Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Border Controls

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have moved from “what if?” through to “what now?” to “what then?” The fact is that a decision was made by the British people to leave the EU customs territory and the single market, and we must proceed having accepted that solution.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Will the Government follow the precedent they set after our formal withdrawal from the EU with regard to the transition period and lay down with the EU a firm deadline for the reform of the protocol as a stage towards its replacement by arrangements that are capable of commanding the confidence of our fellow country men and women in Northern Ireland, as the protocol patently cannot?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will not anticipate from this Dispatch Box what might be the progress of negotiations. I take note of the point made by my noble friend, given his great experience. In the first instance, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Maroš Šefčovič must get together to address, we hope, the substantial range of points set out in the Chancellor’s letter.

Dunlop Review

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

If it were characterised in that way, I do not think it would help. There is certainly no intention to suppress the report; it will be published, as I have told the House. The Government have been involved in constructive discussions with the devolved Administrations on how we secure continuing intergovernmental relations and good institutions to provide for that. I hope to be able to advise the House further on this shortly.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

The BBC, funded by the United Kingdom taxpayer, has reduced the exposure of UK Ministers to television and radio audiences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but has greatly increased the exposure of Ministers of the devolved Administrations. This strengthens the perception of separateness and has contributed to a diminution of a feeling of Britishness and an increase in support for independence. Does the Minister not agree that in all parts of the UK much more airtime should be given to UK Ministers, and will he ensure that the incoming chairman and director-general of the BBC will correct the current harmful balance?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to issue directions to anyone in terms of the BBC but I will say that some people have certainly found aspects of the coverage confusing and, indeed, perhaps not as optimistic as it might be in certain circumstances. I believe that the nation needs optimism and hope; there should be more emphasis on the joint efforts of the National Health Service, the British Army and other armed services and volunteers right across this country, which deserve the fullest exposure, publicity and support.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.

SolarWinds Cyberattack

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, sadly I do not share the technical capacity of the noble Lord, but I will ensure that he has a reply adequate to the level of his much higher understanding.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.

G7 Summit

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I strongly support what my noble friend said and pay tribute to her work in fighting international injustice. Anyone who read my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s Statement to the other place on 12 January in response to human rights violations in Xinjiang against the Uighur people will understand this country’s resolve. We call on other nations to show the same resolve on this deeply troubling question.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.

European Union Withdrawal (Consequential Modifications) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I want to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us and for the fact that they follow the affirmative procedure, enabling us to have a small debate on them.

In its 31st report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee devoted just one paragraph to these regulations:

“This is an important technical instrument, necessary to ensure that the statute book operates correctly after Implementation Day.”


It concludes:

“The instrument provides a general gloss to ensure that the correct interpretation of any EU instrument applies. Cabinet Office states that statutory instruments being prepared by other departments in order to implement the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Northern Ireland Protocol, are relying on these glosses.”


I am somewhat confused as to what “gloss” means. To me, if you put a gloss on something, it potentially puts a spin on it. I could not find in the document that this was a term my noble friend’s department used—probably for a very good reason. I would be interested to know what gloss he puts on that interpretation in the report.

Obviously, we discussed these issues at some length during the passage of the two Acts to which my noble friend referred, and the instrument today helpfully sets out the sources of retained European law. One is missing, namely case law from the European Court of Justice, presumably up to the end of January this year but potentially up to the end of December this year. It is not clear to what extent we will have any regard to EU case law as agreed by the European Court of Justice. Obviously, we will not refer cases, because the Government have been very clear about that in the past. However, there may well be an expectation among some companies that feel that they are affected by this statutory instrument that they would have the right to rely on that case law in a UK court. I would be interested to know whether that is true in my noble friend’s view when he comes to sum up.

Another category of EU law on which I questioned my noble friend and his colleagues during the passage of those two Acts, and which particularly interests me, relates to the environment and agriculture generally, where these instruments of EU law were agreed but were not implemented by the end of 31 January 2020. To be honest, I do not have a clue whether they are ambulatory or non-ambulatory, but I would be very interested to know what decisions have been taken in regard to the applications of those instruments, whether they will be applicable to citizens and companies in this country and whether they can rely on them going forward.

