Brexit: Parliamentary Approval of the Outcome of Negotiations with the European Union

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wigley

Monday 28th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, such a brief and effective speech is not unusual of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with whom I have worked on a number of important issues over the years.

I want to make one or two new points if I can, although that is extremely difficult. Indeed, I am reminded of a great friend of mine who was getting married for the fourth time. As his son, who proposed the toast, rose to his feet, he said, “Here we are again”. The Brexit debate in your Lordships’ House is a bit like that. One can guarantee that whenever two or three noble Lords are gathered, whether in this House or outside, one short phrase will be uttered within a matter of moments: “What a mess”. It is our duty, so far as it can be, to help to steer the country out of this mess.

We are constantly reminded of the 17 million people who voted leave. Of course, they were in the majority: 52% of voters voted to leave the European Union. We must respect that. However, 48% voted in the opposite direction. Two statistics are even more stark and telling: 37% of the electorate voted to leave and 34% voted to stay. Those figures put things into perspective and ought to induce a little humility in us all. I have always studied the English Civil War with great interest, with its fascinating people, great issues and extraordinary events, but I have come to understand it only over the past three years. We all have a duty to try to heal some of the rifts and breaches. My noble friend Lord Dobbs, who is not in his place at the moment, referred to last weekend’s polls saying that a large number of remainers would not wish to marry a leaver, and vice versa. We all know from our circles of friends that this is all too true. I speak as one whose sons married remainers a long time ago and are both happily married, one after 20 years and the other after 25 years. That was absolutely a good thing.

We need to bring our nation together. How can we do that? I suggest two things: first, we will all be looking to the other end of the Corridor tomorrow night. There will be a series of votes. We do not know exactly how many; that depends on Speaker Bercow. I believe that even at this late stage, the Prime Minister should make the decision that the votes are free ones. I was in the other place when we voted to enter the European Community, or the European common market, as it then was. It was the courageous but realistic decision of one of the most accomplished Chief Whips in post-war history, translated by then to Prime Minister, that led to a free vote. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, smiling and nodding because he remembers that every bit as well as I do. That decision had a profound influence on the result because although only the Government side was officially given a free vote, it had a real effect on the Official Opposition of the day, as I knew from talking to many of them at the time.

The Prime Minister would be performing a great parliamentary and national service if she were to sanction a free vote tomorrow. I also think she would do rather better as a result of that magnanimity than by imposing Whips, which did not work terribly well two weeks ago. Assuming for the moment—I hope correctly—that there is a consensus following tomorrow night and the other place is able to concentrate on one or two not mutually exclusive but complementary avenues towards a settlement of this issue, I hope something else can be done. When my noble friend the Leader of the House was introducing this debate, she referred to cross-party talks and to confidential briefings, so that Members of both Houses could have a clearer insight into the precise details of the negotiations. That is good so far as it goes, but I want to resurrect an idea that I first voiced on the Floor of your Lordships’ House in June 2016, when I said it would be a very good thing if we could have a joint committee—based on the Scottish and Welsh committees—of both Houses, not just one House, on the European issue.

If we are to come together—if those of us who accept that there is to be Brexit, but are proud that we are one of 48% of the electorate and 34% of the nation, are to bring people together—it would be good to have a joint committee of both Houses and all parties meeting to discuss the details. It does not need to prolong the issue indefinitely. I was taken with what my noble friend the Duke of Wellington said about a three-month extension; because of the burden of legislation, that may be necessary. Nevertheless, I was brought up sharp, as I am sure many of your Lordships were, by the speech of my noble friend Lord Balfe. He pointed out some of the practicalities involved, and that the European Parliament that meets on 18 July will be different—perhaps very different—from the Parliament that meets on 18 April. It may have a very different angle on some of the great issues.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I am following the noble Lord with a lot of interest. A free vote could, no doubt, stimulate the possibility of a different consensus— or of getting a consensus at all. Given that there are 14 amendments and four amendments to the amendments, and no certainty as to how they will be selected, there is no guarantee that a consensus that may exist in the other place will translate through to here. In those circumstances, might we not need more time in this Chamber to handle legislation that could come from the Commons? A No. 3 Bill is already mentioned in an amendment. Even if we are constrained to 13 June, we certainly do need more time.

