Business of the House

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I shall begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who very helpfully quoted Mill at me. I absolutely agree that democracy requires the exercise of free speech. It also requires the following of rules and the exercise of its powers with responsibility. We have just heard a 30-minute speech. It may have been an excellent speech, and I am sure that if I now speak for 30 minutes it will be an excellent speech as well, but if I speak for 30 minutes, and all my colleagues speak for 30 minutes, we will never get to the substance of today’s debate. Therefore, your Lordships will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak for 30 minutes—25 should be enough.

The burden of all these amendments is that the House is being expected to follow unprecedented procedures. Is this surprising? We are in extraordinary, unprecedented times. We are in a national crisis the like of which has not occurred in my lifetime. It is a national crisis which consists in no small part of the fact that there has been a collapse of government. The Prime Minister, after seven hours in Cabinet, addressed the nation to say that she would like the leader of the Opposition to tell her what to do and that, if she did not like that, she would go to the House of Commons and ask it to tell her what to do within hours of having to put something to the European Council next week in order to prevent no-deal Brexit. This collapse of government is unprecedented, and it would be slightly surprising if Parliament did not respond to it by taking unprecedented measures to fill the vacuum where normally one finds government. The third unprecedented point, which is unprecedented in human history, is that unless we prevent a no-deal Brexit at the end of next week, this country will be the first democracy ever to have agreed to make itself poorer, less secure and less influential. Therefore, it is unprecedented and needs dealing with in unprecedented ways.

The key element which means that it is necessary to deal with this Bill today is just how little time there is. We are talking about a very few days before the Prime Minister has to write to the European Council, hopefully with some view about why we should have a further extension. As of this minute, the only thing that can be written in that letter about why we are doing it is because we cannot think of what we want. I hope that by close of business on Monday we will be a bit further forward on that, but, if this House blocks this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whom I do not always agree with, said earlier, how would that be perceived? How would it be perceived if we were to agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that we could not possibly deal with this until a Select Committee had dealt with it? At a time of national crisis, I think that the world would think that your Lordships had lost a sense of proportion.

The other argument that has been made against the Bill, including by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, is that it is unnecessary because of a commitment made by the Prime Minister. However, it is a sign of the confidence that the Commons has in the Prime Minister that it does not think that that is enough. It thinks—and I agree—that, unless we have something like this Bill, there is absolutely no assurance that the Prime Minister will come forward with the necessary guarantee.

Finally, I have two points to make about the amount of time that we have to debate the Bill. First, we will have longer to debate the Bill, the less time we waste on these procedural Motions. Secondly, I look forward to the debates that we shall have later. I look forward to the Second Reading and to debating amendments in Committee and on Report. I have brought my toothbrush. It will not be the first time that I have spent all night in your Lordships’ House, and many of my colleagues have done the same. We are here at the service—says he very pompously—of the country to debate this issue for as long as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his colleagues want to debate it. No doubt we will hear the same arguments time and time again but, if that is what the noble Lord wants, I shall, as always, look forward to hearing them and will be in my place to listen to them, however long it takes.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats will be glad to know that I shall be brief. I will address myself to the main point embedded in what he said. To begin with, this is a most appalling day. I have served in Parliament for 45 years and there has never been an instance of constitutional vandalism of the scale that we are witnessing today and at the present time more generally.

I am on the record as having long been concerned that in this country we do not have a written constitution. The reason that we do not have a written constitution is not that there is anything bad about written constitutions interpreted by the appropriate courts and safeguarded by the courts; it is our history. If one looks across the world, one sees that written constitutions come into being only when there is a historical discontinuity. For example, when a colony of the United Kingdom is given self-government, it equips itself with a written constitution—although ironically, or worse than ironically, it seems that the majority of the Members of this House do not believe that we are capable of self-government. A written constitution also comes into being following a bloody revolution and frequently after defeat in wartime. We have been blessed uniquely in this country in not suffering these historical discontinuities, and that is why, uniquely, we do not have a written constitution and have to rely on respect for the procedures of Parliament. However, we pay a price for not having a written constitution. We pay a price for having had a reasonably trouble-free history, unlike the rest of the world, and that price has become evident today and in recent days.

The main point made by the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats is that the issues surrounding Brexit are so important that it is necessary and right to tear up the constitution. However, the reverse is the case: the more important the issue, the more important it is that the constitution and the conventions are respected. As there is a really important substantive issue of a constitutional nature lying behind this, the more important it is that we respect the constitution and do not engage in this vandalism. I respect the fact that views differ on the length of this debate but I think that everybody agrees that this is a very important issue, including the noble Lord, who said so himself.

