House of Lords: Party Balance

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend share my concerns about the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which seems to give us Cross Benchers that vote 80% of the time with the Opposition?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend is right. The HOLAC indeed makes a contribution through the Peers that it recommends. In fact, 74 such Peers have been recommended since the year 2000. However, this debate is on other nominations as well. Of course, they come together to give the service that we provide constitutionally to the country by scrutinising and revising legislation, which is what we need to do. We need expertise and vigour on these Benches to do just that.

COP 27

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On the 30%, there is obviously lots to do. I believe that 100 countries have now signed up. We have been very good at leading other countries and trying to get them involved in these matters. Obviously, it is work in progress. The UK is recognised as a global leader on many aspects of climate change. Our emissions reduced by 47% since 1990, and we have a stretching NDC, but, perhaps most of all, we are the first nation to legislate for net zero by 2050.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that COP 27 is unlikely to be a success as long as India and China go on building coal-fired power stations and increasing the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, whatever we do in this country?

Unemployment Figures

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I take the point that the noble Lord makes. Those people who are long-term sick may have mental health issues that are complex, and the mental health support service is an essential element to it. As regards influencing the Chancellor, I am not aware that my Secretary of State has spoken to him, but I will ask her and respond to the noble Lord.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is my noble friend not worried about the operation of universal credit, which of course is paid as an in-work benefit? People can work for as little as two days and still qualify for universal credit. Should this not be looked at quite closely?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I say to my noble friend that we are increasing the AET hours from nine to 12, and then from 12 hours to 15. We are trying to get to a minimum of people working part-time, but it must take into account the barriers that they face. There is no point in trying to push people into work if it creates more havoc in their life without the proper support to get into work and stay there.

Older Persons Commissioner for England

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I am not aware of there being a Minister for older people—unless anybody else can help me out here. As for whether there should be one, I suppose at some appropriate point we might recommend that to the Prime Minister.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend not think that there are enough commissioners and quangos, at enormous expense to the taxpayer, already? Do we really need another one?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

There are a number and there is a cost associated with them. What we should do is look at the outcomes of their work to assess their value for money and the difference they make. I do not think I can say any more than that.

Post Brexit: Economic and Political Opportunities

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the Government routinely publish much information and analysis of this country’s economic prospects. They most recently did so around the Budget earlier this month. Many other bodies, such as the OBR and the ONS do likewise. There is a good deal of comment on the prospects for this country after Brexit, economically and otherwise, and we are not convinced that further publications at this point would add to this very rich debate.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can my noble friend enlighten the House on the progress he is making with the export of shellfish from the UK to the EU? Does he accept that the EU has acted in bad faith in its strict adherence to the rules? Is he contemplating that we might retaliate in kind?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we obviously regret the situation that has arisen with the difficulties in exporting shellfish to the European Union after 1 January. Clearly, nothing changed in the safety of British shellfish or British waters at midnight on 31 December. We are continuing to work with the Commission and member states to see whether we can resolve this situation.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join many noble friends in paying tribute to my good and noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness for his moving and powerful valedictory speech. He will be sadly missed in this House.

This is a very great day for me, for two reasons. First, we are finally unshackling ourselves from the EU. Secondly, it is my birthday. I can think of no better way to spend one’s birthday than being here on this historic occasion.

How are historians going to look at this moment? I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby; I am glad that he is still in his place. He said that the referendum was called by David Cameron as a result of splits in the Tory party. I take issue with the noble Lord on two points. First, he seems to think that it was a mistake for David Cameron to call a referendum and put it in his manifesto. That is rather strange, coming from Liberal Democrats—I thought that they were rather keen on referenda. Perhaps it is only referenda where they can agree with the result.

Secondly, it was not because of Tory splits. It was for the very simple reason that many Tory Members of Parliament, particularly those in marginal seats, were challenged at the time by Nigel Farage and UKIP, who were undertaking to stand on the basis that there would be a referendum on whether we stayed in Europe or not. A number of Tory MPs came to David Cameron and persuaded him that we must put it in our manifesto as well. As a result, a number of votes moved over to Tory MPs and saved their seats. As we know, it turned out that there was an overall majority.

I have a theory—I do not know whether it is true—that David Cameron was looking at the polls and expected that he would end up with another hung Parliament and a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Was it possible that he thought that, if so, he would make it a condition of going into coalition with the Liberals that they dropped any commitment to a referendum?

