Business of the House

Lord Finkelstein Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham]

Not at all; on the contrary, I accuse him of honesty. He is honest all the time: he wants to stop us leaving the EU and is working night and day to stop it happening. That is what I said, and if he can deny that, I will give way to him again. I do not want to impugn; it is dangerous to get into this, as it gets very emotive, and I know that we do not want to—

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

I listened to my noble friend and thought to myself, “But isn’t your objective that we should have no-deal Brexit, and you are pretending that it is about the constitution?” That seems like an extraordinary accusation to make, when my noble friend knows that very well.

[Lord Framlingham]

I will be perfectly honest: if I had my way, we would have a no-deal Brexit and would be out in a few days’ time. We would have the certainty the country is crying out for, and businesses and companies would be able to get on with the job they have been told will need to be done. We would save ourselves £39 billion. It would be refreshing—we would be on our way. There is no doubt about that at all. But how we get there is a different matter, and today we are talking about the difference between what I want and how you achieve it through the structures of politics.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Finkelstein Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords, there’s a Jewish story of a man who goes over a precipice and as he tumbles into the ravine he grabs hold of one solitary branch. As he swings there, his fingers slowly losing their grip, he shouts, “Is there anyone up there? Lord, is there anyone up there? Lord, what shall I do?” And a voice comes out of the heavens. “Son, let go of the branch. Let go of the branch”. The man swings a moment more, staring into the unknown as he ponders the advice. Then he shouts, “Is there anyone else up there?”.

We have asked the question. We have had the answer. There isn’t anyone else up there. We will have to let go of the branch. Brexit means Brexit. Let us make sure we share an understanding of how we got there. It is a common complaint of the Liberal Democrats that David Cameron’s Conservative Party implemented Liberal Democrat ideas and appropriated the credit. I think we can all agree that it would be tragic were such a fate to befall them yet again and on such an important issue. In 2008, there was one isolated pioneer calling for an in/out referendum on membership of the EU. It was not Nigel Farage; it was years before UKIP started advocating a national vote. No, it was lonely but determined Nick Clegg.

The Liberal Democrat leader bravely launched a petition. “We, the undersigned, believe the Government should give the British people a real choice on Europe by holding a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union”. The party distributed leaflets with Mr Clegg’s picture on them. “It’s time for a real referendum on Europe,” it declared. “It is vital that you and the British people have a say in a real EU referendum.” The campaigning Lib Dems had had enough of the temporising of their rivals. “The Conservatives,” the party said dismissively, “only support a limited referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Why won’t they give the people a say in a real referendum?” In fact, the Liberal Democrats like in/out referendums so much they now want another one. So I can imagine how frustrating it must be for them that, after Mr Cameron finally buckled to Lib Dem pressure and held Mr Clegg’s referendum, all the credit for this democratic gesture has been taken by Mr Cameron. I am glad to be able in Parliament to right that injustice—one other injustice, too.

It is astonishingly modest of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party to insist with great diffidence that noble Lords overlook the fact that they voted in Parliament to hold this referendum and they united to do so. It is immensely good of them to insist that this be regarded as a Tory referendum, but really, we will not hear of it—they deserve their day in the sun, too. The whole of Parliament offered the British people a referendum and it was profoundly right that we did. I voted to remain in the European Union but the constitutional implications of remaining in the European Union are and were very serious and people deserved a choice. Nick Clegg offered a referendum because he knew people wanted one. Tony Blair offered a constitutional referendum because he knew people wanted one. When offered the chance, people voted to leave. I think this is a pretty strong answer to the idea that people did not really want a referendum at all. People knew what they were being asked, they knew what they thought and they understood what they were doing. Now it is our job to pass the Bill.

The counterpart to the false idea that this was just a Tory referendum is that what is being proposed now is just Tory Brexit: a harder, more chaotic, less caring Brexit than strictly necessary—we need a soft Brexit. Do even those who make this point really believe it? First, does anyone seriously suggest that we can allow our domestic regulations to be created by a body to which we do not belong? That is what being in the single market while leaving the EU means. During the referendum Nick Clegg called this “fax democracy” and it was correctly described as the worst of both worlds. Now he and others appear to be proposing that we opt for the worst of both worlds.

Secondly, does anyone seriously expect that the EU is going to allow us to remain in the single market if we leave the EU? It could not have been clearer that it will not. Thirdly, is anyone seriously suggesting that we can determine the outcome of Brexit ourselves and decide for ourselves if it is hard or chaotic? You cannot decide the outcome of multilateral negotiations unilaterally. So-called soft Brexit is not tenable—and, even if it were, it is not on offer. If we could really determine the shape of Brexit ourselves, and could be members of the single market without the other stuff, I do not know whether I would still have voted to remain. However, that was not on the table in June and it is not now.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Finkelstein Excerpts

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to second my noble friend’s Motion for an humble Address. It is a great privilege to be asked to deliver this speech and to have the opportunity to address a full House of noble Lords. I was once invited to give a speech in Norwich, which involved travelling more than four hours to get there. When I arrived, I found that there were only two people in the audience. One of them was the person who had invited me. The other waited until I had finished speaking and I invited him to join the cause that I was there to support. He said that he would like to, but it would interfere with the terms of his parole. I am pleased that I have here a more conveniently located, larger audience, and that those present have completed their probation—mostly.

