European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Monday 13th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is the first speech that I have made in a personal capacity since I was appointed by this House to chair the EU Committee, now nearly eight eventful years ago. Perhaps I may begin therefore by expressing sincere thanks for the opportunity that I have had to serve the House and echoing my entire confidence in my successor. I have also recognised the good sense of colleagues from all sides of the House engaged in our work and, equally, the excellent contribution of our expert, enthusiastic and dedicated staff. I might add that I am anxious that all those British officials and others involved in European affairs over now half a century deserve suitable public recognition.

This Bill is a complex and necessary mechanism giving effect to the Government’s electoral mandate, but I hope that it will also be the time for releasing some of the political tension. It is high time now to de-dramatise the process and begin to move on.

That is in no sense to minimise the important details of the Bill. One minor gain is that there are additions in Clause 29 which restore parity of scrutiny process between this House and the other House, but, as noble Lords have already said in relation to the work of the Joint Committees and specialist committees, although Ministers will be involved, there is to be apparently no role for parliamentary scrutiny. I emphasise from the work that we have done as a Select Committee that specialist committees will often touch on the niceties bequeathed to us by history. The Select Committee has rightly focused its attention on them, with particular reference to the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar as well as the Irish problem.

In relation to future scrutiny, the Bill represents some backward steps. To judge by my experience in dealing with Ministers over the negotiations leading to the withdrawal agreement, there is, frankly, a long way to go and much still to learn from our European Commission and European parliamentary counterparts. Ministers have to realise that scrutiny is not an optional extra. Properly handled, it can be a force for good. Frankly, that is the exact point of the more than 40 reports which the EU Select Committee has produced since the referendum.

All this comes to a head in the most salient change in the current Bill, which would in effect prohibit any extension of the transitional period beyond the current year. This is high-wire stuff, particularly as it is only now that we are appreciating the trade-offs. On the other hand, I appreciate that Ministers feel the need to break out of three years of uncertainty and parliamentary stasis. I have no final view on the tactics. I can see the argument for concentrating minds, but not at the expense of our long-term interests. So there might be a case for getting on with a basic free trade agreement, supplemented by essential work on security and police co-operation. That might even fit in with some of the Government’s wish to be seen to take an interest in traditional manufacturing regions where they have gained new political support, provided that they do not lose on the overall infrastructure by losing EU funding.

However, this will simply not be enough in the long term. Our economic life now centres on services, and our future productivity depends on access to research and skills. Geographically, economically and culturally, though perhaps not politically, we shall remain in Europe, though not run by it. We shall need to adapt our institutions to new and subtle challenges and seek to maximise our influence. Alongside efforts to build global Britain, we will need to build a new relationship with our European neighbours, not just over technical and withdrawal issues, but looking beyond to a continuing involvement with agencies and activities, including facing new challenges together. We need to look at this not so much through leverage or bluster, but rather looking to common interests and mutual benefit, in the positive aspects of the political declaration. In two concluding phrases, we leave but we do not stalk off; and in leaving we simply have to try harder to maintain the relationship.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement Scrutiny

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that select committees are able to consider and report on the final text of any UK-EU withdrawal agreement in time to inform the parliamentary debates required under section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, both Houses of Parliament will need time to scrutinise the content of the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship once agreed. The exact timings for the debate will be a matter for determination in the usual way. Select Committees in both Houses of course play an important role in that process of scrutiny and the Government are committed to facilitating that scrutiny.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, I hope he understands that the European Union Committee, which I chair, has done extensive work in this crucial area and has a duty to report on the withdrawal agreement and the framework for future relations in good time to inform the debate in this House and indeed the votes in the Commons. We cannot do this in a vacuum. It is the Government’s duty as part of their accountability to Parliament to support our work and not to frustrate it. So does the Minister agree that if Brexit is, at least in part, about restoring the sovereignty of this Parliament, the Government should set an example by engaging in a mature, constructive way with its committees, rather than, as Mr Raab has done, effectively refusing to give evidence? Does he further agree that, given that Mr Raab’s predecessor, David Davis, gave the committee a clear undertaking that Parliament should enjoy at least parity of arms with the European Parliament, it is extraordinary that we find ourselves in the situation where Michel Barnier is briefing MEPs almost daily and sharing draft texts while Select Committees in Westminster are kept in the dark?