As it is, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in commending Nigel Farage and UKIP. They have made a material difference to this country. It is shameful that he is not in your Lordships’ House. You do not have to agree with somebody to accept the major contribution they have made. He was pivotal to this referendum being held, and as a result, we are now leaving the EU. To this day, he has substantial support in the country, and I do not know how many Members of your Lordships’ House can say that.

I strongly support this Bill; I commend my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for his negotiating skills and for keeping no deal on the table, which has been critical for getting the agreeable terms we have today.

Spending Review 2020

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will talk about overseas aid. First, I congratulate the Government on breaking the link with the hypothecation of government revenues, which is a bad idea in principle and has been proved to be a bad idea by the challenges that face the Chancellor at the moment.

I will speak more broadly about overseas aid. It has had a very chequered history. Much money has been wasted, there has been a lack of accountability, and indeed in places there has been abuse, as we saw with the abuse of young girls in Haiti by Oxfam. It is time that we looked radically at the whole question of overseas aid and made sure that it is more accountable to the people of this country.

I would like to see the overseas aid budget fundamentally abolished, either in part or in whole, and the money paid to people who make contributions to charity. At the moment, if I write a cheque for £100 to UNICEF, UNICEF ends up with £120 because of the 20% extra that it is given by the Exchequer. I would like to see that increased substantially. I do not know how the figures would work out, but if my £100 to UNICEF became, say, £500, there would be an enormous incentive for people to make contributions, and indeed there would be a quite massive increase in the amount of money going to our charities that help out around the world. This would transfer power from the Government to the people who make the contributions; it would make the charitable organisations working in overseas aid much more accountable to the people; and in my opinion it would encourage many more people to pay towards these charities, knowing that their contributions would be so massively increased.

Finally, I will just say that I am not expecting my noble friend the Minister to comment on this in any way whatever—but I hope that he will take it away and think about it in the Treasury.

Economy Update

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

The noble Lord raises a number of questions. Perhaps I may reassure him that the Government are in constant dialogue with business at all levels. He is right that we face some uncertainty on 1 January with the emerging exit from the transition period. It will certainly be helpful if we can get some kind of clarity within the next couple of weeks. However, he should also understand that, whether we get a deal or not, we are leaving on 1 January and we will be out of the customs union. The only real difference for businesses will be the tariff structures that exist and their preparedness for that. We are doing an enormous amount of work to support businesses in being ready for that, including work at the ports and inland sites to ensure that the disruption that the noble Lord is concerned about is minimised.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con) [V]]

My Lords, are my noble friend Lord Robathan and I alone in worrying about the accumulated national debt? How much will this furlough scheme cost if it lasts until the end of March? By how much will the national debt increase as a percentage of GDP, and at what stage does the national debt as a percentage of GDP become unsustainable? Let us face it, this lockdown may not even be necessary, based as it was on bogus statistics, and imposed at a time when the incidence of coronavirus was decreasing both in hospitals and in the numbers of people being infected.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My noble friend asks about the cost of this current extension of furlough. I am not able to give him the answer to that yet simply because we do not know how many firms and employees will take advantage of it over the next few months. During the last lockdown we saw a very dramatic reduction in the numbers claiming each month as the economy opened up again. We have built in the flexibilities that we did not include initially in the first lockdown so that employees and employers can work as flexibly as possible to protect both businesses and their employees. I share my noble friend’s concern about the overall costs of this and the risk to our balance sheet.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con) [V]]

My Lords, on the “Today” programme this morning, my right honourable friend Nadhim Zahawi said that the Government had to strike a balance between combating the virus and damaging the economy. In the light of those remarks, have the Government ever carried out a cost-benefit analysis before taking these quite dramatic decisions on lockdown, both nationally and regionally?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I am not aware of an analysis of this kind. We have to be realistic. It is easy for people sitting in a dark room with spreadsheets to say how many deaths we are prepared to accept for the balance of the economy. Frankly, it is extremely difficult. So far, we have had more deaths than other European countries, which has brought us a great deal of criticism. It is extremely difficult to balance lives against livelihoods. I might have a completely different view from that of Members opposite. We have to try to strike what we consider to be a reasonable balance—protecting lives where we can, but also protecting livelihoods.

European Union: Negotiations (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House has always regarded itself as the guardian of our constitution. Of course, included in our unwritten constitution, although many people wish it were not, is the whole question of referenda. I know that many people think we should never hold referenda in this country, but the fact is that it was decided that we should.

