to contact the Irish Government. We know that the Tory Government love outsourcing, but this surely goes shamefully too far in abdicating responsibility for the border communities.

Can the Minister tell us that the Government will reverse their refusal to guarantee that MPs will see the full impact analysis of a no-deal Brexit before the final vote on any departure from the EU? Both the previous and current Brexit Secretaries have, in the past, supported a second referendum, so presumably they think that it is a demonstration of democracy, exposing the PM’s comments as a sham. We on these Benches insist on a final say on the deal. We are joined, it is announced today, by 70% of Mumsnet subscribers: a very sensible bunch.

EU Exit: Future Relationship White Paper

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I obviously have not had time to read the document. It was given to journalists at 9 o’clock this morning. The MPs did not even get it when they should have started, but I did, so I thank the Minister. I have had an hour with the document; we know how to do things in this House. Because I have not had time to read the whole thing I will leave detailed comments to our debate on 23 July—assuming it is still in play by then. The three-page Chequers document having failed to survive three days of Cabinet unity, I hope that this 98-page document perhaps survives 98 days.

It is of course welcome that we now have a negotiating proposal—perhaps some 12 months overdue—and I am pleased that it is more comprehensive than the Chequers statement, acknowledging the importance of services, data issues, broadcasting, justice, security and other issues highlighted in the reports of the Lords EU Committee. We look forward to a second White Paper foreshadowing the withdrawal and implementation Bill next week.

In today’s foreword, the Brexit Secretary talks of achieving agreements that are “unprecedented”, “unrivalled” and “unparalleled”. Given that we will be asking our European partners to break with their conventions and legal norms, it might have been advisable for the Government to set out such detail rather earlier. Furthermore, it would have been better if, as in the Monks amendment passed by your Lordships’ House, the Government had sought Parliament’s endorsement of their negotiating mandate before discussions with Brussels. That would have given real authority to Mrs May ahead of her talks.

The Chequers paper was a rather miserable little “concord”. It had nothing on services, despite the UK being the world’s second-largest exporter of services, with £63 billion of non-financial and £27 billion in financial services being sold in the EU and comprising 80% of our economy. Luckily, though, services have found their way into the White Paper with plans for an “ambitious economic partnership”, with,

“continued and relatively liberalised trade in services”,

and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the Government acknowledging the importance of access to talent, the ability to move people across borders—including fly-in, fly-out—and cross-border data flows, as well as the needs of the creative industries.

The White Paper wants the new economic and regulatory arrangements to be based on autonomy of each party over decisions regarding access to its markets, with a bilateral framework of treaty-based commitments to underpin the operation of the relationship, respecting the regulatory autonomy of both partners. Whether this amounts to something acceptable to the 27 members of the single market, especially as the White Paper also rules out passporting, which will exclude EU nationals and firms from access over here, is, I contend, a big question. It will be vital for our future relationship to encompass and safeguard our wealth-creating, tax-paying service sector, so what assurance can the Minister give that this White Paper approach will achieve this, and will be acceptable to our European partners?

With regard to EU migration, the Leader of the House said on Monday that,

“no preferential access will be offered to EU workers that is not on offer also to other trading partners”.—[Official Report, 9/7/18; col. 813.]

Today’s Statement confirms this, saying that the approach to EU mobility will be in line with that for other trading partners. Obviously, at present the arrangements for EU workers are very different from those with any of the 57 countries with whom we have trade agreements via the EU and which the Government want to continue. Are the Government therefore saying that in future workers from South Korea, for example, or any other of our trading partners will have equal access to jobs as do EU nationals? Or is Dominic Raab right when he said on the “Today” programme this morning that whether EU citizens would get special treatment was “subject to negotiation”—in which case, why is it not part of the negotiating proposals? Will the Minister clarify which of these two is the Government’s intention?

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation, for example, has stressed that:

“Mobility needs to form part of the exit agreement”,


including temporary and seasonal roles. For example, it wants the right to work to be attached to the individual, so that they can move from job to job as their career moves, and not be attached via sponsorship to a single employer or the promise of a permanent contract. Meanwhile, any move to put EU workers on a par with those from far-flung countries would not be well received by the food and drink industry, highly dependent on EU nationals. Business needs to know about this and soon. What is the position of the Government?

A central tenet of the White Paper is to keep the UK in a free trade area for goods, to help create a frictionless border and reduce supply-chain worries, but there are two big problems with this. First, part and parcel of many goods is the design, the IP and the servicing of those products. An example is Rolls-Royce engines, where the maintenance, the servicing, the training, the data exchange and IP are bound up with the straight export of physical hardware. It is not that easy to distinguish between the two. Secondly, the proposed mechanism, what is called a facilitated customs arrangement, rather makes Heath Robinson look simple. It expects VAT, standards, numbers, rules of origin details, safety and hygiene all to be checked by remote, high-tech and yet to be developed software. I have my doubts.

The negotiation on future relationships with the EU are of immense consequence to Gibraltar as well as to the devolved authorities. Will the Minister therefore reassure the House on their involvement in drafting the White Paper and confirm that Gibraltar and the Scottish and Welsh Governments are content with its content and will be fully consulted as negotiations continue? We all want a successful outcome to negotiations on our long-term relationship with Europe. It is our closest neighbour, our ally and our largest trading partner. It is key that the so-called European Research Group—it may be a group but it is not European in outlook, nor is research its methodology—does not derail a deal that could be in the national interest. The White Paper may not be the right answer—we have yet to digest it—but the Minister would be wise to heed the words of his noble friend Lord Hague, who wrote that hard-line Brexiteers need to realise that the type of Brexit available is constrained by three factors: the current parliamentary arithmetic, the needs of big manufacturers for frictionless trade, and the complex realities of the Irish border. He warned that fighting against that reality, a la David Davis, Boris Johnson and the ERG, with no alternative is an “indulgence not a policy”.

Labour has an alternative, within a customs union and with a proper agreement on services, but for now our attention will be on what has been published today. We will see whether it meets our tests—to preserve and grow jobs, to maintain standards in the environment, to share prosperity throughout the country, and to safeguard peace in Northern Ireland. I look forward to our longer debate on 23 July on all that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, naturally it is a landmark moment that we finally have a government position on Brexit after more than two years, but that exhausted sense of relief is tempered by a huge number of caveats. The first of these is that it has in fact not calmed tempers within the Conservative Party but ignited an all-out war within the governing party: strong and stable this plan is not.

I will have to mix my foodie metaphors. On Monday, I said that the Chequers plan looked like a series of fig-leaves—over the sovereignty of Westminster to reject EU regulations, over the autonomy of the UK legal order, over the pretence of business-friendliness—and I maintain those critiques now that we have the White Paper. However, in addition I suggest that the White Paper describes not a soft nor a hard Brexit but a scrambled Brexit. This is exemplified by the farce of the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU starting his Statement in the other place before MPs had a copy of the White Paper. He actually tried, after the uproar, to suggest that the clerks might be to blame, but actually the Statement is predicated on being delivered before the White Paper is published. It says:

“Shortly, we will publish the Government’s White Paper”,


on Brexit. So it was always intended that the Statement would be made before the White Paper. I think this is executive arrogance rather than taking back control for Parliament.

The scrambled incoherence of the White Paper is exemplified by the suggestions on the agri-food sector. Page 16 of the White Paper talks about,

“a common rulebook for agriculture, food and fisheries products, encompassing rules that must be checked at the border, alongside equivalence for certain other rules, such as wider food policy”.

There are quite a few contradictions there. How is it frictionless trade if there have to be checks at the border? How does that common rulebook for agri-food work if the UK is outside the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy? How can you have a common rulebook for some aspects of food but equivalence for other aspects of food policy? Perhaps the Minister will explain and unravel some of that. The fact is that the facilitated customs arrangement is baroque, complicated and bureaucratic; it is likely to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, how on earth can you separate goods from the services that are essential to their production, whether that is legal services, software, intellectual property or others? There is also the serious worry about the potential for fraud and smuggling with these differential tariffs that are meant to be applied at the border; that is leaving aside the question of whether the EU will agree to operate its intended side of the arrangement.

Michel Barnier is surely right. He said that only staying fully in the single market and the customs union can guarantee frictionless trade, yet the Government maintain this claim of “frictionless trade”. That is an absolute term; it does not mean a little bit of friction—it means no friction. How do the Government intend trade to be frictionless? How can there be an independent trade policy, which is alleged in the White Paper, if the UK has committed itself to a common rulebook, including on agri-food products? How will that work when the US invites us to accept the famous bleached chickens and GM food?

The cakeism which runs throughout this White Paper is exemplified by the comments on services—a massive hole in the plan—which are 80% of our economy, and which we do not intend to be part of the single market. When one thinks of the efforts previous Conservative and other Governments have made to try and deepen the single market in services, this is a betrayal of everything that Mrs Thatcher tried to do.

Can the Minister tell me how,

“new arrangements on financial services”,

will,

“preserve the mutual benefits of integrated markets”,

while maintaining the autonomy of rule-making? Those two are surely in contradiction. We will not have integrated markets with autonomous rule-making.

I fear that what the Government are setting up is a further loss of trust in the public. There were so many deceitful statements that came out of the three pages after the Chequers meeting last Friday, which appear to be repeated in the bits of this White Paper which I have been able to read. For instance, the White Paper says:

“We share an ambition for our country to be … more prosperous than ever before”.