Paragraph 2.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, on page 2, helpfully says:

“The interpretation legislation amended by this instrument is not EU law; it is domestic legislation, which is being updated in consequence of”


the two Acts to which my noble friend referred, as he said. Paragraph 6.4 on page 4 sets out retained EU law without, as I say, including what I would consider to be EU law, namely the case law that has been decided during the course of this year. Paragraph 6.7 on page 4 states that the two Acts

“provide temporary powers to make provisions that Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of those Acts.”

In that regard, does my noble friend expect to come back at a future date to repeal other provisions of EU law, if he and his department intend to keep this under review? Paragraph 7.4 states:

“Where there is a dual meaning, the interpretive provision applicable to references to EU legislation that have effect as relevant separation agreement law will apply to the extent that the EU legislation takes effect as relevant separation agreement law.”


Paragraph 7.5 continues:

“These interpretive provisions are needed to ensure that the legislative framework for the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland operates effectively.”


Paragraph 7.7 states that Regulation 3 makes amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

“to provide how existing ambulatory references to EU instruments that will have effect as relevant separation agreement law are to be interpreted after IP Completion Day. Ambulatory references are references to EU instruments that automatically update when the EU instrument is updated.”

I do not intend to use the full time that has been generously allocated to me, but I will end on a general question. With all interpretations of EU law that is now deemed to be retained EU law for UK purposes, in the event of a disagreement, who will interpret the provisions? Will it be the Minister’s department that is the ultimate arbiter, or will recourse to the courts be required? I understand that, probably still, one potential niggle that might be delaying the conclusion of a deal with the EU 27 this week—perhaps he could comment on this—is what the dispute resolution mechanism will be. Is there any update in that regard?

With those few words, I welcome this opportunity to consider the instrument that the Minister was kind enough to set out this afternoon.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, is having technical difficulties. In the circumstances, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

In 32 days’ time, the whole body of law concerning our relationship with the European Union, developed over 48 years, will disappear, and we shall be entering new legal territory. Retained European law will be added to our domestic law—a whole body emanating from the directives and regulations that we have hitherto followed through our membership of the European Union. This was the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As I understand it, if we wish in future to depart from or change anything in retained EU law, we will do it by the normal processes of Westminster legislation. Ambulatory provisions in European regulations, which provided for an automatic update in accordance with changes in European law, will cease.

All that was difficult enough, but understandable. However, as a result of the withdrawal agreement that was finally concluded earlier this year, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was taken through Parliament. One purpose of that Act was to replace references to exit day with “IP completion day”; the changes made by the 2018 Act were, therefore, pushed back from exit day—the day when we left the European Union, at the end of last January—to 1 January next.

Another purpose of the 2020 Act was to fulfil the promise made in the Conservative 2019 manifesto that all British courts, down to and including magistrates’ courts, could throw off the burden of EU case law and principles, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice. The thinking behind that was not to promote the clarity and stability of our domestic law: it was, as I said in Grand Committee last week, the expression of the Conservative Party’s allergy to the European Court of Justice—an itch which has to be scratched.

As the 2020 Act required, there was extensive consultation of 73 bodies, encompassing the whole legal and judicial community. The manifesto commitment had by this time been watered down to a proposal that only the courts at Court of Appeal level should be able to depart from the precedents set in Europe. Only 20% of the consultees were in favour of this proposal, as we discussed last week; 80% were either wholly against it or did not support it. The Minister will no doubt be interested to hear that the noble and learned Lord, the Advocate-General for Scotland, in introducing the rejected proposals last week, nevertheless told us that we could be reassured by the fact that consultation had taken place. He did not actually mention the result of the consultation. Well, there is no such problem here, as there has been not the slightest consultation over these regulations—yet they, too, are supposed to introduce sweetness and light.

Unfortunately, the 2020 Act introduced the new concept of the “relevant separation agreement law”, which provides that any question as to the validity, meaning or effect of any “relevant separation agreement law” is to be decided in accordance with the withdrawal agreement and the like agreements and is to be consistent with various articles of the withdrawal agreement—and not just the current articles that are in issue, because the definition of “relevant separation agreement law” is widened by a final coda saying

“as that body of law is added to or otherwise modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time”.