[Lord Callanan]

We are of course fully committed to facilitating the work of the committees. The Secretary of State has made 10 parliamentary appearances in the nine sitting weeks since his appointment. Deputy Ministers have given evidence on over 40 occasions to a range of committees, and I know that the Secretary of State has appeared once in front of the noble Lord’s committee and has committed to appearing again when we have a deal and something to report back on.

Brexit: Preparations and Negotiations

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall contribute as chair of your Lordships’ European Union Committee and I shall be as short as I can. I shall focus on the Government’s recent White Paper on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. As many noble Lords will already be aware, the EU Committee published its report, UK-EU Relations after Brexit, on 8 June, and the House debated it on 2 July. Our six sub-committees are now all considering relevant sections of the White Paper, and I hope that the results of our collective work will appear after the Summer Recess. In the meantime, I shall briefly set out my own sense of how the White Paper measures up against the five principles we set out in the report I have referred to.

First, we said that the White Paper should focus on achieving benefits from the future UK-EU relationship, rather than on defending red lines. In this respect the White Paper is muddled, as exemplified by the proposition on page 14 that the new economic partnership sought will “end free movement”, thereby delivering on one of the Government’s red lines. It is not the economic partnership that will end free movement but the act of withdrawing from the European Union, as a result of which its treaties, on which the concept of free movement rests, will cease to apply to the United Kingdom. Setting aside the prospect of a transition period, it is a legal fact that free movement will end on 29 March of next year.

The aim of the future economic partnership, in contrast, is to deliver certain economic benefits. The first thing the Government need to do is to identify and quantify them before making a pragmatic, evidence-based assessment of the extent of our reliance on European Union labour, and thus of the trade-offs that may be necessary or appropriate if we are to secure the benefits. On all of this, the White Paper is disappointingly silent.

The committee’s second principle was that the White Paper should build on areas of mutual UK and EU interest. Here it is a mixed picture. In some places it does quite well, for example in addressing aspects of the security partnership and the need to avoid operational gaps in law enforcement. In others, it pays only lip service to mutual interests without building on them. For example, the paragraphs on climate change on page 40 acknowledge a shared interest, but no joint approach is proposed and no reference at all is made to emissions trading. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the pace of policy development has not been consistent: some areas are well thought out and detailed while others are still half-cooked.

Our third principle was that the White Paper should be realistic. It should acknowledge that the benefits of a new relationship will come at a cost, requiring compromises and trade-offs. Again, the White Paper is uneven. I will not labour the issue of the Government’s proposed facilitated customs arrangement, other than to report that when the Select Committee visited Brussels last week—talking to Michel Barnier, among others—nobody outside UKRep saw the proposal as without problems. Instead, I will give a much more specific example—reciprocal healthcare—where the White Paper simply says that the Government want UK and EU nationals to continue to be able to use the EHIC. That is all it says. Here is mine—go or no go after 29 March next.

I find that, having overseen the extraordinary efforts of the 70-plus members of our committee and its 25 staff over the last two years to respond to the Brexit challenge—which has led to the production of over 30 thorough evidence-based reports on different aspects of Brexit—that this effort does not really strike me as a realistic starting point for negotiation in this area. I do not do it invidiously for that particular department—there are other areas of lacunae.

Finally, the fourth and fifth principles in our report were that the White Paper should present an inclusive vision of future relations, commanding broad support, and that it should use the language of partnership between the UK and the EU. Noble Lords will have their own thoughts on the first of these principles, particularly given last week’s events in the House of Commons. As a non-affiliated officer in this House, I will resist the temptation to comment further, except to say that European interests read our language and are well aware of the psychodrama that has been taking place here.

As for our partnership with the European Union, the Government’s support for an association agreement, long championed by the European Parliament, is welcome, and I hope it will change the tone of the negotiations. That of course depends on the other European Union institutions, in particular the Council, which ultimately calls the shots—but they have to react in the same spirit.