[Viscount Ridley]

Can my noble friend address this point? The problem that the Bill is trying to address is a disagreement between the Government and Parliament and between Parliament and the country. The idea that you resolve such a thing by ramming something through an unelected House in one day is surely a constitutional monstrosity of an even greater kind.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My noble friend makes a very strong point. I am deeply concerned at the growing rift between Parliament and the people, with the refusal to accept the people’s judgment, whether you agree with it or not. A very clear judgment was made in the referendum. There is a real danger that undesirable but very often understandable insurrectionary forces will feel that they cannot trust the British Parliament or the British constitution, and a very ugly situation could well arise. Therefore, my noble friend is absolutely right.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I had not planned to speak, but I am literally moved to tell your Lordships what my feelings are. I have spent 55 years teaching and studying law, including constitutional law. If you want to know how effective I am, I have had in my lectures the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The point about studying law—and probably many people in this House practise or have practised as lawyers—is that you internalise respect for the rule of law.

The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, explained about us not having a written constitution. Our constitution works only because of trust. Why do we accept the authority of the Lord Speaker, whoever he or she may be? Why do we accept the rulings of the clerks, disguised as they are in their wigs? It is because we trust them and because this has gone on for centuries. It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of the role that people fill. Each Session we take an oath, standing by the Dispatch Box, to be loyal to the Queen and, implicitly, to uphold the law. Why do judges not interfere with the proceedings of Parliament? There is no question of anyone challenging this law if it goes through today because the judges accept that Parliament deserves their trust. We trust the judges and they trust Parliament, and if that breaks down, the whole system breaks down. Not only is the constitution being damaged and trashed today but we have been subjected to gagging orders. I am speaking now because I think that, if I wait another five minutes, there will be another Motion to stop us talking.

European Council

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—that the two most important aspects of the Belfast agreement on Northern Ireland referred to were, first, the recognition by both sides of the existence of the border—the border is a reality and will continue to be a reality and a “hard border” is a meaningless phrase—and, secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, that it was agreed that there was a peaceful route to reunification of the island of Ireland through a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland? If anything is done in the European Union sense here to shed doubt on the primacy of the referendum result, this will be disastrous for Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can only reiterate to my noble friend there remain real differences between us and the Commission on Northern Ireland but that we are absolutely committed to resolving them. We are all committed to working together to make sure that there is no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that we maintain the constitutional integrity of the UK.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this important Bill. We now need to be clear about the way ahead. The White Paper, to which my noble friend the Leader of the House referred, states that the Government will seek,

“an ambitious and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and a new customs agreement”,

with the European Union. It is right that we should offer this—complete free trade with no strings attached—but it is unattainable. That being so, we should waste no time banging our heads against a brick wall. As soon as it is clear that, sadly, our European Union partners will not accept our offer, we should move on. There is nothing to be gained by protracted and doomed negotiations. The worst thing for British business and the British economy is prolonged uncertainty.

Much of the confusion arises from the misconception that what we are about to embark on, once Article 50 has been triggered, is a trade negotiation. As seen by our opposite numbers across the channel—and, as some noble Lords have said, we do not at present take enough account of this—it is nothing of the sort. If it were a trade agreement, like the trade agreements we are currently seeking with countries outside the EU, now that we are free to do so, success would be achieved by virtue of the mutual economic benefit such agreements confer. However, although there would indeed be mutual economic benefit in a trade agreement with the EU, that is not how they see it at all. For them, understandably, this is not about economics: it is a highly political divorce settlement.

In many—probably most—EU countries the political establishment is at present preoccupied with the struggle against the rising popularity of Eurosceptic anti-establishment political movements, some of an unsavoury nature. Our European partners are quite clear that, were the UK to secure a satisfactory agreement, this would give a huge boost to these movements. Indeed, the anti-establishment parties themselves openly recognise this. This is particularly the case in France, which I know best, where the Front National is riding high. French fears will receive sympathy and support from Germany, not least because Alternative für Deutschland is on the rise. Although we may have friends in some of the other, smaller, member countries of the European Union, there is no way that the EU will, collectively, agree the sort of trade deal we are offering which would, in any event, be vetoed by the European Parliament.