[Lord Cormack]

As I said, I am attracted by some of the propositions put forward by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. The fact of the matter is that, as my noble friend Lord Balfe has pointed out, there are practical difficulties. What we want is a united Parliament—so far as we can—and a united nation. Whatever motivated those who voted to remain and those who voted to leave, one thing underpinned whatever that individual motive was: at the end of the day, each man and woman who cast a vote surely wanted a prosperous, peaceful Britain in a prosperous, peaceful Europe. We should focus on that sentiment, because it ought to unite us all. If that needs more time so that we can properly fulfil our parliamentary duties, so be it, but let us get on with it.

I hope that we will see some clarity from the other end of the Corridor tomorrow. I hope also that when we next have a debate, it will not be in the rather sterile and unhelpful atmosphere we are forced to debate in today.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wigley

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I join in the tributes to my noble friend Lord Bourne. One thing I hope he will take on board is that the amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—it has been explained why he cannot be here, and we completely understand—but it was moved, most eloquently, by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Nobody could accuse them of being on the same side of the Brexit argument, which underlines the fact that, as our Constitutional Affairs Committee said in its report, the Bill is deficient and the deficiencies are recognised equally by those on both the remain and leave sides. I hope that this will command unanimous support among your Lordships and that there will be no need to put the amendment to a vote at a later stage. I hope that my noble friend Lord Bourne will take on board the virtual unanimity of concern here and give us an encouraging answer.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise for taking my seat after the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, started but I heard most of what he said from outside the Chamber. I add my voice in support of the comments that have been made. There is an old saying in Wales: you can lead a Welsh workforce through hell and high water but once you start driving them, woe betide. I think we should bear in mind the psychology of this situation. If these amendments are made to the Bill, I do not think that they will undermine the main purpose in any way. I hope the Government can look again at the Bill between now and Report.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wigley

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am not rising to resolve that particular problem. Though I am by nature and inclination a referenda man, do not let us go too far down that line. I frequently agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who is a friend of long standing, but I cannot go along with him on much of what he said, although I agree with him emphatically that—I hope—the Welsh people will not wish to vote on independence. At the moment, the polls indicate that only 4% of them are inclined to move that way. Somebody interjects to say it is 3%; the proportion is going down by the minute.

I come at this from a slightly different angle: I believe that among the things that should be common to the United Kingdom as a whole is the franchise. That is why I was critical of the Prime Minister and others, who conceded to Mr Salmond votes at 16 for the referendum in Scotland. I have mentioned my highly articulate and intelligent 16 year-old granddaughter in this Chamber before. Of course, because 16 year-olds were going to have the vote, I engaged with her, and through her with others, on the subject, because it was of such significance. That was far more important than any single vote I have cast in over 50 years of having the franchise; when I was able to vote for the first time it was at the age of 21.

We did concede to Mr Salmond that 16 year-olds should have the vote—and I entered into the spirit of it within family and so on—but I regretted that we had done so. We must consider carefully the wisdom of giving the vote to 16 year-olds. After all, there are so many other areas of life we could talk about in terms of what people can do at 16; some will work and pay taxes and some will not.

Only yesterday in this House the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, introduced an amendment that the Government accepted. He made an exceptionally moving speech, and the Minister gave an extraordinarily generous reply. The substance of that amendment was that 17 year-olds apprehended by the police should be treated in a similar way to 16 year-olds. He advanced an extremely convincing argument, which the Minister accepted.

A 16 year-old cannot drive a car, and is not legally allowed to take a drink. There are, and I think there should be, rites of passage. I believe that there is a danger in giving votes to those who are in full-time school education—I distinguish clearly between school education, and university and further education. We ought to treat this matter extremely carefully. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell made a generous speech in which he said that he was not necessarily against the idea, but that it should not be dealt with as yet another piecemeal reform. We heard quite a lot about those in our earlier debate on this Bill today.

There I entirely agree with my noble friend. This issue has not been dealt with on a UK-wide basis; it has just grown, like Topsy. If we are to move in this direction, with all the implications for the age of majority and everything else involved with it, we should do so only as a result of comprehensive debate and discussion within both Houses of this Parliament. It should also be part of the remit of the constitutional convention or royal commission. A royal commission is the option that I personally would favour, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is not now in his place, also came down on that side. Any such move should be part of the remit of any such convention or commission. We would not be serving the people of Wales, or any other part of the United Kingdom, well if we continued with this piecemeal approach.

[Lord Wigley]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way to me; he knows that I have very much respect for him. Does he not accept that, in its own way, this entire Bill is, in his terminology, piecemeal reform, in that it is reform for Wales and not across the United Kingdom? If we were to go down his road in all matters relating to devolution, we would not be able to do anything for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland unless it was also acceptable in the regions of England, or in England as a whole. Is that really what he is advocating?