But the Government’s own impact statements, which we finally wrestled out of them, all show that we will be poorer. Our economy will shrink; we will have less money for public services. So how will we be more prosperous if the Government have committed to the statements made by the OBR? There are so many statements in here that are just not true, such as that this will,

“return accountability over the laws we live by”,

to the UK Parliament. We will comply with the common rulebook, and yet we will have autonomy over our laws. It does not add up; we are setting up for the people to be let down and it is the people, therefore, who should have the final say on what the Government come back with. Otherwise, the forces that led to the decision in the referendum two years ago will just be magnified.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, it is in the national interest that Parliament should not be faced by a take-it-or-leave-it vote. It must be able to prevent a slide into a disastrous no deal outcome. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that is not an arcane interest because many ordinary citizens would be hugely harmed, including those who voted for Brexit, if that happened.

Was not the referendum fought by the leave side partly on the basis of a need for the Westminster Parliament to take back sovereignty? It is truly ironic that many of those who said that oppose a meaningful vote for Parliament now. Indeed, some noble Lords opposite who have spoken want specifically to hobble Parliament by barring it from amending a Motion. This is not a remainer cause. It is not about destroying or sabotaging Brexit—that is a distortion and misrepresentation—but about whether Parliament has a constitutional right and duty to call the Government to account and should have a decisive political role on the course of Brexit. The idea that that undermines the Government’s negotiating position is farcical.

The noble Lord, Lord Spicer, said that the essence of why he opposed staying in the EU is that the nation state is the best unit for democracy, that Britain is the home of democracy and that it offers a forum for accountability. That is the point. That is what Motion F3—I avoid “Grieve II”—achieves. It is not a negotiating power for Parliament but a power to call the Government to account for how they are conducting the Brexit negotiations. Its purpose is to prevent or at least manage a crisis by thinking ahead of that time and what the structures would be. The virtue of writing this into the Bill is that we will then know what mechanisms need to be followed if a crisis arises. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, it is important to give the Commons the opportunity to vote on what the Government apparently agreed last week.

I have great admiration for Dominic Grieve as a parliamentarian and constitutional lawyer of the highest calibre and integrity. He is a loyal Conservative, much to the regret of some of us because we would like him to be a little more of a rebel. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about the character of Mr Grieve and that the hatchet job on him by the Daily Mail was a total disgrace. It showed the degradation of our political media culture and discourse.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that his amendment was not the best way to accomplish what he wants. I do not need to elaborate any further. It would unhelpfully complicate matters. I will accept the guidance of a former Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on Commons procedure, which I do not understand, that it is necessary to pass Motion F3 to allow the other place to consider how it wants to proceed.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Report: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. One of the most important matters is security. In Barcelona the other day, one of Britain’s most wanted fugitives—Jamie Acourt—was arrested in a joint operation between the Metropolitan Police and the Spanish police, possibly assisted by Europol. The NCA head of international operations said:

“Our ability to share information and work at speed with our international partners ensures there is no safe haven for fugitives. We will never stop pursuing these individuals”.


That is no doubt true, but Acourt will be returned under the European arrest warrant. If we do not stay part of the warrant and have to fall back on the long-winded extradition arrangements that predate it—without any participation in Europol to facilitate cross-border police operations—our security will be endangered. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, accepts that security is one of our most important interests. I hear what noble Lords said about the effect of the amendment but, politically, it is important that this House presses on the Government the importance of staying in agencies and institutions.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of the key Amendment 93, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith added his name and which was moved so biblically and effectively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. Of course, at that time, I had not only a brilliant legal adviser on my right, but a theological one—my noble friend Lord Griffiths—who has now left the Chamber. I said, “I have to have a biblical quote”, but I am afraid he has a sense of humour and said, “The people who were wandering aimlessly in the pre-Brexit wilderness were soon squabbling among themselves, ignoring the advice of their leader”, and so on. But I will leave my noble friend’s helpful comments for another time.

I say this particularly in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Adonis. This is an important and meaningful amendment because it would restrict the pretty wide powers given to Ministers in the Bill. That is why we need to pass it. We have on a number of occasions, on this Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, expressed our surprise that nowhere in the referendum process—in the immediate aftermath, nor in this legislation or any other—did the Government ever spell out that the Article 50 process automatically triggered our exit from Euratom. I will not repeat the costs and dangers of that eventuality given earlier debates on it, particularly the input at that point of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

However, equally unremarked on and unmentioned by the Government, or by the Brexiteers during the campaign, was the similar removal of the UK from a swathe of agencies, many of which, as we have heard, we helped to construct and all of which have served this country well. Colleagues will already know, from medical researchers who have been in touch, patient groups, health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry, of the risks of being outside the European Medicines Agency, quite apart from the loss of jobs and specialisms that are now moving to Holland. But the same could be said about the European Food Safety Agency, often referred to, but not today, by my noble friend Lord Rooker; the environment agency, emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Whitty; the railways and aviation agencies, often referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley; the European Chemicals Agency, which has been mentioned; and, of course, Eurojust, suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and Europol, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

The commonality is that any mention of those agencies in this House and beyond has included a plea for us to remain members, associates or partners with whichever such agency is in the frame. Sometimes this means following the same rules—as the Government have now accepted for clinical trials—to assist in monitoring; for safety; for easy and rapid transport, as for medical isotopes; to facilitate trade and exchange; to enable skilled persons to undertake checks or repairs; or, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said, to guarantee safe products for users and consumers.

For some of the agencies it might mean paying money in, as the Prime Minister acknowledged. For some it might mean harmonising assurance, governance or penalties for rule-breaking. But for all it will mean a willingness to adapt and respond to requirements, usually simply to maintain our existing rules and practice. What is clear is that, given the wide powers in the Bill for Ministers, we must ensure that none of those powers is used to frustrate our continued involvement with such agencies, whether because, for example, we set different sanctions for breaches, raise fees or charges in a different way that makes it difficult to move along in their way of working, or apply variant rules or any other similar change. That is why it is critical to circumscribe the powers in the Bill so that they cannot be used to prevent us having necessary EU rules or ways of working that would frustrate our participation in any of these agencies. We do not want the powers to be used for that reason, hence the very simple amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, had it right: the Bill should not be used to frustrate the intention, should that be the Government’s wish, to stay in these agencies for the good of the whole country. It is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said in his introduction, entirely in line with what the Prime Minister said in Mansion House and it would allow this country to continue such relationships where that continuation is in the national interest.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, as has just been said, the price of the Government’s failure to accept the advice of this House and its EU Committee to offer a unilateral guarantee to the 5 million affected citizens is being paid by those citizens in anxiety, distress and distrust. As a result of taking the bargaining chip approach mentioned by several noble Lords, rather than a simple, light-touch, declaratory procedure, there are mounting concerns about the process, not least in the light of the Windrush scandal. There may be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in that group, but there are 3.5 million EU and EEA citizens here and 1.5 million UK citizens in the EU 27, so altogether that is 5 million people. What assurances can the Government give about the staffing and capacity of the relevant section of the Home Office that will deal with the settled status application process and about the testing plans? Those of us affected by the TSB fiasco are very conscious of the need for good testing and communication plans for customers.

My noble friend mentioned what is apparently the current plan, which means that people will not be able to apply online from Apple devices, such as iPhones, only from Android devices. Apparently Home Office officials told MEPs last week that people could borrow their friends’ Android devices to complete the process. That seems a little bizarre. Will an offline process be available for people without digital skills or access to computers? What are the plans for communications, appeal and redress? We know that the draft withdrawal agreement requires independent oversight of the process, but can the Government give us more of an idea of the practicalities and of how they plan to make sure that vulnerable people are not excluded? A report last week from the Migration Observatory expressed concern about people potentially being excluded. The Government have been ruled to be acting illegally in trying to deport rough sleepers, who are not necessarily in breach of EU free movement law. Is everybody to be included? Have the Government set a cost? Today’s letter from the representative of the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, to the incoming Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, says that the European Parliament expects there to be a cost-free process for applicants and raises other systems issues. He also raises the crucial issue of the need for full rights under the new EU data protection law—the GDPR—to apply, not the Government’s planned exemption. Without these rights, if something goes wrong, people will not be able to find out and get their data corrected. That is a cause that these Benches have championed, and we look forward to others coming on board with that demand.

Can the Government clear up something that has been bothering me? What exactly are they saying about comprehensive sickness insurance? We have had evidence, and this has been said by Ministers in public, that there will be no need to demonstrate the holding of comprehensive sickness insurance as part of the application process for settled status, but the draft withdrawal agreement seems to imply that there will still be a requirement to hold it. So is there a difference between having to hold comprehensive sickness insurance and having to demonstrate it as an evidential requirement? Could the Government clarify exactly what will happen to people who in the past were told they needed CSI? What happens in the application process?

Could the Government clarify the omission from the draft withdrawal agreement of free-movement rights among the EU 27 for Brits who are settled in one of the member states? There is huge concern, particularly among people whose job requires them to move around. I see the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his place. He and I have depended in the past, as Members of the European Parliament, on the skills of freelance interpreters and translators. Not only do they move around between Brussels and Strasbourg but they might work for other international organisations or businesses, so they live in one member state but travel all over the EU. They need the right to work across borders within the EU 27. What exactly accounts for the gap in the withdrawal agreement?