In a nutshell, as the White Paper explicitly states, echoing the Prime Minister,

“no deal for the UK is better than a bad deal for the UK”.

However, for the majority of the rest of the EU it is abundantly clear that no deal is better than a good deal—good, that is, for the UK. We have to be realistic: the only common ground, and thus the only practicable outcome, is no trade deal. That is no disaster: there is no greater nonsense than the claim that, in the absence of a trade agreement with the EU, we shall be falling off a cliff edge. There is no cliff edge, for the simple reason that there is no cliff. In the absence of a trade agreement with the EU we shall continue to trade with our former partners, but on WTO terms.

Some noble Lords may be unaware that the UK already does far more trade with the rest of the world than it does with the rest of the EU, and the gap is widening with every year that passes. The overwhelming bulk of our trade with the rest of the world is conducted on WTO terms. Moreover, the minor economic disadvantage of being outside the EU customs union and the so-called single market—a disadvantage which has already been mitigated by the fall in the sterling exchange rate—is greatly outweighed by the non-trade economic benefits of Brexit. First among these is the consequence of the promised great repeal Bill, which will enable us to repeal or amend damaging EU regulations, which is of particular importance to our smaller businesses. I know that the party opposite is concerned that this may adversely affect workers’ rights but less than 10% of the vast corpus of EU regulation concerns workers’ rights. It is the other 90%-plus that needs to be judiciously culled. Then there is the substantial benefit of no longer being required to pay our massive net contribution of getting on for £10 billion a year into the EU coffers—a figure which, were we to remain in the EU, would rise sharply in 2020, when the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher will come to an end.

I conclude with a brief word about this House, of which I have been a Member for some 25 years. The amendments which have been tabled do not seek to amend the provisions of the Bill but to add to them substantively, and perhaps to delay the Bill. In the unprecedented circumstances in which we find ourselves, were the House to entertain any of these, it would embark on an ill-advised, improper, and fundamentally unconstitutional manoeuvre.

European Council: December 2016

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s reassertion that we will trigger Article 50 before the end of March. That is of the first importance. I also suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, whom I greatly respect, as she knows, was talking complete nonsense when she spoke about somehow being half in the customs union and half out of it. You are either wholly in or wholly out.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I was quoting Liam Fox, who suggested that at the weekend. It was not my suggestion.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I suspect that that was completely out of order.

I personally would like to see a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union with no strings attached. However, I fear that that is unattainable; even if the EU were to agree with it at government level, the European Parliament certainly would not. However, we have nothing to fear about a World Trade Organization fallback. Is my noble friend aware that we do the bulk of our trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms, far more than we do with the EU, and that that amount of trade with the rest of the world is growing faster than our trade with the EU?

Lastly, speaking as a British citizen living in France, I urge the Government to reconsider the matter of the EU citizens legally resident here and to give an unconditional guarantee that they will stay, seize the moral high ground and not try to make them some kind of bargaining counter.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank my noble friend for his questions. As the Prime Minister made clear, her objective remains that we indeed give early reassurance in negotiations to EU citizens who live in the UK, and to UK citizens living in EU countries. She has made it very clear that we would like that to be discussed very early on. Our intention is clear, but we will need other European leaders to match our commitment. In terms of the negotiation itself, what we want is a strong Britain working with a strong EU. We want a deal that works both for Britain and for the EU.

Brexit: Horizon 2020 and Erasmus

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. On matters European, she brings to this House both knowledge and wisdom. She may also still be the most popular Conservative in Liverpool—admittedly a relatively small cohort but still a great distinction.

I wish to headline my comments with a question. Where does Parliament stand in all this? I propose to address some of the comments raised by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and others earlier in the debate, but I want to focus on the process that follows the referendum, especially the role of both Houses of Parliament. In that context, we in this House are entitled to assume that Her Majesty’s Government have assessed the legal and constitutional consequences, and I believe that in the closing of this debate we are entitled to hear what advice the Government have been given about those consequences. I will not hold my breath but it will be astounding if they have not been analysed properly.

What concerns me, among other things, is the relationship between democracy and democracy. We do not legislate by referendum but it is part of our democracy. I suggest to your Lordships that, in adopting one expression of our democracy—the occasional referendum—we should not supplant another, permanent element, which is the deliberative democracy we have in Parliament.