In summary, the White Paper is a curate’s egg. It represents progress and the change of tone is welcome, but it is far from the finished article. There are still worrying holes in the Government’s policy—and, of course, the need to agree an Irish backstop, to which the Government committed in last December’s joint report, has not gone away. Time is short and my deepest fear is that the Government might now imagine that time in fact is its ally—that, as the deadline approaches and the threat of no deal looms ever larger, the EU will be first to blink.

If that is the Government’s view, I submit that it is a delusion. As we said in our report last year, Brexit: Deal or No Deal, it is difficult to imagine a worse outcome for the United Kingdom than “no deal”. This is borne out by the Government’s and others’ economic analysis. We know that no deal would be disastrous, and the European Union knows that we know it. This is not the time to be playing chicken.

Brexit: UK-EU Relations (EUC Report)

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee UK–EU relations after Brexit (17th Report, HL Paper 149).

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the House having a few minutes ago considered the repeated Statement on the outcome of the European Council meeting, we now move to our debate on the European Union Committee’s report on UK-EU relations.

It was originally intended that the European Council meeting this past weekend would mark a decisive step forward in the Brexit negotiations. It was to be the meeting at which the withdrawal agreement would be signed off and the outlines of what will become the accompanying political declaration, setting out the framework for future UK-EU relations, would become clear. None of that has happened. I will not labour the point, but the result, as our report points out at paragraph 121, is that we now have only a matter of weeks, in practice, in which to finalise the framework for future UK-EU relations.

Noble Lords’ European Union Committee, which I have the honour to chair, has published more than 30 Brexit-themed reports since the referendum. Perhaps in company with others, we have reached, if not actually passed, the point of Brexit-fatigue, but the fact is that our relationship with the EU matters. It matters economically, it matters to our internal and external security, and it matters culturally and socially, so tonight’s debate could not be more timely. Apart from anything else, it gives us a chance to discuss what we expect from the Government’s forthcoming White Paper, which was originally planned for early June, and is now, we understand, to appear next week following what is widely reported to be a crucial gathering of the Cabinet at Chequers on Friday. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm tonight exactly when the White Paper will be published. I hope also that he will confirm that it will be more than a 150-page wish list or a copy-and-paste exercise merely regurgitating past statements. It has to have some bite.

If there is one point in our report that I would like to emphasise to the House, it is that the Government need to understand that there is no free lunch. If we want to derive benefits from a new relationship with the EU, we will have to pay a price. That may be an economic price—we may have to pay for access to specific agencies or programmes—or it may be a political price—we may need to compromise, for instance on allowing a continuing role for the European Court of Justice or even on free movement—or there may be a trade-off between the two, but there will be a price. That is the nature of any negotiation. You identify the benefits you want to achieve, you work out how much you are prepared to pay, and then you start talking. The greater the benefits, the higher the price you can offer. This applies as much to the EU as it does to the UK. The EU also has much to gain—access to the City of London’s capital markets; tariff-free access to the UK market; the maintenance of supply chains; and, as the Prime Minister rightly emphasised at the European Council, the expertise of our security services—and the EU will also have to pay a price.

I stress to the House that our report does not recommend a particular option for future UK-EU relations, and let me be clear that it is not a covert plea to reverse the referendum result. It is clear in the title of the report we have just issued that that is not our intention. There are different views within the committee, and we would, like Parliament as a whole—indeed, like the nation—find it difficult to agree on a single model. Where we do agree is that, as illustrated in the very simplified graphic on page 18 of our report, there is a continuum where benefits and compromises exist in balance. You cannot have all the benefits without the compromises, as the Government occasionally seem to imagine, nor can you demand all the compromises without offering the benefits, as some of Monsieur Barnier’s speeches sometimes might suggest.

I deliberately emphasise to the House the two-sided nature of the negotiation because, for obvious reasons, our focus in the report is largely on the Government’s approach. That is our job. We are a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, and our job is to scrutinise the UK Government. I trust that those with analogous roles in Europe, in the European Parliament and in national Parliaments across the EU 27, are doing their jobs with equal vigour, and I will touch on that now.