We do not know what will happen about post-Brexit immigration but it looks as though it will be very similar to EU free movement, except with a lot more red tape, bureaucracy and cost, and less freedom. That is not a terribly good bargain. We are suffering a lot in the process of the Government’s Brexit demands on citizens, and I ask for some answers.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I would have hoped that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady D’Souza, and my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Judd would not have needed to table this amendment. It should have been self-evident that those living here who arrived with the reasonable expectation of their right to remain on the same terms would have had that guaranteed by the Government.

Sadly, though, it has proved essential that the movers table the amendment since EU residents retain a level of anxiety born not just of the referendum result but of the Government’s subsequent actions. First, at the time of the Article 50 Bill, the Government refused to guarantee their existing rights and chose instead to use them as bargaining chips, as we have heard, using their majority in the Commons to overturn your Lordships’ amendment. Secondly, more than a year later, there is still no cast-iron guarantee, despite Ministers promising early agreement on this. Indeed, the Government have failed to implement what the Prime Minister said in December would be on offer to EU citizens, and we therefore need to put it into law. That is a priority for the Bill. We cannot wait until December to give these people certainty. They have decisions to make—on schooling, jobs and homes, and perhaps on marriages and children—and need to know where they stand.

Thirdly, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who is not in his place now, insisted that,

“you can only have the domestic law once you have the international treaty, because it is from the international treaty rights and obligations that you allow the domestic rights and obligations to be brought into our domestic law”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; cols. 1078-79.]

I do not know if he was deliberately misunderstanding what we were asking but, in effect, he was saying that the withdrawal agreement must come first and that without it the Government would refuse to guarantee existing residents their existing rights. That is not necessary in the treaty. It may be a decision by the Government but it is certainly not the case in law. We are not asking that the Government wait until we hear from the EU 27 how they will react to our citizens living there. We are asking the Government to affirm now something it is in the UK Parliament’s gift to decide: what rights we will give to EU citizens currently living here legally.

Lastly, we need this because of the disastrous mishandling, which has just been mentioned, of another group of people also living here quite lawfully: the Windrush generation. Given their overwhelming right to be here, the length of time of their residency and the contribution they have made to the economy, is it any wonder that more recent—albeit equally legal—residents, EU citizens, question whether vague promises of concern will harden into legal guarantees?

The amendment is necessary, morally right and legally justified, so I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will accept it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment and would like to speak to it. The Government’s paper of last August on future customs arrangements proposed two customs schemes as the alternative to being in the customs union, one based on technology, described as “innovative”, the other with the UK acting as an agent for the EU for EU-bound goods, described as “unprecedented” and “challenging”. Those are words that, if in Jim Hacker’s vocabulary, would have attracted congratulations from Sir Humphrey for the Minister’s bravery.

The issues for manufacturing industries such as cars and aerospace have been covered by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Patten. They are to do with supply chains, border checks and rules of origin. That all sounds like very dry stuff but it boils down to costs, delays and red tape affecting investment decisions and jobs. Staying in the customs union is an economic and industrial issue. The Freight Transport Association estimates that an even an extra two minutes checking every truck during peak hours could result in queues of almost 30 miles at border points.

The chief executive officer of Airbus, Tom Enders, has summed up the problems for his company. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that Tom Enders sees leaving the customs union, not staying in it, as very damaging. He points out that during production parts of his company’s wings move between the UK and the EU multiple times before final assembly. This is typical for all our UK-assembled products and why the lack of clarity around the customs union and trade is hugely worrying. We think that across our operations and supply chains Brexit will affect 672 sites. Hard borders and regulatory divergence risk blocking trade, creating supply-chain logjams and causing our business to grind to a halt. This is not some esoteric question. Of course, being in the customs union does not solve all the problems; for example, it would be great to have participation in regulatory convergence as well. However, staying in the customs union is a necessary part of preserving the simplicity and streamlined nature of the manufacturing industry. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is right that remain is the gold standard, but let us at least go for silver.

As for the argument that being in a customs union would constrain our freedom to conclude third-party trade deals, the ones that we have by virtue of EU membership are far more valuable. Our food, animal welfare and environmental standards could be compromised by third-party agreements. Many potential partners will want immigration concessions, which has proved difficult. As has been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, you do not need a trade agreement to export, hence Germany exports four times as much to China as we do. That country has not been inhibited so why have we? That is something that we can do inside the customs union. As reported yesterday, China’s top diplomat in Brussels, its head of mission to the EU, has said that a UK deal with the EU is a precondition for trade talks with China. The Chinese need us to have a decent arrangement with the EU before they want to talk about it. If there is not a Brexit deal, they say, there will not be things to talk about. They need to know exactly how we are going to operate with the EU. I add that no member of the Commonwealth has wanted us to leave the EU, so praying that in aid is totally inappropriate.

Not only did people not vote in 2016 to leave the customs union—that was not on the ballot paper—they did not vote to lose their jobs, either. We should protect those jobs by pressing for Britain to stay in a customs union.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 82, which itself is amended—or, in truth, corrected—by Amendment 82A.

Amendment 80 is pretty simple and is very much in line with the amendments we have debated today, which aim to restrict the very wide powers that Ministers—be they Minister number 1 or number 109 —have dreamed up for themselves in this Bill. The amendment would remove from Ministers the discretion to extend the definition of what constitutes a deficiency in retained law. That is important, given that Ministers have taken considerable powers to correct what they consider to be deficiencies. So it would be a two-way gain for Ministers: first, they could extend what they define as a deficiency and then they could use their powers to correct it.

The main thrust of Amendment 82 is to prevent secondary legislation under Clause 7 from being able to change the Equality Act 2010 or subordinate legislation made under that Act, or, indeed, later legislation, as in Amendment 82A. Again, it is about not reducing the rights and remedies that are available under EU retained law. While we were drafting Amendment 82 we also put in wording to restrict the ability under Clause 7 to impose taxes, fees, charges and to create quangos or introduce new criminal offences under secondary legislation. However, as I have alerted the Minister, we will not deal with that at this point because three separate groups are coming up and we will discuss the issue of criminal offences and fees later. The important thing for now is not allowing Ministers to extend the definition of deficiency or to use the regulations under Clause 7 to change the Equality Act and the subordinate legislation that flows from it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I cannot speak for her, but my remarks will also encompass Amendment 80A in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles who, as the Committee will appreciate, is not in a fit state to speak to her amendment, although it relates to Clause 7(3).

Clause 7(3) is rather strange. It was inserted by the Government on Report in the other place. I am trying to resist the word “sneaky”, but the Government gave with one hand and took with another. On 16 January, David Lidington said in the other place:

“The Government remain of the view that the power in clause 7(1) is crucial. We do not take delegated powers lightly, and we want them to be tailored as tightly to their purpose as possible. We have therefore listened to hon. Members’ concerns about the scope of the power in clause 7(1), and in bringing forward Government amendments 14 and 15, we have built on the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/18; col. 838.]


Amendment 14 was the one that led to the change in Clause 7(1) to put in “are” instead of “consist of but are not limited to”. So it was more specific on what ministerial powers could cover.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

Actually, there is growing support in the opinion polls for people taking control themselves. I think it was the noble Lord himself who talked about how it is the people who decide, not us—and especially not us in this unelected House. I totally agree with him that it is the people who are now showing through opinion polls that they want to take control of the decision on what should happen to this country and on whether to give a verdict on the Brexit deal.

This has been an extremely valuable debate on the crucial decisions about the single market and the customs union. My last remark will be to mention, as my noble friends did, that being in the EU has not stopped other EU countries, such as Germany, exporting many more times the value of British exports to countries such as India. In fact, Germany is India’s top trade partner in the EU and its sixth biggest overall, and the UK is only India’s 18th-biggest trade partner. Even Belgium has a trade surplus with India, unlike the UK. So being in the EU has certainly not prevented other EU countries making a greater success of trade with India than we have. It is the problem of visas that has prevented a deepening of the trade relationship with India.

I cannot resist mentioning that the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who I understand is the Government’s trade envoy to the Commonwealth, was quoted recently as saying that it would be easy to do trade deals with Commonwealth countries such as Singapore, Malta and Cyprus. Malta and Cyprus of course are in the EU and are not free to do individual trade deals—so good luck with that.

To conclude, I give my full support to the amendments in this group which, one way or another, seek to keep us in the single market and the customs union, which is vital not only to the integrity of the United Kingdom, particularly on the intra-Irish border, but to the economic future of this country.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a valuable and, indeed, an enjoyable debate, but it is particularly important for two major reasons. The Bill is not about whether or not we leave but about how we leave, and there are two important aspects of why we have debated and heard these views today that we should not forget.

One is that Article 50—and its author is here, as always—by which we are leaving, requires that we have the framework for our future relationship with the European Union. That is what all these amendments are about. But the second reason we have to discuss that today is because the Government have absolutely failed to tell us what their vision for that framework is. That is why we are doing this now and why these amendments are key. Indeed, as has just been mentioned, it is only tomorrow that the Prime Minister will finally lock her little brood into Chequers for what the Financial Times today described as “Mission Impossible”, to thrash out some sort of consensus about the future of our country. Meanwhile, both in the UK and among our partners in the EU 27, there is a complete lack of clarity about the direction of travel. We need to know, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, what is going to happen as we go into the negotiations.