Any lawyer trying to advise a business client as to his position with regard to, say, contractual or intellectual property rights already has a difficult task. Any individual embarking on litigation to sort out a dispute faces extensive legal costs and untold worry.

However, that is not the end under these regulations. Paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the amendments made to that Act by the 2020 Act

“mean that it is possible for EU instruments to form part of retained EU law for some purposes and have effect as relevant separation agreement law for other purposes. This means that after IP Completion Day”—

in 32 days’ time—

“references to EU instruments in domestic legislation can have a dual meaning. For example, referring to the original version of the EU instrument that has effect as relevant separation agreement law for some purposes and referring to the domesticated version of the EU instrument that forms part of RDEUL for other purposes.”

So, in these regulations we are now importing into our domestic law retained EU law as amended by relevant separation agreement law, and any future amendment of it, as interpreted in the articles of the withdrawal agreements—and references to EU instruments in domestic law can have a dual meaning. Incidentally, the Northern Ireland protocol is part of the withdrawal agreement and is already under fire, with power to make regulations to break the law included in the UKIM Bill as drafted. We will have to see how that turns out.

For the sake of the sanity of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, will the Minister kindly tell us how this dual meaning is supposed to take effect? What exactly are the separate dual meanings and for what purposes will one meaning be applicable in relevant separation agreement law and one in the domesticated version that is to form part of the retained domestic EU law? I cannot think of any legislation with a dual meaning for the same wording in the same provision which is to be interpreted differently in different legal contexts. I am willing to be enlightened.

I cannot expect the Minister to sort out this mess at the Dispatch Box, but I would be grateful if a memorandum could be prepared and published to make the position clear for lawyers advising their clients and judges seeking to interpret already complicated provisions of law. In any sensible legislative body, this instrument would be withdrawn and reformulated. Unhappily, so ineffective and weak are the procedures of the United Kingdom Parliament in scrutinising secondary legislation—as we are supposed to be doing now—that this instrument will go through in its present form. God help those who have to interpret it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I call again the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, in the hope that we shall be able to hear him this time.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 26th November 2020 Lords Chamber

That is why we should free the Lord Chancellor from any suggestion of political involvement in the appointment of the deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission. Put that safely in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice, who is not a political officeholder and is not subject to the same pressures. I wait with interest, but not, I am afraid, a great deal of optimism, to hear what the noble Lord, Lord True, says about the position. Expressions of confidence that people would never do things that they have not done in the past can no longer be relied on.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford. Like him and other noble Lords on all sides of the House, I deeply regret that the amendment cannot be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, who so effectively made the case for action to get more young people on the electoral registers just a few weeks ago on Report. Lord Shutt of Greetland will be remembered vividly and affectionately by all his colleagues, of whom I was one, who worked with him on the all-party Select Committee that considered the state of our country’s electoral system in detail, seven years after the passage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. It would be a fine tribute to his memory if what might be termed the Shutt-Woolley amendment was incorporated in the Bill. If it is not, I hope that something like it wins parliamentary approval before too long.

When I spoke on the earlier Shutt amendment, I asked Members of the House to bear in mind that it provided two alternative routes by which tomorrow’s voters could be brought on to the electoral registers, at the ages of 16 and 17, in readiness to cast their votes when they turn 18. The first, as we have heard, proposed automatic registration if electoral registration officers were satisfied of their eligibility when national insurance numbers were issued. The Shutt amendment offered a second way to the goal, which all supporters of democracy surely must share—that of ending the grave under- participation of young people aged 18 and over in our country’s elections. The second method, as we have heard, involved no more than providing them with information about the process by which the precious right to vote can be acquired.

In responding to the amendment, the Government chose to ignore the second part altogether. Not one word was said about it from the Government Front Bench. Its supporters were called on to vote against it, on the grounds that automatic registration was objectionable in principle—an objection that many Conservatives do not share. The same thing happened when the Shutt amendment was debated in the Commons.

The new version before us omits the provision for automatic registration on which the Government based their entire opposition to the original amendment. The amendment proposes, in modest terms, that it should be permissible for young people, on whom the future success of our country depends, to be notified of what they should do to gain the right to cast a vote and play their part in our democracy. Can there really be a serious argument for not informing our country’s youngsters, who stand at the gateway of democracy, about what they need to do to pass through it, when information can be supplied to them readily and at very little cost as a result of today’s electronic miracles?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

For noble Lords’ information, the next three speakers will be the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Blencathra and Lord Cormack.