I wanted, and voted, to remain but I recognise that we must respect the result of the referendum. However, that does not mean that we slavishly leave the European Union whatever the terms may be. I suggest to your Lordships that the clear duty of the Government and of both Houses is to attempt in good faith to give effect to the will of the majority expressed in the referendum. However, I also suggest that it is absolutely clear, as a matter of law, that Parliament would not be bound to give effect to the referendum if the only terms on which the UK could leave the European Union were shown to be seriously damaging to the national interest. Indeed, I cannot believe that the leave campaign wanted to damage the national interest.

To put it another way, I invite the noble Baroness, in responding to this debate, to confirm the following: that, despite the referendum result, if empirical analysis of negotiations shows that the disadvantages faced by the United Kingdom on leaving the European Union are disproportionately damaging to the national interest compared with the advantages of remaining, Parliament will properly have the right to show its will accordingly. I believe that the answer to that must be, “Yes. Parliament would have that right”, but we are entitled to know the Government’s view.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Will the noble Lord—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Perhaps I may be forgiven. I turn now to some narrower legal issues. I ask the noble Baroness, in responding to the debate, to explain the effect, if any, of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. As I understand that section, if the trigger to leave the European Union, as seems to be agreed, is the Article 50 process, that process falls squarely within Section 2, and I shall explain in a sentence what that means. To pull the trigger of Article 50, Section 2(2) requires the Government, at the very least, to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament to a requisite statutory instrument. If that is so, does not Parliament have a legitimate expectation that considerable detail of the proposed terms of exit from the European Union will be disclosed as part of the relevant statutory instrument, or at least in the Explanatory Notes, and that it will therefore be a transparent part of the proposed Article 50 process?

Do the Minister and the Government agree that the ultimate decision to leave after the Article 50 process has been completed is one for which legislation is required and for which, therefore, the views of both Houses of Parliament are necessary? At the very least, even if legislation is not required, can the noble Baroness agree in due course that for so momentous a decision as leaving the European Union, which I suggest—I hope without extravagance—is comparable to a decision to be involved in a war in some part of the world, the Government should accept that a fully informed decision must be required of Parliament, or at least of the House of Commons, the elected House? In sum, I am saying that we need to know the legal position. This House and the other place need to understand the legal rules behind this process. An attempt was made to explain them in a paper published a couple of months ago but a host of questions have arisen ever since.

Finally, I ask the Minister to explain how this House and the other place are to be informed on a real-time basis of the work of the team led by Oliver Letwin MP, as announced by the Prime Minister. We have an excellent House of Lords committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, who spoke earlier, but that is surely only part of the picture. Would it not be sensible for a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to be established for the specific purpose of providing scrutiny of this most important process?

A complex historic process has been commenced by what I regard as a simplistic binary question. Many untruths and half-truths were told during the referendum campaign, possibly by both sides. Now, we need confirmation that, in contrast, the parliamentary part of the process will be legal, decent, honest and, if truthful is too much to ask for, at least reasonably well informed. Pericles, one of the great originators of democracy, said:

“Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it”.

I suggest to your Lordships that Parliament should be allowed to judge this issue in an informed way—not one that is slavish to the referendum—before a final conclusion is reached.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, one of the most momentous decisions of our time has now been taken. Parliament agreed by an overwhelming majority that the people should decide in a referendum whether our country should stay in the European Union or leave. The people decided, on a massive poll, that we should leave.

It is regrettable that some, unhappy with the result, seek to prevent its implementation, whether by way of a second referendum or some other device. It is difficult to imagine anything more irresponsible, either democratically or politically. I can only assume that living in an elitist London bubble they are blithely unaware of the alienation of a large and growing section of the British people from the London-based political and banking establishment. Any attempt to overturn the referendum result would invite mayhem of the most grievous kind. It would not only be dishonourable, it would be playing with fire. I invite those who entertain this desire to consider the consequences. Incidentally, they might also reflect on what their response would be had the referendum produced a majority to remain in the European Union and the disaffected losers then demanded that it be re-run.

The only question before us is how best to implement our departure from the European Union. Our starting point should be that we wish the best possible relationship with the peoples and Governments of Europe, against whom we have no grievance whatever and a multiplicity of mutual interests. One important point that follows from this is that we must respect the EU doctrine that to remain a member of the so-called single market we would have to accept the freedom of European citizens to live and work here. That is something the British people have made clear is not on, so we must accept that we will be outside the single market. That is scarcely a disaster. The rest of the world is outside the so-called single market and trades happily and profitably with the European Union. You do not need a trade agreement to trade. Moreover, if we were to seek some special trading relationship with the EU, not only would we be adopting the position of a supplicant—which I do not like—but it would be a futile quest.