What I have found rather strange is that, instead of the Prime Minister bringing her brood together earlier after the referendum 20 months ago, as we have just been reminded, she sent out her little chicks, and, indeed, a Fox, to make speeches far and wide—in fact, almost everywhere other than in Parliament—on their competing visions of what that post-Brexit future will look like. They are mostly doing that without a proper dialogue with consumers, with trade unions, with industry or with farmers. I will not have been the only one listening to “Farming Today” this morning to hear the responses to Michael Gove in Birmingham yesterday, when NFU members—not, incidentally, members of the Labour Party—lined up to say: “Where’s the beef”? They had heard his speech; they still did not know what was going on and wanted to know where this Government are taking us. They do not know whether they can sell their meat tariff and quota free in 13 months’ time. The fishermen in Newlyn have also been given little detail about their future and are beginning to worry about that, too.

Critical to this is the big issue: do we want tariff and barrier-free trade with the EU? Do we want no customs posts, particularly but not solely in Northern Ireland, no checks at borders and smooth, duty-free transit? The ports of Dover, Holyhead and Fishguard would like to know the answer to that, but so indeed would Calais and Rotterdam. But checks and paperwork will be avoided only if we produce and sell according to the same regulations, and if our internal systems of checks on food and manufactured goods are recognised and respected by the importing countries. Frankly, that means regulatory alignment. If that is not what the Government envisage, they must decide pretty quickly so that the plans, buildings, documentation, computer systems and, yes, the personnel can be put in place.

The big political question facing us is one that the Prime Minister seems not to dare ask those chicks: “Do we want to maintain our current, pan-EU high standards?” The Fox seems to think not. Reliable sources in his department—and I mean reliable sources—suggest that they hope trade deals with third countries will become materially easier when there is “less pressure”, in their words, to stick to the high levels of regulations required by the customs union and the single market, and easier because the so-called political factors, which I gather is departmental code for having less respect for human rights, would be “less of a problem”. Furthermore, the secret documents in Room 100 that have been referred to—I also saw them on the first floor—were, incidentally, reported in the Independent, so I am not giving any secrets away. My quotes are from that paper, which describe areas being explored where “maximising regulatory opportunities” are possible. It cited particularly what, as we have heard, was said by the Minister in an earlier life about the opportunity of ending the working time directive.

However, that is not what we heard from the Chancellor at Davos, nor what we heard from Austria yesterday when the Brexit Secretary stressed his support for,

“the principle of fair competition”,

which I would argue implies no lowering of standards to gain competitive advantage. Mr Davis said that the UK and EU should be able,

“to trust each other’s regulations and the institutions that enforce them … Such mutual recognition will naturally require close, even-handed cooperation between these authorities and a common set of principles”.

So the Viennese version is that standards and regulations are the building blocks of free trade. This is of course in contrast to the Foreign Secretary, who asserted:

“The great thing about EU regulation is that it is not primarily there for business convenience, it is not primarily there to create opportunities for companies to trade freely across frontiers, it is primarily there to create a united EU”.


There was not quite the same line coming out of Vienna.

We have also read—perhaps the Minister could confirm this when he comes to reply—that British and American conservative groups, including the Initiative for Free Trade founded by Daniel Hannan MEP, who I gather is his friend, are working on an “ideal trade agreement” that would allow the import of US meats such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-raised beef, along with drugs and chemicals currently banned in Britain. Is that the vision that they want?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, this issue is linked to those under Clauses 9 and 14 about the withdrawal agreement and the exit day in that context. No doubt we will come back to some of these issues, because they are all interlinked and it is quite difficult to get a holistic view. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is quite right: one key issue is what we are going to be exiting to. Flexibility is one thing but an excess of uncertainty is another—particularly, as my noble friend Lord Tyler said, when it is coupled with ministerial discretion.

We have the exit date, we have the date when the treaties cease to apply, and we can add on the layer of what is going to be in the transition terms—I have not had time to read the Government’s proposal today. We also have the question about whether Article 50 might be extended, and the question of whether Parliament might want to put the deal to the citizens for a final say. There is also the question of the post-dated cheque. So, all in all, they went all round the houses in the other place—no fixed date, then an attempt to fix it, then a date movable by Ministers. In all this brew, the amendments raise a very reasonable point about Parliament being in the driving seat—something that has been the theme of so many of our debates in the last year and a half.

We have no idea exactly what being subject to EU law, or even respecting the remit of the ECJ, whatever that will turn out to mean, during transition and even in the longer term—because that was the implication of the Prime Minister’s speech on Saturday—means. That sits uncomfortably with the Bill as a whole, and especially with the specification of exit day. We are being asked to fall into a black hole and trust Ministers to get it right—which on current experience is not a very wise thing to do.

The amendments have been described as probing, but answers from the Government—I am sure that the Minister is about to give very precise answers—will be very helpful to our understanding of how the jigsaw will fit together. At the moment it all looks far too uncertain for anyone to be comfortable.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My first question to the Minister is: why did the Government slot in the calendar date at Committee stage, when that was never foreseen in the original Bill? Was it for some good legislative reason, or was it, as my noble friend Lord Hain suggested, to satisfy a certain hard Brexit group of MPs sitting on the Prime Minister’s shoulder, rather like the 60 who have been writing her helpful letters today? It certainly looks as if this was more to do with party management, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, than being in the national interest, which we have been advised should control everything we do.

Secondly, I ask the Minister to comment on the point discussed a few moments ago—the exact wording of Article 50. The Bill as it stands would allow the date specified to be extended in exceptional circumstances, but this probably deals only with the possibility of an extension to Article 50, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, provides:

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question”—


that is us—

“from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification … unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

The date could be amended in accordance with what is in the withdrawal agreement. We indeed might come to an agreement that, for some other reason, chooses an earlier or a later date. Or we might want to amend the date if the withdrawal agreement were not finalised. On the evidence of negotiations so far, it is quite unlikely that this divided Government, seeking to negotiate something which, I have to say in all fairness to them, has never been undertaken before, will keep to their timetable. They should therefore want the flexibility.

There is another issue. Even if we had a deal, what would happen if the European Parliament voted it down? I understand that that vote could be as late as one year from now; it could be as late as February 2019. And the European Parliament has the right to vote any deal down. Guy Verhofstadt told Andrew Marr at the weekend that a thumbs down from the European Parliament meant exit with no deal. So if in a year’s time the Parliament were to vote a deal down, I assume that we would be out a month later, on WTO terms with no transition deal, which would also mean no safeguards for EU citizens—either ours living in EU countries or theirs living here. I do not think that the European Parliament would do that, but my judgment is that if it did, the 27—or indeed the 28, with our Government as well—would speedily get themselves into a room and row back from that. I cannot imagine that we, or they, would want to be in that position. Again, that would mean a change in the date, so the flexibility needs to be there.

Update on EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, although sadly it adds nothing to what we have already seen in the press. Indeed, it is rather less since we have been able to read what the EU negotiators and their political masters think of how things are going, and it was their side that used the words “impasse” or “deadlock”. It is noticeable that the Governments of the 27 EU member states have shown markedly more unity than the 29 people who sit around our Cabinet table. Moreover, while the British side argues, the clock ticks relentlessly on, so it is time to talk turkey for the sake of citizens, business, trade, farmers and consumers. If that means talking money now, so be it. We know that the Government’s reluctance to do so is a fear of their more uncompromising Eurosceptics.

A financial deal will need to be made, a deal that some will not like no matter how good it is, so why put it off for fear of their wrath at such cost to everyone else? Every industry, as well as agriculture, consumers, patients, doctors, lawyers and investors, says that we must end this uncertainty. Just this morning I met representatives from Rolls-Royce who told me how key it is that we can trade freely with the EU. We might make the best aircraft engines, but they include parts from the EU, use the skills of people from the EU, and sell within the EU when complete, as do 90% of Toyota cars made here. Their reps were telling me this morning that non-tariff barriers, rules of origin certificates and so on are as challenging as tariffs if we leave the customs union.

Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce and other companies are highly dependent on our participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency, but they are hearing nothing from the Government as to what they want in that regard—as with other vital agencies, such as Euratom and the European Medical Agency. I even read talk of us coming under the US Food and Drug Administration in Maryland—or la-la land.

There is a host of other non-trade issues where reciprocity is key: the mutual recognition of civil and family judgments, handling insolvency cases, data protection, and long-term insurance contracts. All those issues need early negotiation and preparation by the Government, which those industries concerned simply find that they are not invited to engage with. They can get no answers on those questions and nor can we. For example, the Minister for Consumers in the Commons said last week that while consumers will retain rights on goods bought,

“from a trader based in the UK”,

beyond that,

“is a matter for negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/17; col. 51WH.]

Nothing was set out about what we wanted from those negotiations. She said only that we are exploring options in maintaining early warnings of dangerous non-food products—shared at the moment via Rapex—as with the pharmacovigilance network on unexpected responses to drugs and our key role in the European Consumer Centre Network. It is not simply that Europe is not ready to talk on these issues, though I understand it is on some of them, but that the Government are not engaging with industries or the consumers concerned.

There are three key areas on which Parliament, not just the Government, must have the right to decide. One is future trade with the EU, where the Institute of Directors is demanding to know what the Government want from our EU trade deal. Can the Minister indicate whether achieving tariff-free trade is the Government’s objective? The second area is about transitional agreements. The word “implementation” was used, but I think we are really talking about transitional arrangements. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will press to achieve those arrangements on the same terms as now and to ensure that the withdrawal Bill contains approval of those agreements? Finally, does the Minister agree that any walking away from the negotiations—effectively a “no deal”—should be a matter for Parliament and not Ministers alone? Will the Government therefore agree to amend the withdrawal Bill to ensure that any such decision will be taken by Parliament?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is 16 months after the referendum. The brazen and airy assertions by the leave campaign that negotiations would be easy and our economy would prosper have been revealed as the empty rhetoric they always were. The Government believe that,

“we are on the right path”.