It is striking that the European Parliament, building on the tightly defined role afforded it by Article 50—the withdrawal provision—has been more constructive and imaginative in its approach to future relations than other European institutions, for example the European Council or the European Commission. Maybe it is because parliamentarians collectively are more sensitive to the realities of people’s daily lives than Governments and civil servants, but whatever the reason, the European Parliament, in defending citizens’ rights, including the rights of UK citizens resident in the EU, and in using the language of partnership through its advocacy of an association agreement, has made a positive contribution, on which I hope we can all build.

As I said a moment ago, time is short. We have a matter of weeks in which to make progress. We need a breakthrough. Both sides need to realise that people’s lives, their security and their prosperity are more important than abstract red lines. I hope that next week’s White Paper will achieve that breakthrough. It will not be easy, and I do not underestimate the difficulty of balancing benefits and costs, particularly when you start to factor in the benefits that the UK could conceivably achieve by not entering into a structured relationship with the EU. This particularly applies in respect of trade, where the economic benefits of entering into a customs union with the EU need to be set against the benefits of negotiating trade agreements with countries outside Europe. While we understand the scale of that challenge, we are clear that the Government’s White Paper will be judged against a number of key principles. These are set out in paragraph 125 of our report and I will briefly run through them. First, will the White Paper focus on achieving real, tangible benefits from our relationship with the EU? We know that we are leaving on 29 March next year, so it is time for a new mindset. What is true of any major project or programme is true of these negotiations: you need to focus on achieving benefits from them.

Secondly, will the White Paper build on areas of mutual UK and EU interest? Those should be the quick wins. Thirdly, will it offer a realistic assessment of the costs and trade-offs that will be required if the benefits are to be achieved? The Government have spent much of the last two years assuring us that they want to retain many of the benefits of EU membership but without sufficiently acknowledging the cost. In the interests of even-handedness, I could say the same about the Opposition. That mindset needs to change.

Fourthly, will the White Paper express an inclusive vision of future UK-EU relations, commanding broad support? The inwardness of much of the discussion that has filled the press in recent months is, frankly, disturbing. Getting agreement within a Cabinet committee, or even within the whole Cabinet, is not enough. The country is deeply divided and simplistic majoritarian arithmetic is not sufficient. It was Daniel Hannan—most definitely not a remainer—who in evidence to us highlighted the narrow margin in the referendum and argued that a nuanced approach was required. There will always be diehards on both sides, but the Government need to set out a vision that appeals to the whole country: those who voted remain as well as those who voted leave.

Lastly, the White Paper needs to use the language of partnership. This is why the European Parliament’s support for an association agreement is welcome. The White Paper needs to reset the tone of the negotiations in order to start rebuilding the trust that has been so eroded in recent months. Then the onus will be on the EU to respond positively. Mr Barnier might disagree but the EU also has its red lines, and it will need to show flexibility. Simply insisting on the indivisibility of the four freedoms will not help the two sides to make progress.

I do not have time now to cover everything in our report. There is the specific and pressing problem of applying the principles of the future relationship to Ireland and Northern Ireland, which we touch on briefly but on which we published a comprehensive report as early as December 2016, and we remain firmly on the case. There are what might appear to be second-order issues that could derail the negotiations, as the recent disagreements over Galileo demonstrate. We also need to defend the interests of the Crown dependencies, Gibraltar and the other overseas territories.

I conclude with a final word from my own experience. No one should regard negotiations of this seriousness and complexity as a pushover but there are dangers in a bunker mentality, which both sides appear to have adopted. There is also a time for openness and even a degree of generosity of spirit. That time is fast approaching. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I note that we have more or less worn out the light of the summer evening and I think it would be fair to say that this debate largely speaks for itself. Nevertheless, despite the lateness of the hour, I want to make a brief but not, I hope, perfunctory comment about the contributions of colleagues. They have set out so well from the range of their different experiences the complexity and the urgency of addressing this problem. In thanking the speakers in the debate, I thank also colleagues from the EU Select Committee who have not spoken but who have contributed massively to the report, and, indeed our sub-committees which fed into our work and thoughts. Last but in no sense the least, I should like to record the dedicated and immensely professional work of our committee staff. Like everyone else, they are facing an unprecedented workload in these circumstances.