I want to put a hypothetical question to your Lordships’ House: what would have happened if all the Euro-enthusiasts, described by a noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches as Euromaniacs, had succeeded and kept us in the EU when the country had voted to leave—or, indeed, kept us in Brexit in name only when the country had made it quite clear that it wanted to leave the EU? I totally accept that this is a hypothetical question because the whole situation has now changed. For that reason, I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to reply to this—he should not reply to hypothetical questions—but your Lordships’ House should give thought to this matter because, let us face it, that referendum was in the 2015 Tory manifesto and was honoured in both the 2017 manifestos of the two major parties, which said that they would honour the result. If at the end of all this we had decided that somehow we were going to stay in the EU, where would that have left democracy in this country? We must think about this very seriously. Your Lordships’ House has done itself no credit in its role of scrutinising the whole business of European legislation and conspiring to do everything it could to ensure that we would never leave the EU at all.

I turn to the report. Much comment has been made about the level playing field, but also included in that is the fact that the role of third countries has been completely redefined. I thought that a third country was a country that did not happen to be in the EU—as simple as that—and that once you signed the withdrawal agreement and left, you were no longer in the EU but were a third country, but oh no, that seems to have been redefined. Now, for some reason, our closeness to the EU puts us in a unique category, and the amount of trade that we have with the EU puts us in a special position. I was somewhat surprised because, reading the report—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Obviously the noble Lord did not listen very carefully to the quotation that I read from the joint declaration. It makes it quite clear that we recognise that geographical proximity, and the extent of our independence, require a level playing field. Perhaps he could answer that question.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

That is the point I am trying to make; this should have been answered in the report. It does not matter where it comes from. Whether our closeness to the EU makes any difference to our relationship with it is questionable. The problem is that we have had the nerve to vote in favour of leaving the EU. Therefore, the EU must redefine the position of a country that leaves so that it can mete out special treatment to that country and somehow discourage others from leaving as well. This report should have addressed these issues. Does it make any difference whether or not a country is close to the EU? Does the size of trade make any difference? I agree that our trade with the EU is probably greater than that with the United States, but the United States does a massive amount of trade too. Nobody is asking for a level playing field with the United States, and they would be told where to go if they tried. We should be questioning these things, as I hoped the report would. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, can tell me why this was not included in the report.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

Certainly I can make some practical points on the very interesting questions that have been raised by the noble Lord. These are vital documents that have become public. There has been no opportunity for Parliament to read a report or have a debate. We were given a power and a duty under Section 29 of the Act. We heard a very interesting interpretation of that, which I am afraid I disagree with. If we were to write and address a separate question, we would have to take evidence or find evidence in the stock of evidence that we have, and there was no time to do that. The second of those documents, the Command Paper, arrived on 27 February. We had a report agreed by people on every position of the spectrum agreed by 3 March. We felt that it was important to bring it to the House immediately so that we could have this very interesting debate.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The document that I am reading says that this statement was made on 18 February. That is quite a distance from 3 March, when the report went to the printers. I question whether you can reach a decision as a committee unless you have taken evidence. The whole business of whether how close you are to the EU counts or whether the size of your trade is a determinant factor is surely something that the committee can make its mind up about without taking evidence.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

Section 29 addresses that issue. The Command Paper—a key document in our report—was issued on 27 February. I do not have Section 29 in front of me, but it says specifically that such evidence as we have deemed necessary should have been taken. I am sure we would have loved to read a report about a whole lot of other very interesting questions, but unless we had the evidence on file we would have had to have taken more evidence, which would have slowed things down immensely.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

We could go on arguing about this indefinitely. However, the noble Earl is rather underestimating the intellectual abilities of his committee if it cannot reach a conclusion on this relatively simple issue without taking evidence. I will move on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

We may be criticised on our structure. In the next month, noble Lords will have the chance to make comments on the work of committees. I agree that committees are too reliant on “evidence” which is simply regurgitating things that other people have said. This is an excellent report by an excellent committee; the noble Lord may have just contradicted himself.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I do not know whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was on the committee. I am saying merely, as he did, that committees should be intelligent enough to reach their own conclusions without necessarily having to take evidence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that it was not good enough for the Government to inform devolved assemblies what was happening: there should be consultation. However, when we talk about consultation we are actually talking about reaching agreement, so you are, therefore, giving the devolved assemblies a veto over a compromise on the final deal. I have a problem with Parliament getting too involved in all this. At the end of the day, everybody has a different opinion. My noble friend Lady Noakes thinks that we should be preserving all our fishing. I suspect that quite a bit of it will be given away. That will be part of the negotiating ploy and my noble friend will have to ask herself whether or not the compromise which the Government have reached and the overall deal—which I suspect will include some sacrifice of fishing—are acceptable as a whole. That is what Parliament will have to decide.