That path seems not only to be a long one, but to have an unknown end point.

On citizens’ rights, it seems true that some progress has been made, but 4 million to 5 million citizens are still in limbo. The Government’s approach is still flawed because of their concept that EU citizens resident in the UK will have to secure settled status, even if the Government claim the process will be streamlined and low-cost. Those citizens should not have to secure what they already have by right, and it remains a matter of great regret that the Government refuse to give the unilateral guarantee of existing rights that a majority in this House wanted. Can the Minister assure us that we will have the novel experience of witnessing a process by the Home Office that is administered efficiently, quickly and accurately?

To complain that,

“the sequencing of negotiations, has always been an EU construct”,

is rather feeble. It has always been clear that this sequence would be followed—so what is it now that takes the Government by surprise? The Secretary of State even accepted the sequencing a few months ago after a little bit of huffing and puffing. The Government maintain that they are ready and well prepared to start the negotiations on transition and final status, but as the right honourable Kenneth Clarke MP has said, that sounds like la-la land—there is no substance. The truth is that members of the Cabinet are fighting like ferrets in a sack, with no agreement in prospect. This is a key reason for lack of progress.

The sensible approach would be to stay in the single market and customs union not only in the transition but in the permanent relationship. Instead of that stability, we hear the deeply destabilising nonsense about no deal. The Secretary of State told the other place that he had not talked up no deal, but he has failed to disown it. Many of his ultra-hard Brexiteer colleagues have talked it up. Those ideological obsessives positively want no deal as the destructive revolution they crave. Will the Government now rule out the hugely harmful no-deal prospect?

The former top official at the department of trade, Sir Martin Donnelly, rightly calls this reckless bravado. The OECD says that it would immediately cut UK growth by 1.5 percentage points. The Resolution Foundation predicts that in a no-deal scenario the “just about managing”, the people whom the Prime Minister professes to care about so much, would suffer the most from an inflation hit to the tune of £5 a week on top of the current 3% rate of inflation. No wonder polls show that 47% of people are now against Brexit—it is 49% of women; I shall not make any remarks about how sensible women are—compared to 42%. Has not the time now come to offer the British people an honourable way out of this morass through an opportunity to think again, to really reflect in a further referendum, once they can see the concrete reality of what Brexit entails?

Update on the Progress of EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In fact, I welcome her back from what has been a busy summer for her—but as nothing to what is to come over the next 18 months. While any progress, however limited, with regard to EU citizens is welcome, how much better it would have been if the Government had heeded our call 12 months ago, made clear our commitment to those living here and got down to the details at that stage, rather than recently. The matter needs to be resolved urgently.

More broadly, however, the overall Statement is rather like a piece of lace trying to protect the Government’s modesty but with rather more gaps than fabric. The Minister’s office kindly sent me the future partnership papers over the summer and at times I wondered whether those rather bland papers—almost non-papers—really represented the true extent of the Government’s thinking, or simply the very least they dare get away with without waking the slumbering Rees-Mogg.

Just yesterday, the Irish Foreign Minister said that the Secretary of State’s plan for the Irish border,

“needs a lot more work”,

and that,

“unless there is progress on that issue, we are not going to get to phase two”.

The mood music from Brussels and across the capitals tells us it is very unlikely that the EU will decide in October that “sufficient progress” has been made to move on to the all-important talks on our future relationship with the EU—our nearest and largest market. So while David Davis claims he remains optimistic that a seamless trade deal can be struck with the EU, Michel Barnier speaks of “no decisive progress” and says that “frictionless trade” is not possible outside the single market and customs union.

Even the Government are unclear on how trade outside a customs union could be frictionless. They have dropped after just a few weeks their untested blue-sky thinking—it sounded more psychedelic to me—for a track-and-trace system, using technology and trust to replace customs controls. Anyway, we understand that the IT for any new customs checks is not anticipated until January 2019, just two months before our supposed departure date. We all know about government procurement of that size.

Looking beyond the EU, Liam Fox now seems to be saying that he is turning down free trade deals because we do not have the capacity to negotiate them, and that instead we should try to duplicate the EU’s trade relations with third countries, with a sort of rollover of existing deals. This cut-and-paste job is, I would have thought, hardly worth the efforts of a Fox negotiator, who is now without his Minister here in the Lords. In January, the Secretary of State claimed to be aiming for,

“a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/17; col. 169.]

Can the Minister let us have the Government’s current thinking on this?

Can the Minister also tell us where we are on a transitional agreement and whether the words she just used about not having to negotiate twice suggest that the transitional agreement will be on the same terms as now? I hope she and her colleagues have finally come to accept that there can be no bespoke transitional arrangement. There will be no time to negotiate that and the sensible thing is to remain in a customs union with the EU and operate single market rules, which are key to our vital industries, while the long-term relationship is agreed and given time to bed in. Can she also tell the House whether the Government will publish the Treasury’s analysis, which reportedly shows that the economic benefits of future free trade agreements will be less than the economic costs of leaving the customs union and single market?

Can the Minister also update the House on the involvement of the devolved authorities? The JMC, which brings together Scottish and Welsh Governments and, in theory, the Northern Ireland Government, has not met since February and will not convene again until mid-October, There has been no substantial response to the joint letters of 14 June and 23 June from the relevant Ministers, Mark Drakeford and Mike Russell. Despite the terms of reference for that JMC committee being to seek to agree a UK approach to Article 50 negotiations and to provide oversight of negotiations with the EU, the Government published their summer papers with absolutely no consultation and little advance warning. This means that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have had no opportunity to provide any oversight of the negotiations.

The clock is ticking. Industry, farmers, supermarkets, airlines, road haulage, lawyers and accountants are all coming to me; I am sure they are going to the Government as well. They are all concerned about the lack of clarity and certainty, while consumer representatives are getting virtually no access to Ministers and fear that their interests are being overlooked. It is not just the EU that has to decide whether “sufficient progress” has been made. This House and Parliament must do so, too, and question whether the direction of the Government’s thinking, as well as its speed, is up to the task ahead. I fear that this Statement offers little reassurance.

[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?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, we have gone via all kinds of highways, by-ways, Aunt Sallies and red herrings—mixing my metaphors, no doubt—but the central issue of this amendment is, in the words of my noble friend Lord Lester: who is the master, Ministers or Parliament? The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, insisted that this was about taking back control for Parliament. It should not be the taking back of control for the Executive: Parliament should be in charge and in the driving seat.

The various criticisms of the amendment seem to me to be more properly directed at the Prime Minister’s assurance in the White Paper because—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, originally used this phrase—it gives the Prime Minister what she asked for. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said that it adds to the complexity and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said that it made it more complicated and muddied the waters. Well then, why did the Prime Minister pledge approval by both Houses of Parliament? As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, this would put an assurance—an undertaking given by the Prime Minister—into a statutory obligation, and it is wise and sensible so to do.

There is no basis whatever for the assertion, made variously by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Forsyth, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that it would give this House a veto. Given that the Prime Minister offered to give approval by both Houses of Parliament, presumably she knows how that would work and has shared it with the Government. It is for the Government to deal with that process, which could, as other noble Lords have mentioned, be avoided if there was primary legislation because then the rules would be clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, counselled against an amendment that gives Parliament power, which I found a strange piece of advice. Surely Parliament has the right to such a power as we possess under the constitution, but it seems that it is not normal to have parliamentary power in the kind of parallel universe that Brexit has created. The amendment does not weaken the Government’s bargaining position. The statement, “I’ve got to get it past my legislators”, is perfectly good enough for a US president or EU negotiators. It should be more than good enough for the British Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Hill, said that our EU partners read our debates. Yes, they may well do, and they will in this case, but they know that we in this Parliament want really substantial content in a future relationship. We might even stiffen the Government’s backbone in the negotiations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, that far from being in conflict, getting the best deal and parliamentary sovereignty go hand in hand.

Finally, Brexiteers seem to claim that this is a wicked plot by remainers but, in fact, some of them seem to find Parliament an inconvenient obstacle to their dream of crashing out of the EU altogether. They want the Government to be able to action no deal; they do not want Parliament to be able to say, “Hang on—is that actually a good idea?”. That is why this amendment is extremely valid.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this afternoon we have heard a really compelling case for quite a simple demand: the right of Parliament, rather than government, to authorise the arrangements whereby the Article 50 negotiations conclude. Indeed, probably no additional words are needed to strengthen the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or many of the others who have spoken. I will not mention them all but the House will forgive me if I mention my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Symons and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady McIntosh and Lady Ludford. What do they have in common? So I must also mention the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, although sadly she was not able to support the case.

Essentially, Amendment 3 is about implementing the Supreme Court’s view that withdrawal would require parliamentary authorisation. The argument is straightforward. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, it would secure in law the Government’s commitment that Parliament is the ultimate decider. Very shortly, maybe even next week, the Prime Minister will trigger Article 50 of the treaty. But neither that treaty nor any UK law states how the arrangements made by our Government should be made into law. What is written in the treaty—in EU law, in other words—is that the final agreement will go to the Council and to the European Parliament, so it is mandatory for that Parliament to give its consent but there is no similar requirement for this Parliament to give its consent.