The debate has been a worthwhile exercise, and it would indeed be churlish if I did not add the Minister to my encomium, because he has closely attended to the debate. He has—not all Ministers do these days—stayed firmly on message, which is welcome. He has given us some specific information or confirmed the position on the White Paper. I was interested in his rehearsal and formulation of the association agreement and it was also interesting to have such a long and helpful exposé on security matters. We touched on those and no doubt will wish to return to them. But I will stress to the Minister tonight that the ball is very much in his court and that of the Front Bench to report to their colleagues and make sure that they are aware of the depth of feeling in this place, and in particular the urgency that we attach to the issue.

I offer for nothing one piece of domestic political advice to the Government Front Bench, which I can say now as a non-aligned Peer. The supreme test of statecraft, if at the moment you are looking just at the interests of the United Kingdom, is whether we manage to serve our people wherever they live within the United Kingdom and however they voted in the referendum. It is actually doing a job for people and not adopting any particular theories or interpretations of the past.

I will conclude by making the point that this has never been seen as a unilateral report; it is a call to both sides to get together on the negotiations. In terms of a successful negotiation, you need two to make a positive contribution to success. I would just say in conclusion that the time is fast approaching when it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union 27 that we get on with the job: simply, action this day. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Article 50 (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, for his eloquent introduction to the debate, and to his committee for its authoritative analysis of the important questions of domestic, constitutional and political principle that arise in relation to the issue of a notification under Article 50. We also await the judgment of the Supreme Court, and I shall not dwell further on Article 50.

What my committee’s report seeks to do, in contrast, is to give an appreciation and a structured outline of the whole Brexit process, and to identify the points within that process where parliamentary involvement will be required. We have broken the process down into four phases: a preparatory phase, in which we now find ourselves; a phase of formal negotiations in accordance with Article 50 of the EU treaty; the ratification phase, when Parliament will be asked to approve whatever agreement has been reached; and finally the implementation phase, when Parliament gives effect to the agreement in domestic law.

This is a logical sequence, but not necessarily a chronological one. In reality, these phases will have to overlap. Indeed, I welcome the Government’s intention to proceed with implementing key elements of withdrawal, by means of its great repeal Bill, in tandem with the negotiations. It is of course vital that once any agreement is ratified and takes effect, there be as seamless a transition as possible to a new legislative framework.

But these are all points of process; what really matters is the substance. What will Brexit actually mean for the people of this country and of the European Union? Will they, for example, be able to move freely within Europe in search of jobs? Will existing rights, whether of employment, property or residence, be respected? And what will Brexit mean for businesses? Will they be able to trade freely across borders? Will United Kingdom airlines be able to fly between European cities? Will EU fishermen continue to fish in UK waters? Will police forces still be able to extradite criminals to and from the European Union? The list of questions is almost endless and covers the whole bandwidth of government.

The EU Committee and its six specialist sub-committees are currently considering these questions. I warn noble Lords that we will be publishing a series of short reports in coming months, possibly as many as 20, covering what we see as the key issues—the ones that will most affect the prosperity and security of our nation and people in the years ahead.

The Government, of course, are asking these same questions as they prepare their own negotiating position ahead of triggering Article 50. But that is the rub. They are exploring all these vital questions largely in secret, and we all know next to nothing about the process whereby they are finalising their approach to the negotiations, let alone the goals they have set. Our report is a plea for effective, structured parliamentary scrutiny of the substance of Brexit. Too much is at stake for Brexit to be left to government alone, and for Parliament, as the seat of our democracy, to be restricted to providing a rubber stamp.