[Lord Cormack]

The respect is mutual, may I say. My noble friend—I shall call him that—and I have known each other for a very long time. We have travelled together and talked together on a whole range of issues, and frequently found ourselves in agreement, not least about the fact that his wife is one of the most accomplished harpists in the whole of the United Kingdom.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wigley

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, briefly, I support what my noble friend said. I very much adhere to the Burkean view that the Member of Parliament owes his constituents his initiative, industry and judgment. However, there is something that we need to take very carefully into account. My noble friend Lord Dobbs has several times in speaking on this Bill referred to the sense of disappointment people felt when successive Governments appeared to promise a referendum and then did not deliver on that promise. That disappointment would pale into insignificance by comparison with the ignoring of the verdict on a national referendum. That is why we will have to look very carefully at the threshold problem, because this addresses that in an indirect way. I was one of those who supported George Cunningham and Tam Dalyell when they campaigned in 1978 as that Bill went through another place. We will have to come back to this at some stage. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has done the House a service in moving this amendment. Surely it can be accepted. If my noble friend Lord Dobbs says that it is implicit anyhow, let us put it beyond any shadow of doubt and make it explicit.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I do not want to introduce a slightly discordant note on this but we must be very careful if we go down the road of saying that the vote of the people might be overturned. Considerable cynicism could arise from that. I accept entirely that if it is a consultative referendum that should be in the Bill and beyond any misunderstanding. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on the fact that we have a representative democracy and do not send every issue back for a referendum or plebiscite, or weigh how many letters we have had in or all the rest. We must make a judgment on things. In the House of Commons they make a judgment and here in this House we must, too. If we say that the matter is one that we, as representatives of Parliament, cannot come to a conclusion on and give it back to the people, we would seem to cause enormous potential for discord if we then said, once the people had taken that decision, “We don’t like it and will ignore it altogether”.

In the context of Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to what might have happened had there been a Labour Government in 1979. In 1997 in Wales, there was a very tight result but there was no question of the incoming new Labour Government not accepting it. It had been on a relatively small turnout of about half the people and there was about a 1% majority within that, but accepting that result defused the issue and when the subsequent referendum came on having greater powers there was a 2:1 majority. Even if people did not accept the principle of devolution in the first place they came to accept it because that was the will of the people. All I counsel is that we should be very careful indeed if we set up a mechanism that ignores the will of the people, whatever that will is.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wigley

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If indeed the Electoral Commission were to come out and say in categorical terms that this is a leading question and is totally unacceptable, and that that is clear cut in its opinion, then that opinion must be taken on board by the Scottish Parliament. I have no doubt that it would take good note of any such recommendation. I have faith in the democratic process in Scotland. However, to say that whatever the Electoral Commission says, the Scottish Parliament must accept its ruling as opposed to the decision of elected representatives, is surely one step too far. Be that as it may, I support the draft order that is before us today. I hope that the House will give it a unanimous backing so that we can move forward to the next stage of this process and, ultimately, secure a referendum, whatever the outcome, that is a credit to democracy.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, whom I am very pleased to call a friend, said that his would probably be the only voice advocating independence. Mine appears to be the only English voice in this debate today. We have heard two from Wales and the rest from Scotland. I particularly wanted to take part because this is not a Scottish issue. This is an issue that affects the whole United Kingdom. As I have said in this House before, we all have varied backgrounds, and it is very difficult to isolate the pure Scottish from the pure English. I consider my identity as English, and yet the background of my family is Scottish for centuries. My elder son lives in Scotland with a Scottish wife, and my two grandchildren go to school in Edinburgh. My son considers himself Scottish, so Scottish indeed that he acted as the election agent for the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Steel—because he has gone Lib Dem—in a recent election.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wigley

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to move this amendment. I have listened with great care to all the debates today on Clause 2 and, as I have listened, I have become more and more convinced of two things: first, that there are tremendous advantages in having an unwritten, flexible constitution; secondly, that Clause 2 is, frankly, incapable of proper improvement and should be deleted and replaced by something else. It is in that spirit that I have tabled this amendment, ably supported by—and I am most grateful to them—the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong and Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, all three of them constitutional experts of great eminence. We all feel very strongly not that this amendment is necessarily perfect in every particular but that it offers a better and clearer approach to a problem that the Government themselves acknowledge needs to be addressed.