Speaking to a full House also fulfils the useful function of allowing fellow Peers finally to overcome the embarrassment of not being 100% certain of one’s name. One noble Peer is aware that I am a newspaper columnist and is kind enough to ask me about it often. However, he appears to think that I work for the Daily Telegraph rather than the Times, and it has never been quite the right moment to correct him. On the day the last Session opened, he slapped me on the back and said, “Good morning, Danny. I hope that your columns are continuing to boost the circulation of the Telegraph”. I replied that I was quite certain that they were.

As the son of refugees, it is also a great honour to be given the chance to celebrate the role played by the monarchy in ensuring the stability and continuity of British democracy. As I said in my maiden speech, no one is more appreciative of the security afforded by the British constitution than the freed prisoners of totalitarian jails and concentration camps. As my grandmother put it, “While the Queen is safe in Buckingham Palace, we are safe in Hendon Central”.

I was not merely gratified to be asked to give this speech but also surprised. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, assured me that I was the overwhelming popular choice, and then she spoilt it by saying, “According to YouGov”.

We are meeting here to review the Government’s legislative programme in political circumstances which only some people anticipated. As I was leaving a government department in March, following a meeting with a ministerial friend, I was taken down in the lift by Kevin, the messenger who had accompanied me to the ground floor many times over the previous five years. As we reached the bottom I said, “Well Kevin, this could be the last time we do this”. He looked at me, shook his head slowly and said, “Naaah”. This turned out to be more perceptive political analysis than most of what was written in the media over the following two months.

Everyone in this House will have their own theory of what happened, but I would just like to say this: there are in this country many people who just want quiet, moderate, sensible, pragmatic government. They do not have great theories about austerity or predistribution or varieties of capitalism. They value security and liberty and the rule of law. They want to go to work, raise families, take home as much as possible of what they earn and get decent public services at a reasonable cost. Some of these people have been called shy Tories, but in truth they mostly are not shy and they do not even really think of themselves as Tories. Some of them may vote Conservative but that is their business and no one else’s. I believe this legislative programme is for them—for the quiet, practical, moderate working people of this country: a long-term economic plan that understands, as most people do, that it is our duty in this generation to restrain our spending in order to avoid passing on ever-greater debts to our children and grandchildren; the security of a job, the chance to own a home, better schools, securing the real value of a pension, protecting the NHS, lower taxes for the lowest paid, building the northern powerhouse. This programme is set firmly in the centre ground of British politics, where the people are. I look forward to debating these measures with noble Lords in the coming Session.

Those programming business are looking to see if they are up to the tricky task of finding a day of the week on which all the parties in this House are in favour of a European referendum at the same time, and to finding plenty of time for the reports and other debates that make our House special. Legislation moved by individual noble Lords often provides the highlight of a Session. I always remember when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, on the succession to the Throne reached its Second Reading stage as it was the first time anything written by him had been read twice.

Some have suggested that this next period will be a difficult one in this House, that because the governing party is in a minority we will struggle to pass laws. Can I say that I hope and believe these critics have misunderstood this House? They have misunderstood the dedication of noble Lords and our understanding of our duty and the limits of our powers. The body of Liberal Peers, who I note are puzzlingly still in their seats notwithstanding my column in this morning’s newspaper, for so long our valued colleagues, and among them many good friends, come from the great movement of Asquith and Lloyd George that invented those limits and would not frivolously abuse them. Opposite us, too, sits the great party of Morrison, Bevin, Gaitskell and Blair that has spent decades in power and knows that its time will come again. It will treat this Government as Labour has in the past been treated and will in future wish to be treated. In any case, I know that it is rethinking many of the ideas on which it fought the last election. After all, it is not as if its manifesto was carved in stone.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Finkelstein]

I could not resist it, sorry. Politics excites great expectations that it cannot always meet. No matter what is done, it is never enough. There is an old Jewish joke about a woman who takes her son to the beach. It is a windy day so she wraps him up tightly in a coat, scarf and hat. No sooner have they gone out than a huge wave sweeps the boy out to sea. He is quite gone and his mother is distraught. She begins to pray, “Lord, my boy is just an innocent lad. Send him back to me”. There is a rushing sound and a massive wave crashes at her feet, depositing her boy. He is alive, he is safe—it is a miracle. She looks up, she looks down. She looks up again and says, “He had a hat!”.

This legislative programme will not do everything. It will not make every problem right. It will not be perfect. It will just take us a few steps forward and I hope that these are steps we can all take together in the spirit of one nation. In this spirit, I second the Motion.



Motion to Adjourn

Moved by

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Finkelstein Excerpts

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

Is it the noble Lord’s contention as a constitutional principle that this Parliament can never determine anything that happens in the next Parliament? If so, how did we come to commit ourselves to the Olympics?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

If the noble Lord had listened to what I said, which I fear he did not, he would know that I did not say that this House or this Parliament can never pass measures that have an effect in a future Parliament. Indeed, I specifically said that I am sure that there are lots of examples where that has been the case. I merely said that I thought that this measure, the sole purpose of which is to bind the hands of a future Parliament—it has no other purpose; nothing will happen during this Parliament—is a very odd constitutional innovation.