The Prime Minister has said that she will allow a vote in both Houses and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, quoted Mr Jones saying that that was the intent. That, to me, is not a very firm commitment, no matter how sincerely it was given. Indeed, when the Minister said in Committee that the Government’s oral,

“commitment mirrors the powers of the European Parliament”,—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 923.]

he was not exactly right because its power is written in law. All we are asking is for an equal legislative requirement for the exit deal to come to this Parliament. It is basically about the Crown’s prerogative against Parliament’s.

I turn to the West Lothian question—no, not that but the Grocott question. We will have to call it the Grocott question as he no longer has a constituency. This was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is true that whether we look at the undertaking given by the Prime Minister or at this amendment, there would be a problem if the House of Commons were to vote one way and your Lordships’ House another. I hope that will not be the case for lots of reasons. Particularly, I hope that by then not just the country but Parliament will have come together, and that we are of one view. But I make it clear from these Benches that if that were to be the outcome, we are absolutely clear that ultimately the will of the Commons must prevail.

Furthermore, if that is the only argument given against this amendment, there are two ways of answering it. One is that we do a bit of hurried work this evening to table an amendment and, if the Government were willing to accept it, that might be the easiest way. Keeping all my friends here late into the night, however, may not be the best way of achieving that end. We would not want to risk voting down the idea of Commons supremacy just because, very sensibly, everyone was back in their beds. The real issue is to get this principle into the Bill and down the road into the Commons. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that if that is the only point of dispute between us, given that we want the supremacy to be down there rather than here, we will happily work with the Government on the form of words to make that absolutely crystal clear.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the amendment and the excellent arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the other signatories, the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Oates. We also support the tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They are extremely convincing. My noble friend Lady Kramer answered the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who said that it was clear that leaving the EU means leaving the single market. That is absolutely not the case. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about the Conservative manifesto of 2015, which said:

“We say: yes to the Single Market”.


He answered very effectively the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.

The Government claim they want free, seamless and frictionless trade, at least as possible. Those two words “as possible” have great import and meaning, because it will not be possible to have free, seamless and frictionless trade if we are not in the single market and the customs union. Anything else is very much second best. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, summed it up: it is about integrated supply chains. If it was not important whether we are in the single market and the customs union we would not have had such reactions from successive car firms, such as Nissan and Vauxhall. Now, apparently, BMW is about to move production of electric Minis out of the UK. No doubt it will knock on the Government’s door very soon to try to get a similar comfort letter out of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked about how goods sailing out of Tilbury was passé. It does not seem to be passé to manufacturers in this country. Any alternative to being in the single market and the customs union is more bureaucratic and more cumbersome. In addition, any terms for trading freely with the EU single market will mean compliance with product standards, other regulation and data standards, which were mentioned. That has caused huge problems for non-EU members, including the United States. On this fetish that the Government have to pretend that we have never heard of the European Court of Justice, they will have to face up to the fact that, one way or another, directly or indirectly, we will have to accord with EU law and the rulings of the court. As I said the other day, there will be some sort of smoke and mirrors there.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, stressed how important the single market is to Wales. I pick that up, because my noble friend Lady Humphreys stressed it at Second Reading. Indeed, she mentioned the Airbus factory in Wales, which must have the same integrated supply chain issues that were mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was dismissive of the EU market, which takes only 42% or 44% of our exports. That is three times as much as the US market takes. The point is that the EU is a battering ram to try and open up US and other markets. One of the problems is state-level public procurement in the US and with “Buy America” being reinforced by President Trump, we are going to need all the help we can get from the European base. We are not going to be able to open up those markets on our own.

The other red line, besides the Court of Justice, is the fetish of free movement. It has been made a red line by the Government and, I am afraid, by the Labour Opposition. It became apparent in exchanges we have had in the last few weeks in this House at Question Time that the UK Government do not even know whether they are enforcing the existing restrictions on free movement, and they are refusing to explore the flexibility and change that it might be possible to get across the EU or the EEA. The noble Lord, Lord Green, says that there was no prospect of any serious measures of control. However, what was interesting about the renegotiation of the former Prime Minister David Cameron was the quite extraordinary principle introduced of the possibility to discriminate on the grounds of nationality, which was actually pretty revolutionary.

The Government are not even trying to explore the flexibility there, as well as, of course, ignoring the two-way street and opportunities that it gives the British people. Just throwing away free movement is telling particularly our young people, as well as retirees, that they can dish any plans they had to work, study and retire in Europe. Therefore, from these Benches we fully support the amendment. I hope that the speeches from distinguished noble Lords on the Labour Benches—and even not on the Labour Benches—and the dialogue, will have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to join these Benches in supporting the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, what a nice invitation to have from the noble Baroness. It is almost impossible to disagree with my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Mandelson, and, indeed, most of the other noble Lords who have spoken, certainly from this side but elsewhere, about the benefit of the single market to the UK’s economic and social prosperity. As many noble Lords know—they have had to hear from me far too many times—my commitment to the EU long predates the creation of the internal market, although it was perhaps more for me the peace project referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in an earlier amendment. I nevertheless believe that the internal market has contributed to these wider objectives in addition to the trade and prosperity that it has helped to generate.

Indeed, the arguments we have heard are exactly those that I used day after day during the referendum. However, some of the speeches today, I fear, were about trying to rerun that argument. Amendment 4 is rather as if the referendum had not happened and the result was not for leaving. The Bill is about authorising the Prime Minister to begin the process. It is not about going over the arguments. What it demands is a statement from the Prime Minister contrary to her White Paper. I think she is getting the approach wrong, but that it different from making it a statement from her, that only at that point could we trigger Article 50 because that statement makes it conditional within the amendment. I think asking a Prime Minister to eat her own words before she triggers it is something that this House probably cannot and would not want to do.

Anyway, our continued membership of the single market once we are outside the EU—that is, back in the EFTA, which we left in 1972—is also difficult as we would have to accept ECJ jurisdiction as well as free movement. I cannot see the problem with the ECJ. I simply do not understand the Government’s horror at accepting an international court. We will need some sort of adjudication system anyway in any free trade agreement with the EU. Whether the Government will then complain about that I do not know.

Brexit: New Partnership

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and the House for agreeing to hear it so early, before having time to see the White Paper. It was a courtesy to me so that I can get away for the funeral of my favourite uncle, Uncle Joe. That is why we are having this debate early—so I can go and bid farewell to him—and I thank the House for its tolerance.

I also thank the Government for now—perhaps a little late—putting a White Paper to Parliament and making an announcement here. It was a tad regrettable that the Prime Minister’s two key speeches were made outside Parliament; one to the Conservative Party on 2 October and one in Lancaster House on 17 January. It is Parliament—and particularly the House of Commons—which speaks for the country, so we are pleased that the White Paper, which we have long sought, has been announced at the Dispatch Box.

The driving motivation for Mrs May and her negotiators must be the long-term economic and social well-being of the UK. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that she led the country. I hope that she can and will, because only by exiting the EU in a way that serves all the country—Scotland, Wales, London and the areas that have done less well from globalisation—will she truly be able to work to unite a divided country and also enable our economy, businesses, workers and consumers to benefit, while safeguarding our environment and our relationship with our nearest neighbours and close allies.

Some of what is suggested in the White Paper we can support: tariff-free, encumbrance-free and—I think the Minister said—frictionless access to the EU market; the ability to recruit talent; support for science and innovation; and, as I have stressed before, the partnership that we need with the EU 27. But we also have serious concerns about the White Paper, which will form our agenda for scrutiny here and, I hope, for the ongoing work of our EU committees, to which the Minister paid tribute earlier.

Consumers are not highlighted in the 12 principles but are vulnerable to losing compensation from cancelled flights and dangerous products once we are out of the European alert system. They will possibly be unable to use our courts to follow insurance claims for car accidents abroad, and may even face visa requirements to travel in the EU. The environment is also not one of the overarching 12 principles, despite enormous improvements to the environment made at EU level in co-operation with our EU allies. Nor is how to make good our absence from Euratom—just three paragraphs in the White Paper. We regret any departure from the customs union. We will seek to understand why on earth this is an objective, given the problems it will cause for our importers and exporters, particularly of complex products or components, and for the service sector, as was raised this morning.

I am also curious about the background to the White Paper. Is it just the Lancaster House speech but in a more normal White Paper style? Or is it what we would normally expect from a Government who know what they are doing, based on careful cost-benefit and options appraisal, with impact assessments prepared for the various options? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked some fairly simple but fundamental questions this morning about such assessments, but answers came there none. I ask again: will the Government, while holding any negotiation tricks safely up their sleeve, complete and publish impact assessments on the White Paper’s objectives? Will they make these available to our EU committees in a timely manner so that their reports can influence the Government’s thinking?

When will the Government publish the other White Paper, not on what is called the great repeal Bill but on what is actually a retrenchment Bill? Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I ask him from where the Government believe they derive the mandate to leave the single market, in an extreme version of Brexit. This dishonours the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, breaks the Conservative manifesto promise to stay in the single market and breaches the wishes of 90% of voters who, in a poll last November, said they wanted to stay in the single market. There was no choice on the ballot last June that asked people, “Do you want to leave the single market?”.