Following the invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, it is important that our negotiations with the EU are completed as speedily as possible. A prolonged period of uncertainty can only be damaging for British business and the British economy. By ruling out the chimera of trade negotiations, a speedy process becomes practicable. Among the issues that will need to be agreed is the position of existing EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom and existing UK nationals resident in the European Union. In common with other noble Lords, I am appalled by the unwillingness of the Government to give a clear undertaking that EU nationals resident here before 23 June will be able to remain, come what may. Not only would it be unconscionable to require them to leave but doing so would be deliberate discrimination against Europeans since there is clearly—and rightly—no intention of requiring Americans or any other non-Europeans resident in the UK to leave. That is no way to build the close friendship we seek with our fellow Europeans across the channel.

Instead of wasting time and energy on a futile and wholly misguided attempt to secure a trade agreement with the EU, the British Government need to focus on how we plan to conduct ourselves as a self-governing nation outside the European Union. A whole range of issues need to be addressed, from the precise nature of our immigration controls—which need to be a single system applying to Europeans and non-Europeans alike—to how we will support our farmers following our exit from the CAP. The Government also need to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, which makes UK law subordinate to EU law, with a delayed commencement date to be determined by Parliament in due course. Meanwhile, a study needs to be undertaken of the vast corpus of EU regulations presently on the statute book to decide which we wish to retain, which to amend and which to scrap altogether. All this is a substantial and vital undertaking, which needs to be started now. It is all entirely in our own hands and not a matter of negotiation with others.

The result of the referendum was a tribute to the courage of the British people. Project Fear may have been successful in reducing the size of the Brexit majority but most of our fellow citizens declined to be cowed. The next Government and the next Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be, will have a historic opportunity to make the United Kingdom the most dynamic and freest country in the whole of Europe—in a word, to finish the job that Margaret Thatcher started—and to become a beacon to our European friends, currently embroiled in a failed and doomed experiment.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mandelson (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, if we go round the House, it is actually the turn of the Liberal Benches.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I reject the noble Baroness’s description of this Government as complacent. What has been evident over the last few days in what was said by the Chancellor this morning, by the Prime Minister today and by the Governor of the Bank of England on Friday is that there are measures in place to provide some stability within the markets. The noble Baroness is of course right that businesses will take decisions now that could affect people. We need, through a range of methods, to make sure that we project to the world outside that Britain is in a strong position to weather this period of uncertainty arising from the referendum decision. We can do that, and do it with confidence, because of the steps that we have taken over the last few years to strengthen our economy and to make sure that we are ready for whatever decision that followed. I also say to the noble Baroness and to the House that we remain a member of the G7 and of the G20, and through those kind of forums we have an opportunity to project that very strong and confident message as well.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, as one of the minority in your Lordships’ House who warmly welcomes the decision that the people made in the referendum, I also warmly welcome the statesmanlike Statement of the Prime Minister today, which my noble friend repeated. May I suggest, too, that the campaign is over and that we are now in a new phase, and that it would be no bad thing if the campaigning organisations on both sides should shut up shop? I speak as somebody who took a prominent part in one of them. What has happened was implicit in the Prime Minister’s speech: the people have spoken and it is now for the Government to implement wisely the decision of the people.

In that context, I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to involve the brightest and the best in the Civil Service in charting the way ahead. I believe that there is a great way ahead. Nobody should be put off by financial market volatility—I knew quite a lot of that when I was Chancellor. Financial markets are by their nature volatile. What matters are the economic fundamentals, which are good now and can get even better if we pursue a sensible policy. I regret the fact that the Treasury for a moment morphed into the office for budget irresponsibility but the Treasury can play a great part. I warmly welcome the approach that was charted in the Statement. Does my noble friend agree that the campaigning organisations should now shut up shop on both sides?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I certainly agree with my noble friend that the campaign is over. The public have spoken and we now all have a responsibility to implement that decision—and, as I have said, in a way which means that it is successful and in the best interests of this country. As my noble friend says, it is right that we are using the brightest and most talented civil servants to that end. Indeed, I am sure that we will draw upon a wide range of expertise outside Whitehall as well.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be asked to move this humble Address of thanks to Her Majesty in the midst of her 90th birthday celebrations—someone who is so respected and admired throughout the world. Once again, she was supported by His Royal Highness Prince Philip, who himself continues an amazingly active role in so many fields. The presence also of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall confirms the increasing responsibilities they are taking on and how well they are discharging them. I had wondered whether we should give Her Majesty a present, but I realised we could not possibly match the Tesco gift token that so delighted Her Majesty at Windsor.