However, the Government cannot possibly go into these negotiations constantly referring back to Parliament and asking if it is all right to do this or that. By their nature, the negotiations will be a compromise. Concessions are going to be made in some directions and gains made in others. At the end of the day, the Government have to be judged on whether the overall package is satisfactory as a whole. We have to be wary of undermining the Government’s negotiating position but, now that they have a decent majority, I do not think they will be too moved by many of these arguments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the EU committee for producing this report and enabling us to have this debate. While I acknowledge that the Government are rightly concerned about and occupied with the coronavirus situation—and so are the media—Brexit nevertheless remains of vital importance and we must not let it go off our radar.

I refer to Brexit because I am tired of the statement that Brexit “has been done”. As witnessed by this afternoon’s debate, the important and heavy-lifting part of Brexit remains undone and the most important elements of our future relationship remain to be settled. It might even be that, given the economic consequences of coronavirus, it will be even more important than we can envisage at the present time. A simplistic free-trade agreement, as in Command Paper 211, might not be a good substitute for the existing deep relationship with our near neighbours. I say to my noble friend Lord Hamilton that it is not about 22 miles across the water: it is about 40-plus years of integration of our economy and much of our personal interests and activities that make us a different kind of third country from other third countries.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Would that not make a free-trade agreement easier rather than more difficult?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present for what I am sure were excellent speeches at the start of the debate; I was on the HS2 committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and in order for it to be quorate, I had to stay. I asked our Whips to put me down for the end of the debate. The trouble is that an excellent debate such as this leaves you with very little new to say. I will try not to repeat what others have said, even if it means jumping about in the speech I prepared.

I did not hear the previous speeches, but the report before us is absolutely admirable, in the great traditions of the EU Select Committee. To my mind, it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Government are now pursuing not just a much harder Brexit than Mrs May tried to achieve but a harder Brexit than was outlined in the political declaration, which the Prime Minister signed in October and which was ratified as part of an international treaty at the end of January. That was the basis on which he fought the election. As the noble Lord, Lord Barwell, said, he solemnly promised that he had this oven-ready deal, and it is now clear that he is going for something different.

I want to make clear that I fought Brexit very hard. I think that it is absolutely the wrong direction for the country. However, I now accept that it is done. Having said that, that does not mean that those of us on these Benches have to accept that the only option is the hardest Brexit imaginable. We in the Labour Party have a responsibility to vigorously oppose what the Government is now trying to do. Plenty of changes could be sought. If they are not, Labour should go into the next election saying that it wants to achieve a closer relationship with the EU.

On the question of a hard Brexit, many noble Lords have drawn attention to the retreat from the paragraph of the political declaration that made it clear that there is a difference between the United Kingdom’s position and other nations’ positions on concluding a free trade agreement. Because of our geographical proximity and economic interdependence, these are the words—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—that the Prime Minister signed up to. The noble Lord has to accept that.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The issue that I was raising was why this was not considered in the report. It first came to light on 18 February and the report went to bed and to the printers on 3 March. There was plenty of time to consider these issues. It is remiss of the report that it did not consider whether our closeness to the EU and the size of the trade that we were doing were material issues.

[Lord Liddle]

I take the point—but at least the committee has drawn this crucial point to our attention. If we had not had this Select Committee report, what kind of debates would we have had, either here or in the other place, on the Government’s new policy? The fact is that we had nothing. There was no explanation of how what the Government were proposing was different from what they had previously proposed. Mr Johnson was going for a sleight of hand in going for this hard Brexit, and it was right that our committee should have exposed it.

The shift in our position on this particular point about the level playing field for open and fair competition will undermine confidence in our good faith. That will have very practical and real consequences for jobs and livelihoods in Britain. Even if we reach a trade agreement, I think that it is now likely that the EU will say that, if we make any move that it interprets as a move away from a level playing field, it will have a legal right to impose trade defence instruments in short order and we will not be able to stop them. These could be very damaging to sectors of our economy such as the car industry, where the non-existence of tariffs is of crucial importance.

We have already damaged ourselves very considerably. We will end up with a treaty that will not provide a stable investment climate for companies in Britain because they will always be under the threat of EU sanctions being imposed because of our attempts to break the rules.