Union Capability: Dunlop Review

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have not seen my noble friend Lord Grimstone’s remarks in context, so I will respond to the noble Lord by letter.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Can the Minister, who throughout his career has been a powerful advocate for the union, agree that a strengthening of it is the cardinal requirement at this moment? Does he think that the recommendations of the Dunlop report will help to secure that great objective?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot anticipate the detailed response to the Dunlop report. I commend both my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Dunlop for their commitment to the union. I hope that the package of measures in the intergovernmental review, and in response to the Dunlop review and other work, will make very clear this Government’s commitment to sustaining our vital and precious union.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

My Lords, I too—alongside the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who has just spoken—was a member of the Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. I have added my name to this cross-party amendment, as I continue to believe that the Government should address the issue of the completeness of the electoral registers as a matter of priority, and certainly in the context of this Bill.

As has been made clear, the amendment has evolved since Committee, with its focus on completeness and on attainers. I want to make three brief points on Report. First, I entirely accept that the Government recognise the importance of the issue of completeness, and that they are well aware of the missing millions, and of the evidence that we do not perform well by international standards. In Committee, the Minister said that they were not complacent, and that there was work in hand to address some of the issues. If that is so, it would be a very small step for the Government to agree to a deadline for bringing forward further proposals, particularly in the light of the committee’s recent report. It would show a sense of urgency, which is important.

Secondly, the focus in the amendment on doing something about attainers is worth highlighting. Attainers are in a different position, and this has always been recognised, in that their names can be considered for entry on the register before they attain the right to vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, there is significant evidence that registration rates for attainers have dropped markedly in recent years. Therefore, there is real cause to focus on them.

Thirdly, my reading of the amendment is that it is compatible with the Government’s position on automatic registration. I understand the Minister’s position that, in principle, registering to vote and voting are civic duties. The amendment does not seek to challenge the Government’s view, in that it would be perfectly possible to accept it while holding firm to that principle. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this modest amendment as a way of working towards fairer constituency boundaries based on better data. It may be modest, but it is important in the wider context of the integrity of our democratic process.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I back this amendment with some vigour as the last of a cross-party group of colleagues who worked together in great harmony as members of the Select Committee established under the genial chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, to consider the impact on our electoral system of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

I note in passing that, when the legislation that became the 2013 Act was going through this House, I pressed for the swift abolition of the 15-year limit on the right of our fellow citizens overseas to vote in our elections. Though that has been promised in three successive Conservative manifestos, seven years have passed without action.

It has to be said that other members of today’s cross-party group behind this amendment worked much harder than I did on the recent Select Committee. However, lazy though I was, I quickly came to share their conviction that there was no more important issue in electoral affairs today than the need to improve—and improve substantially—the completeness of the electoral registers. It is a theme that runs throughout our report, published in June. Like my colleagues, I was struck by the extent to which we compare unfavourably with some other major democracies.

This simple little amendment would help not insignificantly to make our registers more complete. It is universally acknowledged, as we have heard in this debate, that not nearly enough of tomorrow’s voters aged 16 and 17 are being brought on to the registers in readiness to cast their votes when they become 18. I have always been keen to support an intensification of the ways in which electoral registration officers can fulfil this part of their duties. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions in this House, Northern Ireland has set a fine example in this respect, giving EROs ready access to schools and colleges.

Today’s cross-party amendment would enable attainers to get on to the registers more readily than ever before. It would bring them directly to the gateway of democracy. Two alternative routes are proposed. Under the first, attainers would be brought automatically on to the register where EROs were satisfied of their eligibility. Under the second, attainers would be notified about the process for acquiring the precious right to vote. The first route would take attainers through the gateway of democracy. The second would bring them to the threshold and leave them to decide for themselves whether to cross it and secure for themselves participation in our democracy. For those who believe that registration should be a matter of individual choice, the second route will seem preferable. But within the Conservative Party, there are many who regard registration as a matter of duty that everyone should be obliged to fulfil, as my noble friend Lord Cormack has pointed out in this House many times.