Therefore, will the Minister tell me why this version of Brexit, which will be so destructive to our economy and jobs, is being chosen? It will also be a great deal more bureaucratic. Any alternative to the smooth trade we get with the single market and the customs union, especially for supply chains that exist not only in manufacturing but in services and, as I learned this morning, universities, which depend on the free exchange of academics, will be more bureaucratic and mean more red tape. The Conservatives always tell us they stand for slashing red tape. Also, how do we expect to get the benefits of common systems and frameworks when we are not in the single market and customs union? I do not understand how we can derive such benefits.

The Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech that,

“no deal … is better than a bad deal”.

In the light of that, will the Minister please explain how the Government will fulfil the promises of certainty, clarity and a smooth orderly exit, avoiding a disruptive cliff edge? If the Government propose to walk away from the negotiations, how can they avoid a disorderly, chaotic Brexit, which is precisely what business and most of us fear? Where is the national consensus? Where are the 48% of people who voted to remain reflected in the White Paper, which I acknowledge I have not had the opportunity to read, although I read the Statement, which talks about a national consensus? I second the request for the publication of impact assessments for us to know exactly where the Government think they are taking us in concrete reality.

The Prime Minister has admitted that the UK will continue to pay into the EU budget for the sectoral benefits they expect to get. Where will the money come from for the NHS, promised by the leave campaign? It is currently about £11 billion; we all know how cash-starved the NHS is.

On the declared red line of no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice, how will we then co-operate on crime and terrorism, and exchange data? These Benches fully support cross-border co-operation on policing and security, as well as civil justice. The Home Secretary was pressed on this in the other place by the Home Affairs Committee. It asked how she was going to get those arrangements while denying the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg court. She floundered in answering that question, as did the Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice to the EU Justice Sub-Committee on Tuesday in the area of civil justice. It simply does not add up.

I also ask the Minister a question we keep asking because it is important, particularly to this House. It is a cross-party concern that EU nationals and Brits in the rest of the EU should not be a pawn in negotiations. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Government giving a unilateral guarantee and a simplified procedure for EU nationals to stay, and for Brits in the rest of the EU. It is morally indefensible as well as economically illiterate not to do so. Can the Minister give me a real answer why that is not happening?

Lastly, if the Government really believe in British democracy, they should trust the people for a final say on this deal. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, thinks it is funny. The Liberal Democrats do not. We take democracy seriously. People have not had a chance to see the colour of the Government’s money when it comes to what Brexit will mean in detail. They—not just Parliament, but voters—should get the chance to say whether that Brexit deal is good enough or whether they prefer to stay with the European Union.

A New Partnership with the EU

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which, regrettably, we saw on TV before it was given in the Commons.

We welcome the commitment to a vote in this House on the final deal—but how much better had the Government committed to a vote on Article 50 rather than having to be dragged to the courts. We also welcome the objective of ending up with a fairer Britain—it would have been strange if they had asked to get to a less fair Britain. Our worry is the sting in the tail of saying that “no deal” and a new economic model was better than a bad deal. That sounds like lower taxes, which means fewer public services and therefore a price to be paid by exactly those ordinary working people whom the Prime Minister claims to prioritise.

However, I do not want to dwell on the possibility of failure in negotiations. I want to welcome the commitment to as free trade as possible with the European Union—our major market, our closest neighbours, our security partners. I welcome the Government’s use of the word “partnership” as a grown-up relationship which benefits both sides. My concern is whether this is possible, since the Government are contemplating leaving the customs union. Without that, we are in WTO territory, with no protection for services, a poor deal for agriculture —the future of which got no reference at all in the speech—and higher prices for consumers as tariffs are imposed. The NFU estimates that there would be cheese and meat tariffs of up to 30%, with extra red tape adding a further 6%.

More than this, if we are not fully in the customs union, we will not be able to import and export finished products or components without “country of origin” rules and checks. That is costly and time-consuming. If costs to business increase, how can we expect them to invest and innovate? Outside of the customs union, our financial services would also be at a disadvantage—a cost to industry as well as the services themselves. If our insolvency regime does not work, investors will think twice about locating here and putting their money at risk. If our insurance, hedging, clearing and other major services are weaker, so is the chance of entrepreneurs and investors risking their capital.

We of course welcome the commitment to maintaining workers’ rights and hope that the Government will therefore support Melanie Onn’s Private Member’s Bill, which entrenches just that. Furthermore, workers are consumers too, yet they did not get a mention in the speech. Their rights to be protected from unsafe goods or food, their ability to travel visa-free, using their domestic car insurance, or to get compensation for delayed air travel—all these also need to be retained but were not mentioned. We were pleased to hear the acknowledgement of the importance of science, but we heard nothing as to whether we would be able to stay within the European Medicines Agency or other similar agencies, which are vital for our trading relationships.

What of the future needs of our economy? The Government, quite rightly, want to protect EU citizens already here, but what of the future? A quarter of a million EU nationals work in public services, but there will be churn and, in care homes as well as hospitals, we may need these people in the future, as with the 100,000 EU nationals working in food and drink.

I leave just three quite simple questions with the Minister. First, what impact assessment have the Government made of the UK being outside the customs union, and will he commit to publishing that? Secondly, does he accept that, even if we come out of the ECJ, any trade agreement requires some sort of dispute adjudication body? So what thought has been given to what might be appropriate for a free trade agreement with the EU? Finally, what response does he envisage from the EU 27 to these objectives?

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We see that the Prime Minister, who pretended that she did not have to choose, has come to the end of her “cake policy” period and has made a choice, and it is the most damaging one possible in response to the referendum result and in terms of the values, vision and alliances that Britain wants to pursue. We do indeed need to take this opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be, but the Prime Minister is deluding the country if she thinks that the UK will emerge stronger, fairer and more united from this Brexit plan.

The attempt to rebrand hard Brexit as clean Brexit does not survive a moment’s scrutiny. It will be destructive, messy and antagonistic, as indeed the Government’s contemplation of “no deal” suggests. There is overwhelming public support for free trade with the EU to continue, and the only true free trade is inside the single market. That is why Mrs Thatcher created it, and the Conservative manifesto last year pledged to stay inside it.

Do the Government expect to be thanked by millions of Britons, particularly young ones, who will lose their protection from data-roaming and flight cancellation rip-offs, as well as the freedom to live, work and study where they want? The Government’s claim that we will be a fairer country with workers’ rights enhanced is contradicted by Chancellor Hammond’s threat that we will be the Singapore of Europe, as a tax haven with slashed regulation.

The Prime Minster claims that we need hard Brexit to be more outward-looking and to reach beyond the borders of Europe, but that is perverse. The most obvious example of international co-operation is on our door-step—the very EU on whose single market she is turning her back. The contention that the UK needs to reject the EU to “go global” posits a completely false choice. The EU, with over 50 free trade agreements, is a gateway to the global stage, not an impediment to it, and leaving it risks exposing the UK and its people to the coldest winds of globalisation that the EU helps protect them from.

The Prime Minister is aligning the country with a protectionist incoming US President—ironically while the Chinese leader speaks at Davos in favour of free trade. She says that she wants the EU to succeed and for the UK to be its best friend, but the choice of hard Brexit aligned with Mr Trump and, through him, with President Putin and against Chancellor Merkel is a rejection not only of the single market and the European economic, social and human rights model but, indeed, a pact with those whose declared—not even hidden—objective is to subvert, divide and break up the EU and NATO, and thus the bedrock of our security.

The Prime Minister says that she wants us to be tolerant and a magnet for international talent but, by refusing a unilateral guarantee, she is sending a message of denigration and rejection of the 3 million EU citizens who already contribute so much to Britain’s economy and society, putting them through agonies of insecurity and subjecting them to the most Kafkaesque Home Office bureaucracy.

When the British people voted last year, they did not vote to live in a world where our values are replaced by ones set by Presidents Trump and Putin, so the case for a referendum on the Brexit deal, so that people can decide democratically whether they want a future as portrayed by this Tory Government, has been strengthened even further.

Brexit: Article 50

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I feel he had no hand in drafting. My guess is that he would have preferred to get on with allowing Parliament to trigger Article 50. Indeed, how much better it would have been if the Government had listened to the wise words of our Constitution Committee in September, when it said that a parliamentary vote would be needed. It is hard to understand why the Government are getting in such a tizzy about this. Rather like after their tax credit defeat, they overreact when faced by any challenge.

In September, I commented that,

“leaving the EU is not a simple step outside but a journey”.—[Official Report, 8/9/16; col. 1131.]

But will we leave Brussels via Dunkirk or Ostend, by train through Calais, by plane via Dublin or, heaven forfend, by the good ship “Titanic” piloted by Boris Johnson?

These are serious matters. In our economy, highly dependent on services, we have to secure a future for our creative, internet, design, legal, engineering and financial services and for intellectual property. We must be sure that our insolvency practitioners, chasing down funds for UK-based creditors, have access to squirrelled wealth in EU countries—currently allowed for under the mutual recognition of appointments—and that our lawyers retain rights of address and legal privilege. We need to safeguard the future of UK nationals living abroad as they lose their EU citizenship. We have to disentangle our competition law from that of the EU, law developed to protect consumers from monopolies and cartels, while helping our exporters, who will still be subject to EU competition rules.

Until we know the terms on which we will leave the EU and our relationship with the remaining 27 member states after we leave, we cannot negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, so the terms on which we disengage from the EU and their consequences should be debated in Parliament. Parliament needs to question whether the Prime Minister has the right negotiating objectives for how we leave the EU. What priority will she give to remaining in the single market? Is she safeguarding—indeed, promoting—our regions, which have done less well from globalisation? Is she seeking to enhance consumer, environmental and workplace protections? Are her objectives grounded in security considerations and promoting human rights and are they acceptable to the electorate?