Looking at this debate today, as we start to debate the Queen’s Speech, I considered the situation in British industry and its commanding heights. There has been considerable criticism of the lack of women on the boards of many British companies, but as I stand here today—having listened to Her Majesty’s Speech, with the Lord Speaker on the Woolsack, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition about to speak, and the debate to be concluded by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston—there is certainly no lack of women in charge. However, there is of course going to be one change, and I am confident I speak for the whole House in expressing our warmest thanks to the Lord Speaker.

The House will realise how brave the Leader of the House was to invite me to move the Motion for the Loyal Address without having the slightest idea of what I was going to say. I fear I will take slight advantage of that, because looking at her always reminds me of one couplet—it might be a bit more than a couplet. As young Light Infantry squaddies given the day off from the Bordon training camp and coming up to London, we found that we could slip in and stand at the back row of the stalls for a brand-new American musical that had arrived in London. I remember particularly one part of it:

“A hundred and one pounds of fun,

That’s my little honey bun!

Get a load of honey bun tonight.

I’m speakin’ of my Sweetie Pie,

Only sixty inches high,

Ev’ry inch is packed with dynamite!”.

Whatever her height, she has grown in stature as a full member of the Cabinet, and coping with the difficulties of the composition of your Lordships’ House is one of the toughest jobs there is. I pay tribute to her and her leadership.

I am concerned about one aspect of what I just said, because I fear that if word goes out, “Dynamite in the House of Lords”, GCHQ will pick it up and all sorts of alarm bells may be ringing. I should think that Black Rod has already pressed the alarm button—unless there are some test devices still around the Chamber that he has not discovered.

That brings me to a serious point. The Annunciator this morning told us, as ever, that the threat is severe. After 9/11, 7/7, Paris and Brussels we know that it is. I pay sincere tribute as someone who has sometimes lived with problems of terrorism. I recognise how much more serious, difficult and challenging the terrorist threat now is. I pay tribute to all the staff, Black Rod and his whole team, for the efforts they make to try to ensure that we stay safe in our democracy here.

We meet today after a major series of elections throughout the country. Three particularly impressed me. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on a spectacular election result which swept all before him, and I am delighted to welcome him.

Secondly, and more seriously, I offer my best wishes to Sadiq Khan, the new Mayor of London. I want to say how impressed I was that almost his first action as the new Muslim Mayor of London was to have his signing-on ceremony in Southwark Cathedral in the presence of the Dean and, the very next day, to attend the Holocaust Memorial ceremony in the presence, I think, of the Chief Rabbi. Nothing could have shown more clearly his recognition of the importance of tolerance and respect for other faiths in a world beset by sectarian hatred and division. His leadership and example will be critical not just in London and the UK but throughout the world—to see how different sects and beliefs can work together for the good of all.

The third person I would mention is Ruth Davidson. I will not trespass on my noble friend Lady Goldie’s contribution; she obviously knows Ruth Davidson very much better than I do. I simply say that, having been born in Glasgow of a Welsh mother and an English father, and with my great affection for the Province from my time in Northern Ireland, I am a walking United Kingdom. I believe that Ruth Davidson will prove as doughty a defender of it as my noble friend Lady Goldie has been.

I would like to say a word about the end of the last Session of Parliament. There were some on our Benches who felt that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was perhaps stretching the normal understanding of the extent of revision and amendment that should be exercised by this House. I then realised what had happened. The noble Lord, who was a very senior Sir Humphrey in his time, until very recently, was following the advice of his fictional namesake in “Yes, Prime Minister”. When Jim Hacker became Prime Minister, a rather troubled Bernard, his private secretary, reported to Sir Humphrey, “I think the Prime Minister wants to govern the country”, and a shocked Sir Humphrey immediately replied, “Well, stop him, Bernard!”. I understand some of his frustrations, and the difficulties of dealing with Ministers. I could not help recalling the wonderful old campaigner on our Benches in the other place, Dame Irene Ward—some noble Lords may also remember her. She used to use a deliberate double meaning on occasion. I remember that when she was having a great row with the Secretary of State, she leapt to her feet and said, “My trouble is, whenever I’ve got my back to the wall, I find that I’m up against the Secretary of State”.