The Government feel there must be an escape clause in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. If we are to have a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill—and again I have become more and more convinced that we really do not need one—then the escape clause must be clear, simple, understandable, not capable of misinterpretation and, in the light of that very interesting debate that we had shortly before the dinner break, not something that places the Speaker of the day in an intolerable position. I am attempting in this amendment to clarify and simplify, and to remove the Speaker from that invidious position about which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, spoke so eloquently.

I am trying with this amendment to define a vote of no confidence. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has already referred in the earlier debate that we had just a few moments ago to the fact that in the Parliament Act there is a clear definition of a money Bill. He asked very sensibly why, if the Government are picking, they do not have, as a precedent, both the Deputy Speaker provision and the definition. Why did they choose the one and not the other? My noble friend the Minister has already in a number of remarks today given me some quiet encouragement, and I hope that that will be confirmed when he replies to this debate because he has indicated that there is merit in having a definition of a no-confidence Motion.

I have sought here to list the occasions on which there clearly would be an issue in the House of Commons where the Government of the day had forfeited the confidence of the other place. The first is if the House of Commons,

“passes an amendment to the motion thanking Her Majesty for the Gracious Speech which would have the effect of negating it”.

I believe that that particular provisional clause could be slightly improved in the light of what we have said earlier today. Maybe we should say, “In the second or later Session of a Parliament”, because I accept that if a Government have not had any programme and their Queen’s Speech is rejected within weeks of the election, that is slightly different, as it was in 1924. However, if the Government have been in power, have governed for a Session on the Queen’s Speech, and lose the confidence at any time, there can surely be no doubt that that is an absolute rejection of them.

Secondly, if the House of Commons,

“denies a second or third reading to a Finance Bill”,

no Government can continue. My noble friend Lord Forsyth referred earlier today to the prime function of the other place to grant supply. If they are not in a position to do that, the Government of the day cannot continue to provide the government. It is therefore self-evident that if a Finance Bill is rejected on Second or Third Reading, there really can be no future for that Government.

I have also put into proposed new subsection (2)(b) in the amendment,

“any Bill defined by the Prime Minister of the day as being essential to his or her administration continuing in office”.

At Second Reading a number of noble Lords referred to Mr Edward Heath saying at the time of the Bill that took this country into what was then the Common Market that if that Bill was rejected at Second Reading his Government could not continue. Every Government have a flagship Bill, and if they lose on it they really cannot continue in office. Again, that is generally self-evident.

Then, if the House of Commons passes,

“a motion of no confidence tabled by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition”,

and if that sort of Motion is carried, it is clear that Members on the government side, or Members who normally support the Government, have withdrawn their support. Many of us in the debates on the Bill have referred to March 1979, the defeat of the then Labour Government led by James Callaghan, and his exceptionally dignified conduct in defeat. His words have been quoted yet again today. He said that his Government had lost the confidence of the House and must now take their case to the country. It was clear cut, it was simple and everyone understood it.

The case is similar if the House of Commons,

“defeats a motion of confidence tabled by the Prime Minister”.

Many of us will remember that John Major tabled a Motion of confidence in his Government. However, it was carried, so the Government carried on. Had it been defeated, they could not have carried on.

If we seek to have a definition of a vote of no confidence along these lines, we are improving this Bill very considerably. How undignified is all this business of having 14 days in which to scrabble around to try to save a Government who have clearly become discredited in the eyes of Members of the House of Commons. Then there is the business of the two-thirds majority of the Members of the House of Commons, not of those who vote. In a House of 600, as it probably will be after the next general election, 400 have to vote. At Second Reading, in a very amusing and wry speech, the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said in effect that the Whips have means of making you vote. Of course, he knows that better than most people; he practised the dark arts with a consummate artistry that has rarely been rivalled. If in March 1979, after the Government had lost by one vote, there had been a period following that, I doubt very much whether a few would not have changed their minds, either when being offered inducements or maybe even by being not so gently threatened. The noble Lord is laughing in assent; he knows that that is the case. We all know that these things can happen.

Those of us who were there in March 1979, on the very rare occasion of a Government being defeated, on a vote of no confidence, all know what happened. I referred to it in my maiden speech. We had the wonderful spectacle of Frank Maguire coming to abstain in person. We know that the Welsh and the Scottish nationalists, disgruntled with the Government following the devolution votes, were not going to support them. I am delighted to see my noble friend—and I call him that deliberately—Lord Wigley on the Benches over there, because he remembers that as well as I.

[Lord Wigley]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. On that occasion, he is right to say that my Scottish friends voted against the Government but, after concessions on pneumoconiosis, we were persuaded to support the Government. Those are examples of what happens in such circumstances.