However, that is not the only issue on which the position has changed. It is scandalous that we have thrown away just like that our participation in the European arrest warrant. Where has the big debate about that and what it means for our security been? Where has the Home Office statement been—the explanation by the Minister of what alternatives will be put in place that will be as effective in defending our interests? I feel that something fundamental such as this should not have been done in the way that it has.

As for the rest of the security agenda, the Government say that they are aiming for what they call “pragmatic co-operation”, but then go on to say:

“The agreement must not constrain the autonomy of the UK’s legal system in any way.”


So they will not sign up for our continued participation in not just the European Court of Justice but the European Convention on Human Rights. It is incredible that a Government believe that our European friends will agree to some system of administrative co-operation between the police and intelligence agencies without there being in place a binding framework of legal oversight that both parties judge to be acceptable. That has to be that, or co-operation will not work.

My third point relates to co-operation on foreign policy. The Government dismiss the prospect of a joint institutional framework; all they promise is friendly dialogue and co-operation and they do not want an agreement about this. Yet anyone who knows anything about how relations between countries work knows that institutions are incredibly important. One of the lessons I took away from my time in Brussels was that the framework it provided for regular meetings and policy discussions between senior officials, day by day and week by week, is absolutely fundamental to trying to create a convergence of approach between countries. If we say we do not want any of that kind of institutional co-operation on foreign affairs and defence, it will put us in a much weaker position.

I also think it is wrong for the Government’s new policy to reject the possibility of an overarching framework for the EU-UK relationship that was held open in the political declaration. What has happened to the deep and special partnership that Mrs May used to talk about? Do we no longer believe in that? Without such an overarching partnership, our relationship with Europe runs the risk of being characterised, and indeed poisoned, by interminable trade disputes when these are in fact of secondary importance. What matters is that we should work with our European friends to promote our shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Without that overarching partnership, I think we will lose that.

I have come to the regrettable conclusion—and I do regret it—that this Government do not really want a close relationship with our European friends. The thing that convinces me of that is the attempt that I think is being planned to rewrite the Northern Ireland protocol, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, explained to us in great detail. If that is what happens, the relationship is going to be one of betrayal and resentment, and I think it is an absolute tragedy that that is the route down which we are going.

Somebody referred to Philip Stephens’ article in the Financial Times last week. Many of us, probably including myself, in the next few days are going to go into self-isolation because we want to survive. Well, a lot of us will survive but I do not think that the policy of the country should be one of self-isolation—but that is what we are getting with this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I need to apologise for having been temporarily absent during this debate. I was in my place for all the opening speeches, but I was absent because I am being double-hatted today. In normal circumstances, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire would have been winding for the Liberal Democrats and I was going to play a bit part. Unfortunately, for various reasons associated with the coronavirus, he is not able to be in his place and, as I also do defence things, I was in Grand Committee, but the fact that I was in Grand Committee will shortly be relevant to my remarks.

As so often, the report of your Lordships’ European Union Committee is timely and insightful. As other noble Lords have said, we are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for bringing it to the House. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, these Benches believe that many of the issues raised in the report and in the Government’s negotiating strategy are of national interest. It therefore seems wholly relevant that the report should come to the Chamber and that the Government’s Command Paper has also been brought.

Like many other noble Lords, we on these Benches have considerable concerns about the timing of not the Command Paper but the Government’s attempts to negotiate and ensure that the future relationship is agreed by 31 December 2020. It is clear that the Government won a mandate on 12 December with the clarion cry “Get Brexit done”, but on 31 January that first stage of the withdrawal agreement was reached. The UK has left the European Union. The future relationship does not have to be agreed by 31 December.

Several noble Lords, starting with my noble friend—she is a friend—Lady Falkner of Margravine, talked about John Maynard Keynes’s remark that when the facts changed, he changed his mind; what do you do? The facts that have changed since 12 December and since the Command Paper was published are precisely that Covid-19 may potentially have a catastrophic effect on this country and the EU 27. The international context has changed fundamentally. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, the country expects us to be focused on dealing with that crisis. It is not only the country that thinks that. When I asked the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in Grand Committee about the future of the integrated security and defence review, she pointed out that the country wanted and expected the Government to focus on the crisis, and that is what they are doing. If the Government are rightly focused on the Covid-19 crisis, do they have the bandwidth to engage in the appropriate negotiations to ensure that by the end of June we have reached a situation where we have a future trade deal?