Having talked about the advice of Sir Humphrey and Mr Hacker’s unpleasant habit of thinking that he was going to govern the country, I come naturally to the Queen’s Speech and the Prime Minister’s proposals for governing the country. I have a couple of comments about things that are not in the Queen’s Speech. On Saturday, we will commemorate the centenary of the Battle of Jutland. On 1 July, we will commemorate the centenary of the Battle of the Somme: almost the greatest disaster and example of human suffering, which was experienced throughout this country, affecting the Ulster Division in Northern Ireland and so many other parts of the country as well, given the appalling slaughter that took place.

Among the other things that I cannot find in the Queen’s Speech is Chilcot. We look forward to seeing something of the Chilcot report, which we understand is coming. We may even have some statement about a third London runway, but I do not want to get anybody too excited about that. However, I see that some 14 Bills are coming forward, and the House will be relieved to hear that I am certainly not going to talk about them all. I should just say to the Leader of the Opposition, regarding our exchanges on the Investigatory Powers Bill, that a number of us across the House tried to anticipate this some two years ago, and we must now carry it through.

I would like to say a word about corruption, as there is going to be a Bill about it. I can speak with some authority about corruption. I was the Member of Parliament for Bridgwater, and when I made my maiden speech I was followed by Willie Hamilton, a Labour MP at the time, who referred to it as a constituency almost continuously represented in the House. It was not continuously represented because, in 1870, the Bridgwater constituency, one of the oldest in the country at 600 years old, was abolished. That was very significant, because it was then discovered that one of the oldest constituencies had been subject to one of the oldest practices in British politics, which had continued for some years. A parliamentary commission was sent to investigate what had happened—and the people who provoked it were the Liberals, because they had bought the constituency. There was a small electorate in the town of Bridgwater in those days, so the Liberals offered £5 to anyone who promised to vote for them and had it all sewn up.

In those days, the election results and the votes were published. To their horror, the Liberals then found that not only had they not won but that a lot of the people who had promised to vote for them had actually voted Tory. There is an important lesson for the Government here on delivery. It was discovered that what had happened was that the Liberals had given £5 to anybody who promised to vote for them but the Tories had said, “We’ll give you £10 when you prove you’ve voted Tory”. The happy burghers of Bridgwater were nobody’s fools: they took their 15 quid and two Conservative Members were returned.

Having talked about the Queen’s Speech, we all know that the greatest challenge we now face immediately is in that single sentence:

“My Government will hold a referendum on the membership of the European Union”.

There is, I hope, no controversy over the fact that there is a growing realisation of the importance of this decision throughout the country, and this realisation has been accompanied by a growing cry across the country for more information and facts on which to base a judgment. I wonder whether there are any facts that can be generally accepted by all sides. I suggest that one is that every one of the 27 other counties wants us to stay and hardly any of them thought that there was any risk that we might vote to leave—which hardly helped the Prime Minister’s negotiations. The Commonwealth, which 40 years ago was less than enthusiastic about our membership, clearly values a friendly face at the EU table. Particular problems could arise for Gibraltar, and for Northern Ireland with the border issue.

On the security side, noble Lords may well have seen the letter in the Times signed by 13 United States Defense Secretaries and National Security Advisers— people well known to many of us in this House who are loyal friends of the UK. They say that, while recognising that this is a decision for the British people, they believe that,

“should the UK choose to leave the European Union, the UK’s place and influence in the world would be diminished and Europe would be dangerously weakened”.

Although Christine Lagarde’s comment,

“pretty bad to very, very bad”,

has been challenged, I do not think that anybody queried her statement that every country she visits expresses deep concern about the UK leaving the EU.

This referendum is taking place in a period of acute danger and uncertainty in many parts of the world. The mass migration of people is on a scale that may prove to be the greatest the world has ever known. As my noble friend Lord Hague has said, it is not near the end but may be just the start, with the total disaster of Syria coinciding with upheavals throughout the Middle East and with the refugee crisis reinforced by the exploding population of Africa. Sometimes we do not realise the extent of that population explosion. When we saw Her Majesty the other day, some of us recalled where we were at the time of her coronation. I was in the Aberdares. I was serving in the struggle against Mau Mau terrorism. I came down from the Aberdares into Nyeri for a quick drink to celebrate. Kenya had a population of 5 million people. I have checked, and the latest figure I have is that the population of Kenya is now 45 million people.