Finally, might I be permitted a brief historical comment? When election registers were introduced in the 19th century, the political parties fought tooth and nail in the courts to get their supporters on to them and keep their opponents off. Today, the supporters of this amendment from all parts of the House want to see the registers become as complete as possible. Is that not a cause for some rejoicing?

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, in the debate on this Bill in the other place on 14 July, the Minister Chloe Smith spoke about

“what we are doing to ensure that the registers are as accurate and complete as possible”

and said:

“We should encourage more people to register to vote.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/20; col. 1466.]


This amendment does nothing more than ask the Government to say how. It requires them to set out proposals for doing what they say they want to do in relation to young people and makes suggestions. It asks the Government to consider two different ways in which we could easily, and without cost, ensure that more young people are added to the electoral registers by the time they are first entitled to vote.

The Government say that the completeness of the electoral registers is back up to the levels that predated the introduction of individual electoral registration. However, as my noble friend Lord Shutt pointed out, the Electoral Commission showed in 2019 that while 94% of over-65s are registered to vote, only 66% of 18 to 19 year-olds are registered to vote. Those who will attain the age of 18 in the next year or two are supposed to be included in the electoral registers for the purposes of the Boundary Commissions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, pointed out, the registration rate for this group has fallen dramatically. According to the Electoral Commission, only about 25% of attainers are currently registered, compared to about 45% in 2015. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for this House to insist that the Government lay proposals before Parliament to implement their declared policy of improving the completeness of the electoral registers and recognising the problem with young people in particular.

EU: Future Relationship

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, just as the Welsh Government felt offended because they were not consulted on the internal markets Bill, and because the powers that it gave to the Government took away from the devolution settlement, there is a similar feeling about these talks, because they have been neither fully involved nor consulted in the Government’s discussions with the EU. Do the Government not see that every time they upset the devolved Administrations, that challenges the very future of the union?

The economic disruption of leaving the transitional period without an agreement, or indeed with a deal which falls short of the Government’s promises, would worsen the hit already caused to the country by Covid-19. We have left the EU but it remains our closest neighbour and most important trading partner. We still share a continent in which security and judicial co-operation help to keep all our people safe. The Government’s approach to negotiations is weakening rather than strengthening our ties and mutual trust, and is therefore to be regretted.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Lord Wallace? We might have a chance to come back to him later. In the meantime, I call the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. Lord Kerr? Oh, there are some technical difficulties. We will adjourn until they are sorted out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will now resume. I call the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I hope you can hear me. Good.

In his opening speech, the Minister talked about the Government’s well-established position on state aid. I am puzzled by that and I hope that he can explain. My understanding is that the European Union rules to which we now object were largely drafted by British Ministers and officials under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government and that the Government’s current position on state aid has changed radically since last December, largely under the influence of the Prime Minister’s special adviser Dominic Cummings, but is not yet entirely clear. Perhaps he can explain.

We are now approaching the end of the transition period. That means, as the City of London briefing spells out, that we have to focus on what it describes as

“the necessities of the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU”—

and not just the trading relationship. Britain cannot escape its geography, for all the nonsense put out by Brexit Central and others after the referendum about the irrelevance of geography to Britain’s future. The number of British citizens who travel abroad for holidays, study, or work to the European continent dwarfs the number who travel to Australia, New Zealand and the western Pacific. The City memorandum points out that 75% of the data flows across the UK’s borders are with European countries. Cross-border crime is predominantly a matter affecting neighbouring countries. Britain’s security, society and economy will all continue to be profoundly affected by the ease or difficulty of interaction with our neighbours across the channel.

The maintenance of close relationships requires a legal framework that is treaty based, as again the City memorandum stresses. Treaties limit national sovereignty: they build relationships of “shared sovereignty”, as Sir Geoffrey Howe—that great and true Conservative—used to argue. The closer the levels of interchange, the denser the network of legal agreements that is needed to ease cross-border working. British Border Force personnel work in France under a bilateral agreement. British police exchange data on criminals with their counterparts in the Netherlands and Spain within a legal framework that safeguards confidentiality. British researchers collaborate with respected counterparts in Germany, Sweden and Finland. British holidaymakers have benefited for the past 40 years from access to a European health card in case of illness—a mutually advantageous arrangement, from which a large number of Conservative voters have benefited over the years and which the Government are now, sadly, determined to abandon.