I will not rehearse the Brexit debate. I do not wish to do that, or to test the patience of the House by rehearsing the views for or against being in or out of European Union. We have very clearly left. But it is surely in the national interest to get the best deal that we can. It is well known that the Prime Minister is of the view that if you cannot get the deal you want, you should walk away. He made that absolutely clear writing in the Daily Telegraph before Prime Minister David Cameron tried to renegotiate the UK’s terms of membership.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does the noble Baroness agree that if you threaten to walk away, you strengthen your negotiating position?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, as has happened so often this evening when there has been an intervention, I will say: “Ah, if the noble Lord will only wait just a moment, I might get to that point.” What I wanted to say was that when Boris Johnson was writing in the Telegraph he was always clear in his advice to David Cameron and Theresa May that they had to be able to walk away from the table. That is clearly something that as Prime Minister we expect him to do. If we get to late June and he does not feel the deal is appropriate, we expect him to be willing to walk away, and that is certainly a negotiating strategy. But there is a huge difference between the Government negotiating with the 27 as equal sovereigns, as the Command Paper suggests, in our current situation and in normal times, when the focus of negotiations can be week in, week out. We have already seen the second phase of negotiations postponed because of the current crisis that affects not just this country but the EU 27. We are not going to be focused for the next three and a half months on negotiating the future relationship; nobody would expect us do that. In that context, can the Minister confirm either that it would be appropriate to extend the deadline or give the House some indication that the Government are acting in good faith in negotiations?

As my noble friend Lady Ludford pointed out earlier, there is a question of trust. It is not always clear that Her Majesty’s Government are trusted in Europe on the question of our relationship. Issues in the Command Paper, as we have heard in so many speeches this evening, have raised questions about the Government moving from the political declaration. Could the Minister reassure the House that the negotiations will take place in an appropriate timeframe—that 31 December does not have to be do or die? After all, the Prime Minister won his election on 12 December; he has a five-year term of office, unless and until the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is repealed.

There is every opportunity for the Government to do the right thing, act in the national interest and postpone the deadline for withdrawal—not least because we do not simply have to negotiate and ratify the withdrawal agreement in your Lordships’ House and the other place, but the other 27 member states have to ratify. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, suggested that perhaps it would be a very simple agreement; if we go low, it will be simple. In that case, the 27 might not have to ratify through their national capitals. But, if we have a mixed agreement, which is what we might have expected, it will have to be ratified through all the national parliaments of the 27, including Flanders and Wallonia, and the Canadians can tell you what that might mean in practice.

We are faced with a very tight timetable, and the potential for serious divergence from the political declaration and from the future of the European Union on a whole range of areas. We have had questions about financial services. I want to raise another set of areas of participation in Union programmes, and at this point declare an interest: in my day job, I am reader in European politics at Cambridge University, where I have project funding from Horizon 2020, and I am linked to the Erasmus+ programme. So I would like to know a little bit about the Government’s thoughts on future integration in those areas, particularly because on Erasmus+ the Command Paper says that the Government might look at some possible time-limited arrangement,

“provided the terms are in the UK’s interests.”


Can the Minister explain what that might mean? Similarly, and more importantly for the research community at large, under what conditions might the Government wish to participate further in Horizon Europe?

On security questions, we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, particularly the concerns about security and foreign policy. The former Prime Minister, the MP for Maidenhead, seemed to be rather keen on the idea of close security and foreign policy co-operation with the EU 27. That seems to have disappeared from the Command Paper. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government still believe and understand that our security interests and those of the EU 27 remain as one? If anything demonstrates that, it is surely the Covid-19 crisis, which affects all of us and in which we are benefiting from the links to the European Union for ventilators and so on.

On these Benches, we strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Some of us listened with some incredulity to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who, I believe, said, “Parliamentary scrutiny is neither necessary nor desirable.” She may wish to correct me if I have misheard. I thought that that was what your Lordships were here for. Regarding the future relationship with the European Union, we believe that parliamentary scrutiny is both necessary and desirable. We may not be involved in the day-to-day negotiations, but we should certainly be kept abreast of what is going on to the extent that it is possible in the context of whatever limited arrangements Parliament might face in the context of the current crisis.

We are in a situation in which time is of the essence. We have seen months of negotiations with the European Union sometimes leading to the outcomes that we want and sometimes not. We are currently faced with a three-and-a-half-month window of opportunity for the future relationship unless the Government are willing to demonstrate some flexibility. In the context of the dire straits that the Prime Minister has just been telling us that we are facing and the fact that so many Members of your Lordships’ House will self-isolate and not be here, it is surely appropriate for the Government to look again at their timing and talk to the EU 27 about changing the timetable for our future relationship.