That is reflected widely across Africa. Failed states proliferate, the unemployment of the young is horrendous, and the fall in the oil price has made many previously prosperous countries urgently reassess their programmes. The economies of the West are far from secure and the isolationist noises of the US presidential election, including Mr Trump hinting at leaving NATO, only add to our concern. In our economy we are close to a record current account deficit and some say that if we left, a sterling crisis would be inevitable. We are certainly not helped by the cloud hanging over our very successful car industry because of the problems with steel.

It is against this background that my own view is that we should remain but should immediately employ what I believe will be a very large Brexit vote to play a leading role in promoting the much more fundamental reforms that are clearly needed in the EU. If people do not think that this can be done, I shall give them one slogan to hang on to. I remember many years ago hearing Mr Larry Adler, the great harmonica or mouth organ player, telling a story about his ability to play classical music on his mouth organ. He was invited by the Bach society of Israel, a very distinguished and discerning body, to play the first Brandenburg concerto. He went to a wonderful concert hall in Tel Aviv and played it right through. There was not a sound until suddenly, at the end, there was great applause and cries of, “Again! Again! Play it again!” He was very moved and played it again. The extraordinary thing was that immediately he had done so, exactly the same thing happened. He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I’m very sorry but I really couldn’t play it right through again”. A voice from the back of the hall said, “You’ll play it till you get it right”. That could well be a slogan for those negotiations.

I know well that there are many in my party and elsewhere who hold strongly to the opposite view, although I trust that in the remaining weeks these arguments will be conducted with courtesy and respect—although, having looked at today’s newspapers, I think I may be a day or two late with that suggestion. I also believe very sincerely that your Lordships’ House has a major contribution to make. There are many people here with considerable knowledge and experience to bring to bear, not merely in presenting the arguments but in demonstrating to the country how tense and difficult arguments can be conducted and properly discussed with respect and integrity. Are the days following the Queen’s Speech not the ideal opportunity for that?

I have one comment to add. I appreciate, as I said, that not everyone agrees with the comments that I have made about the referendum. However, I also appreciate that they have been able to contain themselves without indulging in any of the traditional old English gestures beloved of my noble friend Lady Trumpington.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

Wait for it.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

In the official invitation to propose this Motion, the guidance concluded with a stern warning to my noble friend Lady Goldie and me that while the debate may now continue for a further 12 days, neither proposer nor seconder may speak again. On that happy note, I will simply end by noting that some 70 years ago a young princess pledged her future life to the service of our country. As we meet here today, the whole country knows how magnificently that pledge has been honoured. I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.

European Council

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I very much agree with the noble Lord. One of the advantages of being in Europe—and for us to make clear to the people of this country—is that we have led the way in some of the action that has been taken in the last few years to make sure that we are more secure, whether it is issuing sanctions against Putin or increasing the co-operation between member states on sharing information to defeat terrorism. That is a very good and powerful reason for us to remain in the European Union and an argument that we must continue to make.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the present chairman of Vote Leave. Is it not clear that the trivial and inconsequential changes that the Prime Minister has secured—subject to legal challenge, of course—fall far, far short of the fundamental, far-reaching reform which three years ago in his Bloomberg speech he said was necessary? Is it not clear that the referendum on 23 June will be about not whether we wish to remain in a reformed European Union but whether we wish to remain in an unreformed European Union, which, alas, it has proved itself to be? However, there is one thing that I welcome. In his Statement the Prime Minister has admitted—I think for the first time but, if not, it is the first time that I can recall—that the purpose of the European Union is to create full-blooded political union. That is clear in the Statement. However, he says that we shall not be part of it. Maybe we will not be but we will still be shackled to it and will have a quasi-colonial status—that is the closest parallel that I can think of. Is it not the case that the referendum on 23 June will be about whether we wish to be a self-governing, independent democracy?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As my noble friend knows, it always pains me to have to disagree with him, but I disagree in particular with his description of what the Prime Minister secured through his renegotiation in Europe. To describe it as trivial and inconsequential is just not accurate. My noble friend is right in that the Prime Minister acknowledges that the European Union is about political union, but he has secured that we are not a part of that—it is in a legally binding document. It is very clear that we are carved out of it. Furthermore—this point has not had much of an airing—not only do we have a United Kingdom carve-out but the document says:

“The references in the Treaties and their preambles to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation”.

That is an instruction to the European Court of Justice and it will apply not just to us but to everybody else who is a member of the European Union and does not want to be part of a political union.