We have all heard Ministers’ refusal to offer a running commentary and their rejection of parliamentary micromanagement of the negotiations. With respect, these are Aunt Sallies. Nobody imagines that Parliament can itself conduct tough negotiations that will take place behind closed doors. However, if the Government do not expose their strategic thinking to scrutiny early in the process and embrace the opportunity of genuine dialogue with stakeholders within Parliament and beyond, they risk alienating those whose support they will ultimately have to rely on if the final agreement is to be implemented successfully. That is why in Chapter 2 of our report we conclude that “accountability after the fact” is simply inadequate, and it is why, in paragraph 35, we recommend that both Houses of Parliament,

“be given an opportunity to debate and approve the negotiating guidelines, at least in outline”.

That is absolutely fundamental to the legitimacy of the whole process. Incidentally, in my experience it would also be the expectation in most, if not all, other European Parliaments, were they to find themselves in this position.

Ministers have said in response that they cannot go into the negotiations with all their cards face up—they need to keep something back. There is of course an element of truth in that, but it is not always wise to clutch all your cards close to your chest. Occasionally, you need to play one to draw other cards out. In my view, the whole process of negotiation is one of creating a favourable atmosphere by gradually exposing your hand, and if, in doing that, you have the express endorsement of a sovereign Parliament at your back, you will be much stronger in your negotiating position.

So the Government need to strike a balance. They need to offer enough information to secure parliamentary and public buy-in, but not so much as to undermine their ability to negotiate in detail and to make the trade-offs that will certainly ultimately be needed. That is the theme of Chapter 5 of our report, on scrutiny of the negotiations. We feel that the negotiations cannot be a black box out of which an agreement magically emerges after two years. Parliament must be actively engaged in scrutiny throughout the process. That, I suggest, is why it is imperative that the House designate a specific committee to take the lead in scrutinising the negotiations. Only such a committee can provide the consistency and continuity of membership and staff to engage in sustained, thoughtful scrutiny over a period of at least two years, building up, one would hope, a relationship of trust with government, while of course respecting the confidentiality of sensitive information.

Some noble Lords may say, “Yes, but look at the number of debates we have been having on Brexit and at the number of Questions being tabled; surely more than enough is going on without appointing a committee to scrutinise Brexit”. But that misses the point. This House performs three key functions. It scrutinises legislation—and there is more than enough legislation coming down the track to keep this House and its legislative scrutiny committees busy. It is also properly a forum of public debate on major issues, and our debates, as this afternoon in the Chamber, perform a vital function in that regard. However, the House’s third core function is to scrutinise the Executive, and that scrutiny function needs different and distinctive structures.

The European Union Committee, which I chair, has scrutinised successive Governments’ policies towards the European Union, formerly the European Community, for the more than 40 years of our membership. It is not glamorous work. It is done largely by means of correspondence, supplemented by public and private meetings with Ministers and officials, and draws on the skills of highly expert Members and staff. It has teeth, thanks to the scrutiny reserve resolution. It works and it is still needed. It holds Ministers to account and acts as a vital discipline for officials, exposing and interrogating sloppy thinking, and it ensures that there is an audit trail for the many decisions taken by Ministers on our behalf in Brussels. Of course, it always leaves open the possibility that, on issues of major importance, it can make a report to the House and initiate a wider debate. That is what the House should aim for as we go into these negotiations: effective and sustained scrutiny conducted by a properly resourced and expert committee, drawing on the skills of Members and staff of the House, respecting the confidentiality of sensitive information and making reports to the House as appropriate on the key issues of principle that will undoubtedly arise, but with our emphasis throughout on fleetness of foot and flexibility rather than on covert obstructionism.

For such a scrutiny model to work, the Government will need to make a positive commitment to engaging with Parliament and to providing a steady stream of information to committees. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has already been helpful in indicating that Parliament will have equality of arms with the European Parliament in access to information relating to the negotiations. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, has also been enormously courteous and generous in talking to Members across the House and listening to their concerns, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal thanks to him. But I hope he will agree with me that it is time now to focus our efforts on how we can all, working together, make a success of Brexit.

In conclusion, effective, engaged parliamentary scrutiny is not a threat to Brexit or the national decision. It is, or should be, the Government’s candid friend, and the best way to ensure an outcome that commands parliamentary and public support and that works to our benefit. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response.