To manage this future relationship, from 1 January 2021 —three months from now—we need a legal agreement: a partnership, spelled out in treaty form. One of the most dishonest statements that the Government keep making to the public is that we can opt for an “Australia-type agreement” with the EU, when no such agreement exists. A no-deal future relationship threatens damage not only to our economy but also to our security and to the openness of our society.

Successive British Governments, from James Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher onwards, have negotiated agreements with our neighbours to manage the rising intensity of interactions between us—within the framework of the European Union. Our current Prime Minister signed up to a declaration 11 months ago on our future partnership, which envisaged a network of agreements to manage our unavoidably shared interests. Since then, however, he has retreated, under pressure from the ultras in his party and those now in the Cabinet who were previously in the Referendum Party or UKIP. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has spelled out a doctrine of sovereignty that would suit North Korea but makes no sense for a democratic country with an open economy.

Worst of all, the level of hostility expressed by Ministers, Conservative MPs and the right-wing media towards the Governments of France, Germany and the other members of the EU has risen alarmingly. The City of London briefing that we have all received expresses

“growing concerns that acrimony between the UK and EU may result in a failure to reach an agreement … a no deal outcome would be likely to engender ill will on both sides and damage the future UK-EU relationship.”

Even if the Government reach a last-minute deal, the image of a Government who distrust their neighbours and break international treaties when they feel like it will damage Britain’s ability to sort out the unavoidable problems that will follow from our more distant relationship. The Prime Minister talks about a global Britain and an independent foreign policy, but the failure to maintain close co-operation with our European partners in international organisations and negotiations across the world would leave us dependent on the limited good will of whoever comes out of the contested American presidential election and our distant friends in New Zealand and Australia.

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, repeats yet again her accusation that any criticism of the Government’s stance flows only from remoaners who never wanted to leave, I stress again that we are now debating the future, not the past. We are debating the framework within which our holidaymakers will travel next summer, the difficulties that British banks will encounter if agreements on data flows and financial flows have not been reached, and the obstacles that British police and intelligence will face if there is no clear legal structure within which to maintain the co-operation that they have built within Europol.

The noble Lord, Lord True, is a real Conservative, not one of those who have entered the party from more right-wing groupings as more moderate Conservatives have left or been expelled. I hope and trust that if the Prime Minister deliberately crashes the final stages of the negotiations and leaves without a deal, the noble Lord will follow other colleagues and resign. The national interest requires a deal, and the Government will betray the national interest if they fail to agree one.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

Clause 1 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 7.

Clause 2: Orders in Council giving effect to reports

Amendment 6

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

It is of great importance that it should not be felt that Parliament in its wisdom or unwisdom has left it open for a degree of political interference—or worse, from my point of view, that anyone should think that this Government have any kind of ulterior motivation in this. We most certainly do not. With the assurance that I will reflect further on the points made and that I am ready to meet colleagues in the Committee and outside between now and Report, and that I have listed carefully to the arguments put forward today, I hope that I may be able to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all those who took part in this interesting debate. Rarely do I hear a debate that has as its hallmark such unanimity on the essential issue. There was a little disagreement on the exact time—that is, whether it should be my noble friend Lord Young’s three months or my six weeks. I have slightly firmed up on six weeks, but I have not made my mind up; it would be stupid so to do because although I could not see the Minister’s body language, I heard his language. I thank him very much for what he said. I know that, in saying that, I speak for my noble friend Lord Young, to whom I am very grateful. He told me that he had done a bit a work on this subject and that he must have the opportunity to reveal it to colleagues. He did so brilliantly; I am grateful to him.

Further discussions should be held. We must seek to persuade the Government—the Minister is clearly persuadable—that thou need not block and thou should not stop. We need to make sure that the Government are properly constrained by a workable timetable that Parliament has devised.

With those words, I am delighted to withdraw the amendment. I hope that I do not have to return to this matter on Report. I hope that there will be on Report a government amendment to the Bill that meets what we have asked for today.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 4 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.

Amendment 10

Moved by