The British people decided that we should leave the EU, but it is for Parliament, not simply Downing Street, to debate the exit details. Whichever route we take, we have a long journey ahead of us. In that time, my fervent hope is that we see no more of the British press, which ought to recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of our judiciary, printing 72-point headings naming the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice as “Enemies of the people” simply for doing their job and pointing out that, constitutionally, the Government,

“does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 … for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union”.

The High Court ruling will not derail Brexit. However, given that the Government were caught short by the referendum result and none of the preparatory work was done in the case of a Brexit outcome, can the Minister assure the House that they will not find themselves in the same position this time if the judgment is upheld, and that a Bill is in preparation? Our EU committees have already started work on the myriad issues to be addressed. Could the Minister confirm that the Government will listen to the experience and knowledgeable words of these colleagues as they go forward?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I could not agree more with the assertion in it that implementing the decision to leave the EU means following the right processes, including securing the time to develop a detailed negotiating position. The right processes mean implementing the repeated pledge to honour UK parliamentary sovereignty and seeking parliamentary approval for the negotiating position.

By December, the Government will have lost six months in that process. In fact, they seem to be tying themselves up in knots trying to avoid such parliamentary involvement, getting bogged down in their misguided pursuit of executive autonomy over the Article 50 process in an unnecessary and delay-inducing court case. Their incoherence is displayed in having to offer special comfort deals to particular firms such as Nissan instead of being clear in regard to the single market and the customs union. This is creating destabilising uncertainty for all kinds of economic operators and other bodies. Now we hear the Prime Minister talk about putting on the table more visas for Indian nationals, while apparently immigration is treated as a barrier to the single market. That seems somewhat contradictory.

We must rely on leaks in the press to try and read the Government’s mind—or read the tea leaves. Indeed, there is much speculation about a Bill but no such indication in the Statement today. I join the noble Baroness in asking for clarification on that. We need a respectful relationship between Government and Parliament, one indeed sketched out in several reports of our own EU Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and one last month from the Constitution Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton. A lot of work and evidence went into those reports but the Government just brushed them aside.

The Government are not only behaving arrogantly towards Parliament when the political constitutional basis for Parliament’s role was in fact clear without the legal process, but also—to the dismay of people across the political spectrum—indulging in populist and xenophobic language, culminating in the failure to properly defend the institution of the judiciary. Freedom of the press may incorporate a freedom to criticise a particular judgment but not to indulge in scurrilous personal and institutional abuse of judges and the judiciary. It is very disappointing that neither in the days since the High Court judgment nor today have the Government rebuked the nature of the press comments notably in the Daily Mail and rather more shockingly in the Daily Telegraph, including the famous “enemies of the people” slogan evocative of Nazi Germany. It would be good to hear from the Government a condemnation of that kind of press coverage, and of the incitement to rioting in the streets from the former leader of UKIP, Mr Farage.

The Government say they intend to act on the decision to leave but it is on the character of that action that we need clarity since there are many different varieties of Brexit—probably more than 57. It is necessary to be respectful to those who voted remain if the Prime Minister genuinely wants to unite the country. The phrase in the Statement about giving no quarter is a rather disturbing signal.

Liberal Democrats in no way seek to undermine the negotiating position of the Government. Parliament having an overview of the objectives would not do so. Indeed, having the backing of Parliament, as was mentioned in our several reports, would strengthen the Government’s hand in those negotiations. We are not asking for details of particular trade-offs or red lines.

Any delay is down to the Government. If they act in good faith, there is no reason not to meet a March timetable. This does not mean a series of interesting but essentially purposeless general debates in which the Government stonewall, but an opportunity to get to grips with a concrete plan and a substantive strategy. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Government are planning to inform Parliament about their negotiating objectives in a White Paper, as is rumoured, and what kind of Bill they are planning to produce? The Government need to stop waffling and sidestepping and give us enough meat to be able to vote for the triggering of Article 50.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 10th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I welcome the chance for the House to hear formally, rather than through the press, the decision to trigger Article 50 by the end of March and the plans for the great repeal Bill—a decision which otherwise, of course, we heard about on television. We trust that this is just the first of a number of regular attendances at the Dispatch Box to brief the House on the approach being taken and on progress being made. The decisions that the Government take over the coming months and years, regarding how we exit the EU and our new relations with both the remaining EU and the rest of the world, carry huge implications for us and for future generations.

I am old enough to remember, 44 years ago this month, that it took 69 Labour MPs to defy a three-line whip to take the UK into the Common Market, contributing to the Government’s 112 majority. Without those 69—which included the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan, Lord Owen and Lord Rodgers, Lord Hattersley, Lady Williams and Lord Sheldon, and our late colleagues Lord Barnett, Lord Roper and others—Ted Heath would have been defeated. We know the implication of that vote for my party, but all of us also know it was a parliamentary vote: a key, much-discussed, vital, and, for some of those involved, very brave vote that took us into Europe.

How, therefore, can the Government now say that the trigger—the starting gun from which there is no going back—can be fired without a vote in Parliament? The Minister spoke of returning sovereignty to the UK, yet the Government want to exclude Parliament from this process, not simply on triggering Article 50 but also in debating the negotiating terms or the evolving agreements. That is not making Parliament sovereign; it is sidelining Parliament.

Will the Minister explain why the Government will not reconsider their decision to rule out a vote on the basic terms they propose before Article 50 is triggered? We understand the Government were caught short, having had no plans for Brexit in their 2015 manifesto—indeed, they were committed to,

“safeguard British interests in the Single Market”.

They then forbade Whitehall from making plans for a leave vote. But that is no excuse for not being ready by early next year to articulate their approach. If the Government proceed to an exit deal without a vote in Parliament, their specific plans will never have the approval of the public or of Parliament. We therefore ask the Minister: when do the Government propose that Parliament should vote on their negotiating objectives?

We nevertheless accept—for some of us, with much sadness—the outcome of the referendum, but that result does not give the Government a blank cheque to negotiate away vital protections for workers, consumers, the environment or, indeed, the interests of business. Throughout these coming years and the complicated negotiations, the national interest—not just the Conservatives’ interests—must come first. Aside from defence and national security, and our continuing membership of Europol, the economy and jobs are central to the national interest. Yet, it appears from the Prime Minister’s statement to the Conservative conference that Brexit means hard Brexit and that continued access to the single market is at risk, with huge risks for the economy, jobs, business and working people. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will seek continued access to the single market on the best possible terms? Can he rule out a default position of falling back on to the WTO terms?

For my generation—perhaps for me in particular, having been born in a war-torn Germany in the late 1940s, growing up in a divided Europe, but then able to witness the blossoming of a free, open and prosperous Europe, built on free trade in a single market—the next two and a half years will be utterly demanding as we seek a new relationship with our continental allies. It is the defining issue of this Parliament and a major task for the House. Perhaps the Minister could tell us: when is the next parliamentary Session, when the great repeal Bill will arrive? Will he confirm that he will take the House with him every step of the way?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I start, though, by querying the claim that the mandate of 23 June was “overwhelming”. Compared with the overwhelming mandate of the 1975 referendum, which was a 2:1 vote, this was a narrow majority, sending a rather unclear message that the Government are overinterpreting. While it may have been a narrow decision to leave on 23 June, it was not the decision to trigger Article 50, which first requires a great deal more knowledge of the destination.

The Government’s conduct of the Brexit process needs to meet at least four criteria. First, given the enhancement of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy promised by the Secretary of State in his Statement of 5 September, the pledge in the Conservative manifesto of 2010 to reform the use of prerogative powers, and the claim in today’s Statement that the,

“whole approach is about empowering this place”,

I am surprised by the Prime Minister’s refusal of a parliamentary vote. The claim is that sovereignty is being returned to the institutions of the UK. That must mean Parliament, but it is not being done. I would like the Minister to explain why.

The Constitution Committee of this House said in its report last month:

“It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences”.

I think that many in this House would agree with that. Indeed, Professor Mark Elliott, who is the legal adviser to that committee, has said in a blog that the Government’s “grounds of resistance” in the current litigation concede that permission is required from Parliament. They then say that permission was given by the referendum Act, which many of us would dispute, but they have conceded in that court case that Parliament’s permission is needed.

The second criterion, referred to by the noble Baroness, would be fulfilment of the 2015 Conservative manifesto pledge to stay in the single market. That is supported by the point stressed by the leave campaign that people voted in the 1975 referendum for the common market. Many people agreed with that, so, by implication, most people are happy to stay in the common market. Why are the Government not aiming to stay in the single market?

Thirdly, we need good governance. I perfectly agree that it is,

“now incumbent on the Government”,

as the Statement puts it, to deliver as orderly and smooth an exit as possible, providing maximum certainty for businesses and workers. Well, with business up in arms about the current uncertainty and the pound dropping like a stone, that is going well, isn’t it? The Government owe us all some certainty.

Fourthly, the Chancellor remarked that the British people did not vote to become poorer. That is on the cards, with import prices set to rise heavily in the new year, affecting everybody’s pocket and wallet.

Finally, the Government say that they want to move forward on a repeal Bill in parallel with the Brexit negotiations. Whatever the timing of such legislation, for which the implementation will fall due in 2019 at the earliest, it should not distract from the overwhelming need for this Parliament to be in the driving seat for the negotiations, and to not be a left-behind passenger.